Wes Clark "Before It's Too Late in Iraq"

[trillian]

From the article today in the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/25/AR2005082501623.html


Before It's Too Late in Iraq

By Wesley K. Clark

Friday, August 26, 2005; Page A21

In the old, familiar fashion, mounting U.S. casualties in Iraq have mobilized increasing public doubts about the war. More than half the American people now believe that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. They're right. But it would also be a mistake to pull out now, or to start pulling out or to set a date certain for pulling out. Instead we need a strategy to create a stable, democratizing and peaceful state in Iraq -- a strategy the administration has failed to develop and articulate.

<snip>

With each passing month the difficulties are compounded and the chances for a successful outcome are reduced. Urgent modification of the strategy is required before it is too late to do anything other than simply withdraw our forces.

<snip>

The growing chorus of voices demanding a pullout should seriously alarm the Bush administration, because President Bush and his team are repeating the failure of Vietnam: failing to craft a realistic and effective policy and instead simply demanding that the American people show resolve. Resolve isn't enough to mend a flawed approach -- or to save the lives of our troops. If the administration won't adopt a winning strategy, then the American people will be justified in demanding that it bring our troops home.

[madokie]

1. In reading this I am convinced

that as soon as the Democrats regain control we will have a large pool of good honest decent people more than qualified for the jobs to pull from. A liar won't have a chance as it should be. Keep talking Wes we need to hear more.

[Sparkly]

2. He will answer questions today at 2 p.m.

For all the talking heads who say Democrats have no ideas (and frankly, the Democrats who stumble in discussing Iraq), HERE's an example of concrete ideas, prospective plans, initiatives, EXIT strategy.

So many important points here, but I just want to bring this one to DU:
In addition, a public U.S. declaration forswearing permanent bases in Iraq would be a helpful step in engaging both regional and Iraqi support as we implement our plans.

[kentuck]

4. But they're closing 14 bases in America...

they will need 14 in Iraq to replace them.

[welshTerrier2]

21. oops - please ignore ...

[RandomUser]

3. Thank you for posting this

The 2pm Q&A should be interesting. Will there be a link to the WaPo Q&A session? And do you need to be registered WaPo users to view/participate?

[Texas_Kat]

5. Here's the link to the WaPo discussion

(yes you do have to be registered to ask a question)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/08/25/DI2005082501346.html

He'll also be at TPM Cafe all next week.

[RandomUser]

6. Thanks (n/t)

no text

[Roland99]

13. Thanks. This is what I just submitted:

Gen. Clark,

This administration, filled with ideologues, is on a one-track, stay-the-course, never-waver path.

Just how do we go about getting anyone in this administration (or in Iraq, for that matter), to listen to these ideas?

[Totally Committed]

Will you please post his answer to you here?

I'd love to hear it.

[Roland99]

34. See post #32. They chose one similar to mine but he whiffed.

[Totally Committed]

30. What a great conversation going on there!

Super questions being asked, too.

Thanks so much for the link!

[mike_c]

7. this is just another repig lite call to "win the war" against Iraq, IMO...

We need leaders with the courage to call for an immediate withdrawal, followed by war crimes prosecution of everyone responsible for this shameful episode in American history!

[Sparkly]

8. Binary thinking

It's easy to divide this issue into two neat little boxes: Republican vs Democratic, which means "stay the course" or "cut and run."

In this binary view, anything short of quick withdrawal is put into the Republican box. It's just not that simple. There are valid reasons why leaving Iraq in chaos is the wrong thing to do, and whether you agree with that point of view or not, it doesn't mean it's a Republican point of view.

[mike_c]

76. well, call it "pro-war-crime" if you're more comfortable...

...with that label. I agree with you that it doesn't matter whether someone who calls for continued occupation of Iraq is "republican" or something else-- they're simply wrong, in a majorly immoral way, IMO.

[Sparkly]

86. That's still thinking inside the boxes, imho.

I know you believe it's best to withdraw before there's stability and security there; I disagree with it. But there are options more complex than "staying" without any plan except military action and "going" without any effort to establish peace. And people who advocate such ideas are not necessarily "pro-war-crime."

[Totally Committed]

9. "... followed by war crimes prosecution of everyone responsible

for this shameful episode in American history!"

Okay, who exactly are we talking about here? Besides the Bush administration, who? The Senators who voted for IWR? The Congresspeople who colluded with the Bushies on things like The Patriot Act and the defunding of Veterans' benefits and soldiers armor? Or, even, taken far enough... all the citizens of the US for electing these Bozos in the first place? And, I'm not just talking the "sheeple" who voted for Bush, I'm talking those of us who have backed the Democratic invertabrates we have in both houses of government representing corporate interests over ours.

So, who gets tried, and when and where? There is no prison large enough to hold everyone truly "responsible for this shameful episode in American history." But, I could be wrong.

[mike_c]

73. that's a legitimate question, that is unanswered yet....

Where should the prosecutions stop? Where do war crimes responsibilities stop when the majority of the government, and the media, and so on, are complicit? My personal opinion is that everyone who voted for the IWR should be charged and tried, and that the courts-- the INTERNATIONAL courts-- should decide who was simply too stupid to know any better and who actually shares responsibility. But my opinion- again, my personal opinion is that the political career of anyone who voted for the IWR should be ended in disgrace. I'm certainly not going to support them for any public office beyond sanitation engineer again.

[Clark2008]

10. Are you daft?

We're at war, whether any of us like it or not. And we've got to both get our soldiers home, but do it in a way that does not leave the region - that WE tore asunder - buckling under the weight of thugs and extremists. Hell, we've got that over in THIS country.

The last time we just up and pulled out of a region without planning for an exit, it cranked out the Taliban, which housed al-Qaeda.

Now, if you believe 9/11 was perpetrated by al-Qaeda (and I know some people on here don't), then you must realize that we cannot and should not leave an unstable region in the hands of the mafia-like groups that have a strangle-hold on Afghanistan and Iraq right now.

The only thing that will happen if we just up and pull out is that we will be saving a few American GI's lives NOW, but will lose a lot more lives to terrorism later. Yes, they hate us and yes, I want us out, too, but, you know, I want us to get out under the best terms possible so that future generations of Iraqi's won't blame their entire burden on the American people.

[jonnyblitz]

11. that sounds like Bush"s "stay the course" to me.

just sayin....:shrug:

[Clark2008]

17. No - because Bush's only course is oil

and he hasn't given any relevant thought to the political aspects of a pullout.

Bush is using the military as the only means to an end. Clark's position is one of incorporating the politics, the neighborhood, the military and the people.

It's not "stay the course" at all.

[Warren Stupidity]

67. we are the thugs and extermists.

What arrogant nonsense from the stay the course camp. "Oh sure it was a mistake to go and invade them, but now that we are there we have to make it all nice and pretty the way we like it." What a load. The criminals don't get to keep committing the crime until they decide its time to stop. The rapist doesn't get to keep on raping until he is satisfied with his work. The burglar doesn't get to stay in your house until he has cleaned up all the evidence of his crimes. Out now. Now.

[mike_c]

71. best analogies in this thread, IMO....

:applause:

Clark supporters sure do spend a lot of time trying to explain why Clark's version of "getting the job done in Iraq" is different from Bush's version. It's all fascist occupation, no matter who's justifying it.

[dogman]

72. Pretty lame, IMO.

If your child breaks something, don't you attempt to make restitution? Clark has said "stay the course" is wrong. It doesn't require a lot of comprehension to understand what Clark has said. Of course if you come with your eyes closed, you can't see shit.

[mike_c]

74. do you do so by continuing to break things?

Of course not-- the U.S. SHOULD make restitution to Iraq, under the supervision of the ICC and the United Nations. The war against Iraq is a criminal war of aggression-- there simply is no justification for continuing it under any guise-- there is no way to undo that criminality. Clark is saying that he regrets the crime, but now that it's underway, we cannot afford to stop committing it. It's still a crime, no matter how the war apologists try to spin it.

on edit-- regarding the "you can't see shit" personal insult in your post, I can see this:

...it would also be a mistake to pull out now, or to start pulling out or to set a date certain for pulling out. Instead we need a strategy to create a stable, democratizing and peaceful state in Iraq....

As I said before, Clark supporters sure seem to spend a lot of time explaining why statements like these don't really mean "it woujld be a mistake to pull out...."

[LandOLincoln]

78. Some of us spend a lot of time explaining what Clark

really said because some of YOU refuse even to read what Clark really wrote.

[mike_c]

79. I read the OP-- are you saying that it misquoted Clark?

Did he not say "it would be a mistake to pull out" of Iraq? Did he say "we need to create a stable, democratizing (sic)" society in Iraq (my emphasis, to highlight the similarity with the neocon position)?

on edit-- and I'll ask again, do we "fix" the war crime of invading and occupying Iraq by continuing to occupy it and kill those who fight to expel us (not to mention tens of thousands of innocent civilians)?

[Sparkly]

101. He said the goal is to leave Iraq.

He said the responsibility is to leave it as a stable state, not in chaos where more are killed and oppressed because of BushCo's blunders.

[mike_c]

126. in other words, to stay in Iraq until that objective is achieved....

An objective he apparently shares with the PNACers. You can spin that into "the goal is to leave Iraq"-- that's the same objective the Bush administration expresses, however disengenuously: the goal is to leave Iraq, just as soon as we transform it into a western style democracy, etc.

[dogman]

140. You seem quite confused.

You keep trying to associate Bush and Clark. That is disingenuous. Clark has pointed out PNAC goals and what is wrong with them from the beginning. This is real life and you play the hand that is dealt, you can't go back in time and pull aces out of thin air. Clark is developing the best strategy for the best interests of all involved, that is how he sees the world.

[dogman]

83. You sure pick what's convenient for your spin.

For instance, your leaving out the beginning of my statement "if you come with your eyes closed" and attempt to portray it as a personal insult. Reading your posts is like watching Faux spin statements to make them fit their purpose. I read Clark's statement in total. snip>"for the mission to succeed we will have to be the catalyst for regional cooperation, not regional conflict."<snip

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

107. Those who will not see

He also wrote:

"With each passing month the difficulties are compounded and the chances for a successful outcome are reduced. Urgent modification of the strategy is required before it is too late to do anything other than simply withdraw our forces."

He acknowledges that may be the final outcome.

I get such a feeling that some anti Clark folks see him through a filter which eliminates any possibility of agreeing with him or seeing anything positive about him.

He is not your ordinary 4 Star General, or military person.

I wish that everyone could see him, hear him as he speaks from his heart and with a depth of conviction and background and insight about the world we live in, and his vision for it.

[Warren Stupidity]

142. I am not anti-clark

I think his current Iraq proposal sucks. I thought Kerry's sucked too. I think all the proposals that are going to 'get it right' meaning that we are going to stay there and kill Iraqis until they behave the way we think they ought to behave are wrong, criminally wrong.

On the other hand I would vote for Clark against any Republican candidate, except perhaps one committed to simply getting us out of Iraq and out of the imperialism business.

[Clark2008]

177. And some non-Clark supporters sure do spend a lot of time

unloading a bunch of shit when they don't even know what he said.

:eyes:

[Clark2008]

178. Out now?

Then expect to be suicide bombed again.

Geesch. Learn from fucking history, will ya?

I don't want to be there, but we're there and we have to make restitution. Not only is it morally right, it's also required by the Geneva Convention.

[LittleClarkie]

35. Wouldn't an immediate withdrawl itself need troops to get everyone out

safely?

I don't think Wes believes that the Bush administration will do any of this stuff. But by his words he's reminding them of what this SHOULD have looked like if a sane person was running it.

Hey, folks say that the Dems aren't presenting alternatives. Tada. Alternative. People need to be reminded of what sanity looks like. I thought Kerry provided the same service during the first debate as well.

[mike_c]

75. yes-- an ordered retreat would require covering tactics...

...unless the Iraqi resistance agreed to permit it unhindered. I suspect most of them would agree to suspend hostilities against troops that are honoring their committment to depart.

[Roland99]

12. As I wrote in another thread...some good ideas but missing one KEY pt.

Upon reading this, he brings up good points BUT he forgets one VERY important piece of this puzzle: Who's in charge? The * admin and the PNAC ideologues filling various key posts.

Are they going to listen to ANYTHING that runs counter to their pre-planned script (that has gone horribly wrong)? No. They are going to "stay the course" and they "won't waver" despite having a track record of screwing up everything since right after the initial invasion.

Unless people like Clark can get more Republicans (and the Dems that still drag their feet as they're towed by their DLC puppet-masters) on board and VOCALLY and PUBLICLY criticize this administration and offer up these alternatives as the ONLY viable option, then nothing will change.

And, what are the odds of that happening? Slim and none and Slim left town last year.

That's why I say, pull out now. Our troops are of NO benefit in Iraq right now except to hone the skills of insurgents and terrorists.

[Sparkly]

14. Same problem.

If you're saying advocating steps toward stabilization won't work because it's up to BushCo, neither will immediate withdrawal work, because it's up to BushCo. They aren't leaving (and they aren't doing anything to get the situation resolved).

[Roland99]

15. No, I think withdrawal must be looked upon differently.

Right now, Iraq is a sovereign nation and can decide on their own to kick us out or not. Right now, the Iraqi leaders...er...puppets...are firmly in this admin's good graces and want to keep their positions of power so they'll keep us there.

However, the average Iraqi realizes that the U.S. presence there is a danger not only to themselves but to the overall stability of their country. When they apply pressure and the rest of the Iraqi gov't sees the pressure from within the U.S., then the need to call for our withdrawal increases. Seeing other nations pull out of Iraq helps to further that pressure to demand a U.S. withdrawal.

It's time we start throwing the GOP rhetoric back in their faces: Iraq is a sovereign nation, let it decide its own fate. We cannot dictate how Iraq should govern itself. That would be *gasp* nation-building.

[pberq]

16. Good points, Roland99, and it may be the Republicans

that get us out of there. See this from and article called, "For Immediate Withdrawal":

http://www.antiwar.com/bock/?articleid=7099

<snip>
In a fascinating piece called "The Incredible Shrinking President," former Nader campaign operative and longtime drug-law reformer Kevin Zeese claims, "Not reported in the media is that a cadre of Republican legislators in the House of Representatives has been meeting regularly to discuss how to get out of Iraq. No doubt through backchannels the Bush administration is hearing from these Republicans. If this group decides to go public, momentum against the war could escalate significantly." Other Republican leaders are displaying public concern about the effects on the 2006 midterm elections if things don’t start looking up significantly in Iraq.

We have the makings, then, of a genuine, broad-based peace movement – or at least a pro-withdrawal movement – stretching across the ideological spectrum. It has always included libertarians, paleoconservatives, and various leftist groups, including many with significant influence in the Democratic Party, although most Democratic elected officials are still dismayingly timid. Even traditional Roman Catholics, a key target and key constituency for the Bushies, are beginning to contend with the fact that the new, highly conservative Pope Benedict XVI is as unflinchingly committed to peace and to opposition to unjust and unjustified wars as his predecessor, as detailed in a recent article in The American Conservative (which has been staunchly antiwar since its launch).

[Roland99]

19. I don't believe a partitioned Iraq is the way to go and...

I don't think that author thinks so either.

I liked this part from Polk:

"History shows that the only way to stop the fighting is to dry up the ‘sea.’" Polk continues. "That is, when enough of the society believes that it has achieved a satisfactory result of the struggle, it ceases to support the combatants. That is not the result of such gimmicks as ‘civic action’ or even of genuine aid projects but only when the irritant, the outside power, leaves.

That just makes so much sense to this situation.

I wonder if you're aware of the Mises Effect (typically a term used in economic circles)? Essentially, intervening in a situation that was the result of a prior intervention often results in the opposite desired effect. That's what we're seeing in Iraq.

It's time to stop intervening.

[wiley]

20. Well said

and true. I think either way we're f8cked, but if I trust anyone it's Wes Clark.

[Texas_Kat]

18. Clark on Fox 8/26 (today)!

12:10 CDT/1:10 EDT

Before his bloggin at WaPo.

[FrenchieCat]

27. Did you see it?

Was there a video captured?

[welshTerrier2]

22. Wes Clark is honorable but wrong

Wes Clark, unlike the propaganda driven right-wing and the DLC, shows great respect for those of us who call for withdrawal ... i encourage everyone to appreciate the civility of his words and encourage those who disagree with him, as i do, to respond in kind ...

having said that, i believe Clark is very wrong about buying into the "we can still solve this" policy ...

in my view, he's wrong on several counts ...

first, his timing ... Iraq will undergo major changes in the next few days ... an article i've attached below comes very close to saying that widespread civil war is imminent ... Common Dreams "teased" this article with exactly that headline but for some reason "toned it down" a bit since they first linked to the article ... why go this public this week instead of waiting just a few days for significant new data to become available?

second, and frankly i compliment Clark in one way about this, the political trend is overwhelmingly negative about the war ... while i do distinguish between Clark's views and the naive "stay the course" crowd, it seems like there is very little representation of the views of the American people ... we don't want this stinking war no more ... if that's how we see it, just whom are we supposed to turn to for leadership? but, this point is something of a mixed bag because, the truth is, the policy should take precedence over the politics ...

and third, and this points like a laser at the article below, what the hell are we doing over there? civil war is breaking out ... US forces can't even secure Baghdad ... how the hell are we going to address independent militias popping up all over the country? does Clark really put any faith in the Constitutional process? again, if he does, he should have waited another few days before commenting ... also, if he does, why does he believe that a document, which has frankly inflamed the hostilities, will solve anything at all? the Constitutional process has worsened the problems, not lessened them ...

please read the attached article for a better understanding that the whole country is exploding and that, while Clark and others may be very well intentioned, we will never be able to resolve centuries of conflict using our military ... as bad as things were under Saddam, and handled correctly we could have had a significant influence on him if we had chosen a more peaceful path (and i'm sure Clark would agree with that), the US has broken Humpty Dumpty and "all the kings horses and all the kings men can never put Humpty together again" ...

Iraq on the brink of a Meltdown: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0826-01.htm

[FrenchieCat]

26. I like what Clark is saying.....myself

He is framing and setting up the GOP for 2006. In his op-ed, he says that IF the Bush administration doesn't change its strategy quickly, then a pull out recourse will be the only solution left. As Clark said....the clock is ticking. Soon the clock will stop ticking and we will be out of time.

As we are all quite aware that Bush ain't about to pull-out.....with Clark offering a rational plan short of pulling out that the Bush admin will be ignoring, then very soon a Pull-out will be the only alternative plan left to be offered. But when it is, Bush and the media cannot say that Democrats did not offer alternative plans short of pulling out.

I think it's the way to get us to the Pull-out position while having covered all bases via constructive debate.

Framing is key to providing the 2006 congressional candidates with something to campaign on. Screaming pull-out can only be effective if it is clearly understood that BushCO kept screwing everything up and listened to no one.


Edited to ask WelschTerrier....what say you on my comment?

[welshTerrier2]

41. what say I?

i say that i am NOT a political strategist ...

when I look at Iraq, I see bush and the neo-cons seeking a puppet regime ... i see their insane blunderings and miscalculations ... so, I would be very uncomfortable if, however inconceivable, bush and company actually started following Clark's recommendation ... I would start climbing the walls if bush called for increasing the troop strength in Iraq and my Party condoned his doing that ...

so, if Clark has made a political calculation here and he does not believe there is any chance of bush following his suggestions, while i still strongly disagree with him, i appreciate what then is his ultimate view that our only course will be to withdraw ... but i truly hate to see politics playing such a dominant role with so many lives hanging in the balance ...

[FrenchieCat]

45. This war was nothing but about politics....

and in fact everything that Bush has ever done has been about politics.....

So to think that anything else will be understood as we head into the 2006 election would be naive.

Bush has shown his resolve in getting it wrong consistently over the last 5 years of his presidency. Wes's approach is not a calculation...as much as it is a sure thing, because if nothing else, Bush is consistent and never surprises anyone with anything he does! Know thyne enemy is a key strategic element in any war plan. And 2006 will be a war to save our democracy.

[Sparkly]

46. "Bush has shown his resolve in getting it wrong consistently"

Well-said, Frenchie!! :thumbsup:

[welshTerrier2]

47. well, then ...

let me ask you this ...

are you saying that the "solution" that Clark laid out is one that you would not actually support if bush shocked the world and suddenly went along with it?

i couldn't agree more that there is almost no likelihood he would do this, but i want to be clear that i would consider an increase in troop strength to mirror the insanity of Vietnam ... it is far too late to be pouring more lives into this lost cause and i can't conceive of the American people supporting a broadening of the war effort ...

also, using more troops to "suppress the violence" will never change the underlying factional hostilities in Iraq ... unfortunately, i think our best course is to let the Iraqis and their neighbors work this out without the spectre of American interference ...

if Clark's Iraq strategy is 100% political and is not based on his expectations that this would be the best policy for Iraq, that's an entirely different matter ... it's just not clear to me how any of us could actually know such a thing ...

Note: sorry, i have to go out for a bit ... be back in a couple of hours to follow-up ... as always, i appreciate your insights, FrenchieCat ...

[FrenchieCat]

49. Well WT2, realistically or even hypothetically,

I don't believe that Bush will shock anyone.....but

If Bush did, by some devine miracle do as Clark suggests...which includes changing America's current PNAC design on the region and communicating that to all (including denouncing and abandoning the current construction of US military bases); and internationalizing the economic, political and military aspects of this war and giving Iraq, Iraq's neighbors and Europeans (including NATO on the military end, the UN on the political side) a real big seat at the table....Then yes, it is very possible that we could get out of this debacle in one piece, and so could the Iraqis. So Clark's plan is not "political" in the sense that it couldn't work, because it could.

But the plan won't be implimented by this administration because Bush's entire Iraq strategy was for the express purpose of achieving American Imperialism and control over the oil in that part of the world.....so buying into Clark's plan would destroy the entire reason why they went in to begin with.

[FrenchieCat]

52. Here's a few opinions thus far....

here's a few opinions by others....
Scott Shields on MyDD 8/26/05
http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/8/26/143249/029#readmore
Clark Lays Out Plan For Iraq
by Scott Shields

Mazer Rackam on Dilatory Action 8/26/05
http://dilatoryaction.blogspot.com/2005/08/workable-plan-for-iraq.html

Matthew Yglesias on TAPPED 8/26/05
http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/08/index.html#007521
CLARK ON WITHDRAWAL.
Wesley Clark's gone and done what needs to be done if you're going to argue against withdrawing from Iraq -- outline some alternatives. It seems to me that if the things Clark wants to be done can, in fact, be done, then they might work.

Armando on Daily Kos 8/26/05
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/8/26/53325/3578
Gen. Clark Merges Politics and Policy

[Gloria]

56. I tend to agree, FrenchieCat...he is giving them enough rope

to hang themselves with.

Realistically, there is no way for an "immediate" pullout unless we leave in a way that jeopardizes our own troops, bottom line. Any wind- down will have to be planned and executed intelligently. As long as there is a plan to do it which considers the the safety of our troops and the entire region, I'm satisfied even if it isn't overnight. Clark knows the importance of diplomacy, esp. bringing other countries in the region into the process. This is esp. critical, particularly in light of the recent article about the fear of federalism that grips the Arab world. The whole place could descend into chaos if things continue the way they are, as well as if a pullout is not handled correctly.

Clark sees the big picture and is a realist, unlike the jackasses in the Bush Admin. He is also better than about 99% of the Democrats out now blabbering all over TV.

[HootieMcBoob]

84. You're absolutely right

This is another brilliant political move by Clark.

He lays out (for those who keep harping on about Democrats needing a real plan - beyond just criticizing or saying pull all the troops out now) a real plan with real steps and real points that can be checked off as accomplishments.

We all know that Bush will not do anything that Clark has laid out. In fact Bush might even decide to PULL OUT ENTIRELY! Bush might just say "great, we declare victory!" and pull every soldier and marine out of Iraq prior to the 2006 election or at least begin to pull out at that time. The only reason he would do this is because of politics. His poll numbers are as bad as any President's have ever been and they're just getting worse.

A pull out by Bush prior to 2006 elections would leave Iraq in chaos.

Now, Wes Clark can say - If Bush had done as I had suggested in August 2005 we'd be in a much better position right now. In fact if Bush had done as I suggested before getting us into this ill advised war of choice we would be in a much much better position right now. Bush has mismanaged this country's foreign policy from the day he put his hand on the bible. He is a loser - America hates losers.

Clark is a winner :toast:

[Larry in KC]

28. I think he's both honorable and right, but also politically shrewd

While a policy that actually followed these principles could actually work (although it would have had a much better chance of working if it had been followed long ago), there's virtually no chance the Bush administration will follow it.

So, it has the following benefits:

1) It's a sound, realistic plan by a leading Democrat

2) The Bushies will follow their unsound plans instead

3) They will fail

4) This voice of reason, although ignored by those in power, is out there for all to see, and for all to see that it's been ignored, while the Bushie policy continues to fail, also for all to see

5) The Republicans will not be able to say, "well, we didn't hear any better plan from you".

[Larry in KC]

29. Darn it, Frenchie Cat!

...once again, you got in the same idea first while I was typing my response.

Oh, well, great minds...

[FrenchieCat]

36. I noticed that the post hit at the exact same time.....

and yes, Clark is the "set-up" man. I think that it is brilliant!

I wonder if Welchterrier2 sees the set up or not. Hope that he responds!

[Clark2008]

31. Well, his statements on the WaPo site

are more telling than your tack:

: I do believe we will need more civilian personnel in Iraq. I don't have a figure for that, nor can I tell you how many more military are needed to work the borders. These aren't questions of strategy so much as issues of implementation. And, the Administration had the responsibility and capability for "costing out" proposals. For too long, we have been measuring military operations by numbers of troops rather than accomplishment of the mission. I think the Administration needs to put in whatever amount of "troops", military or civilian, are required. It's almost, but not quite, too late to succeed in leaving behind a stable, integral, and democratizing Iraq---the Administration shouldn't try to do it on the cheap.

[Larry in KC]

33. That's OK, I'm pretty used to that

I pretty much expect General Clark's statements to be more telling (and more insightful) than anything I, or just about anyone else, has to toss into the mix.

[welshTerrier2]

37. more troops?

perhaps that could temporarily address the insurgency problems but i doubt the American people would support an increase in troops and i don't think doing so addresses the political meltdown that's occurring there ...

when Iraq explodes in the next week or two over the collapse of the Constitutional crisis, i wonder if Clark will "go the next step" and call for withdrawal ... his "It's almost, but not quite, too late to succeed" could be hinting at what he expects the outcome to be ...

[Clark2008]

42. Well, it should have been done on the on-set

when Gen. Shinsinki told Rummy there would be a need for more troops.

It would be hard to see the American public rally behind more troops, but Clark is addressing the correct way to get us out of there, which isn't exactly the most POLITICALLY correct way.

[mike_c]

136. the need was for fewer troops, not more....

Like 130,000 or so fewer. The invasion and occupation of Iraq are war crimes, for god's sake. Anyone who advocates a better way to commit a war crime is just as morally bankrupt as those who committed the crime in the first place!

[dogman]

139. Great, but we're there.

Clark said it was unnecessary and elective. The problem is where do we go from here and how do we get there.

[Clark2008]

181. I'm speaking logistically, here.

I didn't support the war in Iraq, Wes Clark didn't, either. Many people didn't.

But, since BushCo. was so hell-bent to go, then they should have listened to their military commanders when they said they needed more troops.

Geesch... you're kind of annoying.

[Donna Zen]

66. He with a call to the American people

If bush is unwilling to develope a plan for success, then Americans were right to call for pull out.

pssst. He knows and I know that bush cannot do anything right.

Clark's WaPo message was: my way or the highway.

Just heard on CNN, no Dems are talking about the war or offering a plan.

[RandomUser]

23. kick for 2pm WaPo Q&A (n/t)

no text

[Roland99]

24. Live Discussion now going on on the WaPo site:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/08/25/DI2005082501346.html


Hope you already submitted your question. ;)

[Roland99]

25. Gen. Clark to be on Meet The Press this Sunday.

[Roland99]

32. Damnit...he wimped out on a question much like mine! Damn!

Minneapolis, Mn.: I agree with what you have to say in your op/ed piece this morning. With that said, what is it that is keeping this administration from doing these things that will allow them to claim a real victory in Iraq? Why is there a reluctance to turn in a new direction, one that many experienced people are recommending? What will it take for this administration to start doing some of the things that you suggest need be done? Hope to see you in MN soon.

General Clark: The Administration got off to a wrong start in the region because it viewed Iraq as the first of possibly other military efforts to overthrow existing governments. Thus, Syria and Iran quickly realized that an Amerian success in Iraq increased the risks they faced. So, instead of working to strenghten regional cooperation, even at the expense of talking to people we don't necessarily agree with, the Administration kept all its options open and its channels of communication closed. This appealed to some elements of the American public, who more or less bought on to the rhetoric of using military force pre-emptively. And, it's been very hard for the Administration to find a way out of the box its rhetoric has created.

He didn't answer the key question and that was basically what I was wanting to know

[Sparkly]

39. I think he answered it.

What it'll take is for the administration to get out of that box, and who knows if they're even willing to take the political hit, and able to convince other nations in the region that they don't want to attack them?

[Roland99]

40. That doesn't specifically address the problem in Iraq now, though.

[Sparkly]

43. Only in that BushCo has shot themselves in the foot so many times.

They'd have to go against things they've already said, basically, admit they were wrong, and convince people they mean it, in order to take steps like those Clark's advocated in his Op-Ed.

What I think he's really saying above all is that we need new leadership in Congress and the WH, and no, that's not something we can do immediately.

[Roland99]

57. But there is an immediate need in Iraq.

[Sparkly]

59. Yeah, and...? n/t

[Roland99]

60. And I was hoping to hear some actual suggestions from Clark

on how to persuade this administration to actually do something.

[Texas_Kat]

61. The only way this administration is going to "do' something

is for their erstwhile minions (in the House and Senate) to begin running away from Bush.

The Republicans sure as hell don't have a plan.... the Dem leadership has waivered between "let's set a deadline, even if we can't meet it" and "stay the course".

The Repubs won't admit it, but watch in the next couple of weeks for a few to start parroting Clark's points.

(Maybe we'll get a few more Dems to stand up too)

[Sparkly]

63. Well, you can lead a Chimp to water, but you can't make him drink.

So to speak.

There's what they *can* do and what they *will* do, and neither goes far at this point. They're completely incompetent, and they've dug themselves into a deep hole.

If they could get out and save their political skins at the same time, they would -- no matter what happens in Iraq in reality. If they can put a good gloss on it, they will, and already there are signs of that -- such as Rummy's talk of levels of success, accepting less than the ideal, etc. As with Vietnam, I think they're looking to call it a success, get some Iraqi leader to ask them to leave, and cut and run -- running to the nearest "Mission Accomplished" sign, figuratively speaking.

To persuade them to do anything right, at this point, is impossible imho, because it'd cost them too much politically.

[Roland99]

64. That doesn't mean the Democrats don't need to try, though.

By sitting back and waiting for things to go from worse to horrible or magically getting better on their own, ignoring the problems in Iraq with no specific solutions isn't helping...esp. with an election just about a year away that could very well have the ability to change the face of power in Washington.

[Sparkly]

65. So what would you try?

It seems to me General Clark is doing MUCH more than "sitting back and waiting." He's advocating for change in leadership, offering specific solutions, showing there are options beyond being stuck with BushCo "resolve" and "cut-and-run," and giving Democrats ideas for campaign platforms.

Is there something else you think could be done to help Republicans be successful with Iraq?

[kenny blankenship]

110. whassamatter? A "secret plan" to win the war not good enough 4u?

Where is your trust?

[FrenchieCat]

114. WTF are you talking about.....

What secret plan? You mean the one that Clark had published in the WAPO today....or the one that he'll be talking on MTP Sunday, or the one that he'll be discussing on TMP all of next week, or the one that he'll discuss during Washington Note's Terrorist conference on the 6th of Sept? :shrug:


Are you smoking or injecting?

[CJCRANE]

133. Clark's implying

that Iran and Syria have no vested interest in seeing a stable Iraq because they would be next in the firing line. Therefore (reading between the lines) they're more likely to let fighters cross their borders into Iraq for instance.

[Sparkly]

38. I really liked what he said about Cindy Sheehan (and the Chimp).

Houston, Tx.: How would you respond to Cindy Sheehan and the other family members who believe their children have been sacrificed for a lie?

General Clark: I have the deepest sympathy and empathy with Cindy Sheehan. My son served in the Armed Forces and I worried about him every day. And, I carried a burden of guilt about his service, as I am sure most mothers and fathers do. Because, after all, we either encourage them, supported them, or sustained them in making this committment to their country. My prayers and condolences are with every family who has lost a loved one in Iraq or Afghanistan, or seen him or her come home forever scarred or crippled. And I thank them for their loved ones' service and for their sacrifice. And I understand the depth of their feelings I believe, because every American trusts our leaders to use our men and women in combat only, only, only as a last resort. And in Iraq, this wasn't the case. And we will probably never learn the full array of motives that lead our nation's leaders to take us to this war. I warned at the time that it was "elective"--we didn't have to do it. There wasn't an eminent threat. So why did we? Cindy Sheehan, every mother and father of our service members, and every American has a right to know. It was a strategic blunder to go there. Now America sees it in hindsight. But those in power have responsibilities to do the right thing, and when they don't they should be held accountable. Cindy is doing everything she can to hold them accountable. President Bush should talk to her and tell her the truth.

[Totally Committed]

44. That was such a beautiful answer.

It brought a tear to my eye. He is, first and foremost, a compassionate man.

[welshTerrier2]

48. yes, it was ...

if nothing else, Clark is a man of dignity, grace, compassion and honor ... i respect that very much ...

[rniel]

50. The average american out there

Is listening to George Bush say 'stay the course' when they don't think George even has defined the course or even know where the course is. Where's the course again?

[AuntPatsy]

51. Keep kicking before it's too late.

[gulfcoastliberal]

53. Sounds like What Hillary said

Don't pull-out, don't set a date, add more troops. DLC agenda, IMHO.

[jonnyblitz]

54. aaaah....figures.

:eyes: what i expected...

[Sparkly]

55. "Urgent modification of the strategy."

Did you read the article?

[Warren Stupidity]

94. Did you?

"Meanwhile, on the military track, security on the ground remains poor at best. U.S. armed forces still haven't received resources, restructuring and guidance adequate for the magnitude of the task."

More more more.


Out now.

[Sparkly]

108. Yes. Did you?

There was much more there than just that quote, but what he says in that is fact.

If you think "out now" is the answer, fine -- I disagree that it will save lives, especially of innocent civilians, in the long run. But the fact that we disagree there doesn't give license to misstate what Clark said, and he said much more than just "DLC Stay the Course" etc...

[wiley]

58. Kick!

:kick:

[Gloria]

62. KICK....

imminent, not eminent........

[Warren Stupidity]

68. Iraq is not "ours" to fix.

The pottery barn theory is complete and total bullshit. It is just the latest excuse for why we have to kill a lot of Iraqis and continue to build our permanent military bases.

[Clarkie1]

69. Clark is against permanent military bases in Iraq.

"We should say we don't want permanent bases in Iraq."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/08/25/DI2005082501346.html

[Warren Stupidity]

77. yes sure but -

he and the rest of the poorly advised Democratic leadership are lending support to the 'stay the course' 'complete the mission' 'we can't afford to fail' nonsense, and in doing so they are aiding and abetting the ongoing criminal behavior of the Bush administration, an administration that is most certainly moving full speed ahead with its PNAC inspired plan to use Iraq as their base of military operations for control of the middle east.


What we need is a Democratic leadership that stands up and says NO.

[Clarkie1]

82. Staying the course is not a strategy.

Clark is completely against "staying the course."

He has said repeatedly that "staying the course" and "resolve" are not enough.

You want a leadership that stands up and says no, but it is not a simple yes/no question...there are other more responsible and potentially life-saving alternatives at this point besides pulling out all our troops tomorrow.

[Warren Stupidity]

90. No what he said was that "stay the course" is an empty slogan.

It certainly is, but I don't think the general quite understands why.

I read his essay. It is essentially identical to the DLC-themed position that Kerry took during his awful campaign. It calls for a better, bigger, newer, more nuanced, less unilateral imperial adventure in Iraq. We will continue to teach the Iraqis how to be a civilized democracy if we have to kill every last one of them. It fails entirely to recognize that we don't get to have a say in how the Iraqi people organize their affairs or, more importantly, that our presence there as a foreign occupying army, is the major cause for the current mess. The solution to the mess, the way we get out of the Iraqi killing business, is to get out. Now rather than later. It is that simple.

With the Republican neocon agenda in retreat and the GOP in serious political trouble over Iraq, our party's leaders almost uniformly refuse to stand with the people of this country and oppose the war. Instead, pushed by their DLC mentors, they just regurgitate the same madness as their cohorts across the isle, only less triumphalist, less unilateral, more nuanced. Our party's leaders refuse to lead, and they continue to be complicit in the carnage this fool's errand has wrought.

[Sparkly]

93. "I don't think the General quite understand why."

I think the General understands quite ALOT about this subject, actually. "Stay the course" means seeking a military solution only, threatening other nations in the region, undersupplying troops, ignoring the need for diplomacy, etc. etc. etc... THAT is why it's an empty slogan.

If you think we should withdraw before Iraq is stable and secure, as if that's going to cause fewer deaths in the long run, fine -- you're free to hold that opinion. But don't read things into what others say, or ignore the key points of their arguments.

It's so easy to divide this into "good" (get out now) and "bad" (everything else, DLC, Neo-con, Repugs, Repug-lite, blah blah blah). That's really oversimplifying it.

[Clarkie1]

99. No, it is absolutely not that simple.

"The solution to the mess, the way we get out of the Iraqi killing business, is to get out. Now rather than later. It is that simple."

If your goal is to "get out of the Iraqi killing business," then that will do the trick...we'll be out!

That's a pretty self-centered goal for America. Being self-centered in an interdependent world what got our country into this mess in the first place.

A more honorable goal (while there is still even a glimmer of hope) is to do whatever we can to prevent even greater mass bloodshed, and leaving tomorrow will not accomplish that. So if you just want to leave regardless of the consequences, sure, it's simple.

But if all lives are important to you...Iraqi and American, and you care about America's integrity (the little we have left after what the neo-cons have done) and relationships with the rest of the world, then it is not so simple.

It really comes down to a question of values. If the time comes (and Clark has said it may come soon) when because of the current administration's ineptitude there is no chance our staying can prevent even greater blood being shed, then it will be time for us to leave. It will be the only honorable and sensible choice we have left.

And it will be clear even to Republicans which party was inept and had no plan.

[RandomUser]

85. Not "staying the course"

What Wes is calling for is CHANGING course (but there's virtually no chance in hell that this administration will change course and adopt Wes's plan as detailed here). Earlier this week, on his blog, Wes condemned "stay the course" as nothing more than an empty slogan.

First and foremost, Wes is a strategist by training, and the signs for Republican strategy for 2006 with respect to Iraq are easy to see. They're already making noises about plans to draw down forces in time for the 2006 elections. This may be a token and/or temporary draw down (or maybe just the promise of it), just enough for Republicans to win 2006 before possibly ramping things up again after the elections. Or maybe they're really ready to cut and run after screwing everyone.

This retreat will be cast in one of two ways.

First, they will try to cast it as a "victory" with scenes of returning soldiers hugging family members, lots of feel good stories of reunions and euphoria, and how they were right about Iraq -- which they're not.

If the American people don't buy that, they're ready with the other option -- that this failure is the fault of the Democrats for hindering morale with "unpatriotic negativity," just as they tried to blame all the heart-ache of Vietnam on unpatriotic hippy protestors betraying the war effort and the American people. They're already spreading the meme that Democrats are negative naysayers who have no plans of their own.

What Wes Clark accomplishes here in this proposal is to present an Democratic plan that may have a hope of success -- but will probably not be acted on by this idiot administration. The true value of this plan on a strategic level is that it allows us to insulate ourselves from charges that the Democrats have no plans and are nothing but negative, whiny people.

Note the last paragraph in the Wes's plan -- that if the change of course he has laid out is not adopted, then the american people would be justified in calling for a pull-out. (you see? he does not want a "stay the course" status quo) Thus, when we call for a pull out, they won't be able to say we're unpatriotic negative naysayers. We can point to Wes's plan and say it's not our fault the administration is too stupid to adopt smart measures even after we've pointed them out.

Think of the Vietnam war and the way the antiwar protestors are still seen as unpatriotic in some parts of the country, and painted as undermining the war effort and the American people. Don't tell me Kerry's swiftboating had nothing to do with this residual climate.

Rove is salivating at the chance to do the same to the current anti-war movement, making the impression stick for decades later, further solidifying the Republican's theft of the stars-and-stripes. The easiest way to deal with a disaster (and Iraq is most certaintly one) is to scapegoat the opposition. Blame the failure of Iraq on anti-war protestors.

Wes Clark's proposals gives us at the very least plausible credibility to refute those smears, and a position from which to attack Republicans as weak on defense (or more appropriately incompetent and stupid on Defense, taking us into wars we should never have entered) even as we call for a CHANGE OF COURSE in Iraq, and demanding a troop pull-out if they won't heed us. He's given us cover to be antiwar without falling prey the Rove's meme that the Democrats have no ideas or plans of their own for the Iraq problem other than surrender.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

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

[dogman]

89. Simple is as simple does.

"The people who are making Iraq impossible for us" are not the people we are concerned with. The majority of people in Iraq deserve better than being left to "The people who are making Iraq impossible for us". We need to get out but we also have a moral obligation. If only it was as simple as you think.

[Warren Stupidity]

91. So then perhaps we can have an angel

mark the doors of all these bad iraqis and then we can slaughter all their first borns and then the good iraqis will live in peace. You all continue to believe that we are there to civilize the heathens. What arrogant bullshit.

[dogman]

92. You've been reading too much bible.

Where did you come up with all that. You sure have an active imagination. You see things that aren't and ask, Why not?

[Sparkly]

95. "You LITTLE acolytes," you "all believe this and all believe that"

:eyes: Incredible. This is a LIBERAL forum?!

[Warren Stupidity]

96. It was hyperbole.

It is an exaggeration illustrating the absurdity of your pro-war position.

You are going to save all the good iraqis and give that wonderful freedom and democracy. Don't you see how depraved that is?

[dogman]

98. Exaggeration for sure.

No where did I say save all the good Iraqis nor am I pro-war. I am for accepting responsibility, even if it is for something I personally was against. The USA fucked this up, willingly or not, and the USA has a moral obligation to do it's best to make it right. I have been known to pick up litter I did not drop.

[jonnyblitz]

102. I see EXACTLY what you are saying and agree. nt

[dogman]

105. You agree with outright lies?

How openminded of you.

[jonnyblitz]

118. how openminded of you to call somebody you disagree wiith

a liar!! Apparently you don't understand the use of hyperbole to illustrate a point that is RIGHT THE FUCK ON. any position short of GET OUT NOW is prolonging the war and adding to the death toll. We already lost this thing and it's time to go home NOW. I am sorry, Wes Clark's position is BULLSHIT, IMHO. So you can call me a LIAR , too, if you like.

[Totally Committed]

119. With all due respect,

I don't think dogman called anyone a liar. He said that you agreed with lies. That doesn't imply you are a liar, just that your opinion may be based on fallacies you have accepted because of your personal view or ideology.

As the man of peace you say you are, I feel you are being unnecessarily provocative right now. If it is because you feel your honor has been besmearched, I feel you are wrong. But, if it's because of the frustration brought on by the futility of your argument, which dogman has said was based on lies, just push yourself away from the computer, take a deep breath, and go get a cup of coffee or something. I do a lot of that these days. :)

TC

[dogman]

127. Yes he lied.

He said I have a pro-war position, that is a lie.

[Totally Committed]

128. True enough!

I stand corrected. Sorry, dogman. I'll stay out of it next time.

TC

[dogman]

130. No , you were correct also.

I just didn't need to cover that ground as you had done it well. There were lies at more than one level. I might not have used the term liar if the lie were not directed at me, however. I know for sure when a lie is told about me.

[Warren Stupidity]

141. Oh please

I made a biblical reference to angels marking the doors of the bad Iraqis to illustrate how massively stupid our Iraqi policy is and how idiotic the DLC inspired new improved imperialism is as an opposition platform to remedy Iraq. You are now off implying I am a liar, presumably because I was aware that angels really were not going be helping the counter-insurgency effort. OK. I see my original post was over your head and needed :sarcasm: alerts on it. Sorry of neglecting to make it clear that I do not think that angels are going to aid our counter insurgency.

Sheesh.

[Sparkly]

145. You misrepresented what Clark wrote.

It's intellectually dishonest to say Clark's advocating "killing bad Iraqis and slaughtering their firstborn children" and whatever else you claimed, or that he's representing some "DLC-inspired imperialism."

READ THE ARTICLE without reading more into it.

Example:
Military and security operations must return primarily to the tried-and-true methods of counterinsurgency: winning the hearts and minds of the populace through civic action, small-scale economic development and positive daily interactions. Ten thousand Arab Americans with full language proficiency should be recruited to assist as interpreters.

That's a far cry from simple slaughter.

[Warren Stupidity]

147. "That's a far cry from simple slaughter"

Right. It's nuanced complicated slaughter. It remains slaughter. When the villagers are not responding to our winning their hearts and minds efforts, we will kill them. Our ten thousand translators will be assisting in the brutal interrogations of Iraqis who just won't behave. Blah blah blah.

[Sparkly]

153. Are you Pro-Warlord?

First you made a remark about "mark the doors of all these bad iraqis and then we can slaughter all their first borns and then the good iraqis will live in peace."

I explained what Clark said, which directly refutes that. "civic action, small-scale economic development and positive daily interactions."

Now your moved your view to say this means it's still about killing, but just those who "won't behave." So if warlords kill, rape, displace, and otherwise oppress innocent people and children, we shouldn't try to arrest them, because some might get killed? :eyes:

[Warren Stupidity]

171. yes I believe in angels and am very pro warlord.

Do you believe in honest debate?

Clark has lots of nice projects - just like the vietnam era liberal cold warriors had lots of nice projects for vietnam - so he prattles on about "civic action, small-scale economic development and positive daily interactions". Great. meanwhile the country is a fucking mess seething with insurgency. Here is a clue: they hate americans. Here is another clue: those projects aren't going to get out of the armchair they were thought up in. All those well intention aid workers won't make it out of the green zone.

I remember a recent "positive daily interaction" - our troops stopped on some street and started passing out candy to kids when BOOM they blew up the patrol and a whole mess of kids.

So meanwhile the war will continue and we will be killing lots of Iraqis and they will be doing their best to kill us. We invaded their country and they intend to keep killing us until we leave.

[dogman]

146. Read the entire thread.

You are a liar because you say I am pro-war. That is a lie. The angels as you pointed out and I agreed is exaggeration.

[Warren Stupidity]

149. But you are pro war.

You are for continuing the war. That doesn't mean that you like war, after all 'war is hell', it means that you support keeping the war going.

[dogman]

150. No, I am for ending the war.

You could state that in your opinion that I have a pro-war stance. That would not make it a fact. You may have heard the adage, you are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts. The difference between our stance is slight in my opinion, it seems as if your opinion makes it greater than the Grand Canyon. Some people seek differences and separation, others seek common ground and consensus. I am in agreement that under the current Bush lack of a plan the only solution is to pull out. That does not mean that that is the only solution.

[Warren Stupidity]

151. right - so...

you are for ending the war on 'our terms' meaning that the Iraqis do what we tell them to do and put together a government that we find appropriate. Of course that is not going to happen, my opinion ever, but regardless even Wes thinks it isn't going to happen any time soon. So you are for ending the war - some time in the distant future when those bad iraqis stop messing things up. In the meantime you and Wes are for more troops, a better counter insurgency, more efficient killing of just the right Iraqis. Pro war. Sorry if that is unpleasant for you, think of how unpleasant it is going to be for all of the families of the dead who will continue to pile up as we try to 'get it right'.

[Sparkly]

154. "Iraqis do what we tell them to do" -- Did you really READ the OpEd??

"For the mission to succeed we will have to be the catalyst for regional cooperation, not regional conflict."

"The United States should tone down its raw rhetoric and instead listen more carefully to the many voices within the region."

Clark isn't advocating "telling them what to do," he's advocating involvement in crafting compromise.

[Warren Stupidity]

168. sure did.

"On the political side, the timeline for the agreements on the Constitution is less important than the substance of the document. It is up to American leadership to help engineer, implement and sustain a compromise that will avoid the "red lines" of the respective factions and leave in place a state that both we and Iraq's neighbors can support. So no Kurdish vote on independence, a restricted role for Islam and limited autonomy in the south. And no private militias."

There ya go. And we will keep killing them 'till they behave.

[dogman]

156. Did I say "our terms", did Clark say "our terms"?

I would agree "our terms" if you meant a consensus of all parties involved, but that is not what you describe. I am for a long term solution that allows Iraq to rule Iraq securely within its borders. That is what I see Clark calling for. Because I cannot put the bullet back in the chamber does not mean I am for firing it in the first place. I realize Bush sees the world in terms of black and white, I would expect a member of this forum to have a more intelligent view of the world. As I said your opinion is just that, your opinion. It does not make it a fact. In the same vein, Clark and I may be wrong. Given his track record, I feel safe being in synch with his ideas. If Bush pulls the troops out tomorrow will you then support him?

[Warren Stupidity]

169. you could read my other reply to this or...

Here's Wes putting forth his version of our imperial vision for Iraq:

"On the political side, the timeline for the agreements on the Constitution is less important than the substance of the document. It is up to American leadership to help engineer, implement and sustain a compromise that will avoid the "red lines" of the respective factions and leave in place a state that both we and Iraq's neighbors can support. So no Kurdish vote on independence, a restricted role for Islam and limited autonomy in the south. And no private militias."

[dogman]

172. Have you been paying attention lately?

These are precisely the items in the new constitution that have proved to be the stumbling blocks to its approval. Another item that he mentions and that is hanging over this whole process is the idea of Kurdish independence. This brings forth the specter of Turkish military action. Turkey has maintained that a Kurdish state is unacceptable and Turkish action could rattle NATO and EU. There is enough instability in the region that it could precipitate WWIII. There is so much more at stake than us just pulling out of Iraq. This was the PNAC goal, to destabilize the oil rich 'stans with them thinking we will just pick up the pieces. You are so obsessed with the idea that Clark just wants a US victory that you fail to see his concern for the global effect of regional conflict.

[Jai4WKC08]

161. My take on your pro-war label

Which I do find offensive, btw. But I am willing to admit you probably believe in all sincerity that it's true.

What I think you're missing is that you and those you call "pro-war" hold two fundamentally different sets of assumptions.

You seem to think that if we back out now, the war will end. If not immediately, soon enough. Because we are essentially the original cause (and I think you'd find little argument there) remove the cause and voila, the problem goes away. Apologies if I'm misinterpretting or oversimplifying your words.

Clark, and those of us who agree with him, think the war will only get worse if we withdraw too soon, or the wrong way. Civil war, regional war, humanitarian catastrophy. The US may be out of it (or not if the chaos provides some sort of breeding ground for al Qaeda... larger than they already have there, that is) but it'll still be happening, and a whole lot worse than it is now.

We're every bit as anti-war as you are. We just foresee different consequences. Am I right?

Now, I also think that Clark believes the greater war may happen whether we go or stay, and almost assuredly will if BushCo doesn't do something more than he has and soon. That's why his op/ed is titled, "Before it's too late" and why he ends it saying that, if Bush refuses to take his recommendations, then we should in fact come home.

But he also believes, imo, that we have an obligation to attempt to stop it as long as there's a chance. Clark has ALWAYS believed in intervention, using military force as a LAST resort, to prevent genocide and massive human suffering where possible. And he knows that if some sort of holocaust ensues because we do get out immediately, we could be morally obligated to go back, which is certainly not desirable and most likely not politically feasible.

Fwiw, I don't think for a minute that Clark is optimistic that anything he says will move Bush to do the right thing, or that Bush is even capable of it, given his track record. But that doesn't not free Clark, or any of us, from the obligation to speak out on what we believe Bush should do, however small the odds of affecting the outcome and even tho we may disagree on what should or can be done.

That's why he supports Cindy Sheehan. He doesn't agree with her solution to the war either, but he knows she is doing everything she can to hold Bush accountable for his bad decisions and lies, and that's precisely what Clark thinks is the duty of any American citizen.

[Warren Stupidity]

170. it might become a breeding ground for al qaeda?

This is a hopeless discussion. It already is a breeding ground for al qaeda. Perhaps you meant that if we leave it might be an even worse breeding ground for al qaeda, although that is difficult to imagine. I think if we left it would indeed defuse the situation. It would of course be humiliating for us, and there very well could be quite a bit more of the killing in Iraq until THEY managed to sort out THEIR differences. But they would sort them out, and we would no longer be there as this huge catalyst for continuous violence.

Clark, Clinton, and Kerry, and the rest of the Democratic members of the War Party are aiding and abetting the Bush administration's determination to stay the course, to continue the mission, to make sure that we have a friendly regime sitting on all that oil. They are aiding and abetting the BFEE's Iraqi blunder by insisting that getting out is not an alternative, by continuing to propose new and better ways for us to win this nonsense. We aren't going to win. We are just going to muddle on, killing and getting killed until somebody with enough balls does the obvious and gets us out of there.


Politically we are at about the 1967 stage of denial - 'responsible' politicians were all for staying the course and being better at killing just the right vietnamese and debating how to do the killing, not if perhaps the killing ought to stop. We have to have our Gene McCarthy to push our Bobby Kennedy in order to get the party actually caught up to where the base is: against this war and wanting leadership that has the courage to lead.

[Jai4WKC08]

173. So civil war isn't good enough for you?

One that expands to embroil the region? Are you unwilling to admit they are even possibilities? Don't know much about the middle east, do you?

Or maybe you missed all that, since you obviously didn't read my post. I very specifically said, "sort of breeding ground for al Qaeda... <b>larger than they already have there, that is</b>." :rolleyes:

Well, I can't say I'm suprised. You'd rather believe what you want to believe than consider evidence for any other possibilites, so why bother to read someone else's opinions? Kind of like the right-wing ideologues.

Just for the record, Clark is NOT recommending "stay the course" and it's a lie to say he is. He has said over and over that Bush's course is WRONG. You may not like Clark's course... that's your choice. But it ain't the same as Bush's (or Clinton's or Biden's for that matter), and saying over and over again that it is don't make it so. You remind of the right-wing in that respect as well.

[Sparkly]

103. "Pro-war position"

That's similar to the term "Pro-abortion." NOBODY is "Pro-war" here.

How about if we called you "Pro-Warlords" or "Pro-Oppression" or "Pro-Destabilization of the Region" or "Pro-Murder-of-the-Weakest" or some such?

[Warren Stupidity]

144. Pro war: if the shoe fits, its a duck :-)

I'm sorry if you don't like being labelled pro war. However when you propose continuing the war in Iraq, for the various arrogant and foolish reasons you all are now giving, you are 'pro war'. The anti-war folks, like me, propose that we stop waging war against the Iraqis who are not doing what we tell them to do. Instead we suggest that the right thing to do would be to announce that we are leaving, and then do so.

[Sparkly]

155. Again -- Seems to me you're not anti-war, you're pro-warlord. nt

[dogman]

148. Haven't you ever heard? Your with us or against us!

The extreme right and extreme left have one thing in common-EXTREME. When you live in a pure, black and white world it's real simple.

[kenny blankenship]

97. Oh no you do NOT condescend to me

We aren't helping those people by being there. And FYI
MOST OF THEM WANT US TO GO, ASAP.
Presumably, they can see what you cannot and have decided that things will sort out quicker the sooner we leave.
I am ALL FOR helping Iraq rebuild Iraq. We can do that AFTER we leave.

Call it WAR REPARATIONS, for our illegal invasion of their country. I figure if we've spent $250,000,000,000 destroying their country so far, we should steel ourselves to the task of paying them another 250,000,000,000 to fix what we're so obviously UNABLE to fix.

BTW: clarkboy's desire to fight on in Iraq has nothing to do with a moral obligation to people there whom we've injured. He couldn't care less probably. He's thinking about how our withdrawal will "embolden" our enemies in Iran and the Islamic extremists who fund and participate in terror organizations. He's not wrong to be worried, but he is wrong that fighting another doomed war, stringing it out for years will help us in the longrun. Of course, he also doesn't want to give up because defeat in Iraq is psychologically unacceptable to him. He has invested Iraq with a meaning which it should never have to bear for anyone: he thinks it will redeem our failure in Vietnam. He supported Vietnam long after it was clearly a lost cause, and his "antiwar" credibility in Iraq is non-existent.

He'd prefer that the war go on and on and on if clear victory is unobtainable. There were Generals like that in WWII--on the losing side.

[dogman]

100. Your underwear is showing.

It seems you've soiled yourself. "clarkboy's, He couldn't care less probably, He'd prefer that the war go on and on". You sure know all about him, don't you?

[kenny blankenship]

109. Wow --how do you do it?

even less content than before. Nothing but personal invective. I guess that means you're all done, huh?

yeah i know plenty about the war cheerleader Wesley Clark. I know he wants to fight on in Iraq to final victory (impossible), that he has invested Iraq with personal frustrations that haunt him from Vietnam (irrational), and I also know that he voted for Nixon, Reagan, and Bush and that he was at one time Alexander Haig's speechwriter and called Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney his colleagues in the Ford Administration (totally inexcusable--for a DEMOCRAT, that is).

I also can figure out that this "secret plan" of his to win in Iraq will just prolong the inevitable departure without stopping the insurgency or separating the Sunni and Shia antagonists. The Pentagon came up with the best strategy for success in Iraq it could, the best it could do given the asinine stupidity of the overall war objective and the political limitations the Bush White House imposed on their planning. At this point 2 years onwards from the initial mistakes, it is all WATER UNDER THE BRIDGE. The mistakes and crimes of the Bush Administration have created certain irreversible circumstances that even Wesley Clark can't fix. Much of the source of strife in Iraq has nothing to do with us and there's nothing we can do to sort it out. Some of it is directly caused by anger with America, and surely some, if not most of the trouble, became inevitable the moment we invaded, no matter what our "plan" was or who planned it. Life is often like that--irreversible and beyond one's control--particularly so when you venture to the other side of the world. It was anticipation of the intractable problems of a country like Iraq that caused many people to warn against invasion in the first place. Clark agrees it was a big mistake to invade, but before the invasion he did not agree. During the invasion he was a happy cheerleader. Now that's it's gone wrong he says we need a strategy to win. I suppose someone forgot to tell the Pentagon to plan for success. He's selling a fresh start and new war. We can't get a do-over for Iraq by removing one steely-eyed, telegenic but hollow leader and replacing him with another steely-eyed telegenic and hollow leader. I can understand why Clark thinks this hope for a do-over and a miracle victory will sell politically here at home (it's true, people will do almost anything to avoid admitting fuckups and failure, even when it means others will pay for this luxury with their lives) I can understand his belief in the marketability of this message, and I can understand why he might even talk himself into believing it has a chance to work, but I do not buy his bullshit for a minute. Iraq is sick of us, and America is finally becoming sick of Iraq--which may be the first healthy impulse we've had as a nation in 5 years.

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

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

[FrenchieCat]

112. A Clark hater spilling his spew, I see.....

yeah i know plenty about the war cheerleader Wesley Clark. I know he wants to fight on in Iraq to final victory (impossible), that he has invested Iraq with personal frustrations that haunt him from Vietnam (irrational), and I also know that he voted for Nixon, Reagan, and Bush and that he was at one time Alexander Haig's speechwriter and called Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney his colleagues in the Ford Administration (totally inexcusable--for a DEMOCRAT, that is).

Clark agrees it was a big mistake to invade, but before the invasion he did not agree. During the invasion he was a happy cheerleader. Now that's it's gone wrong he says we need a strategy to win. I suppose someone forgot to tell the Pentagon to plan for success. He's selling a fresh start and new war.

Please provide us with some sources, NaysayBoy.

I'd like to debate the merits of your bullshit name calling rant.

You sound like a cowboy! Are you?

[LandOLincoln]

113. I take it as a hopeful sign that in order to maintain your

hatred of Wesley Clark (and apparently his growing numbers of supporters as well) you are forced continually to misunderstand and/or misrepresent his political history and beliefs. Instead of offering honest disagreement you set up straw men which you can then demolish.

IMO your motives are suspect and your methods despicable.

[FrenchieCat]

115. It's like those hack sites about Wes Clark....

Lotsa of words, little documentation.

War Cheerleader, this Blank person says.....

Well I didn't see it.....

When did this happen? :shrug:

Mr.Blank, was this around the time that Clark was the only one on National Television defending Michael Moore's right to dissent?

:eyes:

More significant than Mr. Clark’s views on domestic policy are his willingness and capacity to speak out credibly against the Bush administration’s security policies. During his stint as a CNN commentator on the Iraq conflict, he skillfully critiqued Pentagon strategy and White House diplomacy without getting himself singed.
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=1517...

:eyes:

Straight talk or nothing for CNN's Dobbs

Retired Gen. Wesley Clark was a long-time CNN military analyst but there's one cable network host he didn't impress: Lou Dobbs. Clark was a guest on Dobb's business show during the Iraq war and the host felt the former NATO boss seemed to push his own political agenda rather than provide the straight military skinny on the Pentagon plan, reports our Mark Mazzetti. The result: Dobbs, who hosts "Lou Dobbs Tonight," told a conference of reporters and military brass last week that he barred Clark from his show for the remainder of the war.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/archive/...

:eyes:

"THE GUY MUST HAVE A BEDROOM AT CNN,” my wife would joke. It seemed true, because at every hour of the day or night during the Iraq War, retired General Wesley K. Clark could be seen on the Cable News Network as a “military expert” criticizing the Bush Administration.

A quick victory in Iraq “was not going to happen,” he told viewers on March 25, shortly before the quickest blitzkrieg victory of its size in military history occurred. But his words doubtless brought comfort to the fans of a network slanted so far to the Left that the most asked question about its name is whether the “C” in CNN stands for Clinton, Castro or Communist News Network.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID...

:eyes:

Clark maybe a CNN analyst, but not for Lou Dobbs...

Retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who is mulling a presidential bid, gained significant attention for his analysis of the latest war in Iraq on CNN.

But now Clark will no longer be invited on CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight" because host Dobbs, a gave money to President Bush's campaign in 2000, said Clark recently came on his show and gave political opinions instead of analysis, reports US News and World Report today
http://www.politicsnh.com/archives/briefs/2003/august/i...

[dogman]

129. Personal invective deserves personal invective.

Your disrespect and inaccurate portrayal of Clark does not earn you respect or a reasonable response. You can't figure out his "secret plan" because there is not one. His plan was spelled out in the Primary and has evolved as the sitution has changed. It is published and clear fo all to read. As I have noted before, if you come with eyes closed , you will see nothing. He is not calling for a do-over, he is calling for aresolution the problems that have been created. He understands the moral obligation this country has to repair the damage it has done.

[Totally Committed]

131. "CLARK'S DUMBER AND MORE DANGEROUS THAN BUSH"

WTF have you been tokin'? That is so ridiculous as to render anything else you say as worthless, imo, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt:

"Clark is on record as saying the legacy of Iraq will dispel the legacy of Vietnam. He fucking thinks this is about fucking VIETNAM!"

Exact quote and link, please. That is your version of what he said. It is not what he said, in truth. What he was speaking about was the perception that the Democrats have suffered under since that war -- that "The Left" was Anti-American, "unpatriotic", war-protesters, and soldier-haters. This is, he said, why the military voted overwhelmingly with the Republicans since Vietnam, even though it has been against their interests in most cases. It had nothing to do with redeeming or refighting that war. So, if you can't come up with the link and exact quote, I'll assume you realize you made a mistake and we'll let it go at that.

A little personal advice: You need to get a handle on your anger. This is a message board, not a street fight. Wes Clark is not the enemy... none of us is.

TC

[kenny blankenship]

134. Keep your personal advice to yourself --and here's your link.

You wanted it, you wouldn't be bothered to look it up for yourself and so now you're going to get it.

At a Clark press conference in Concord a few weeks ago, AP writer Ron Fournier literally threw up his hands when Clark, under repeated questioning, gave a two-faced answer to a question about why he had called the Bush Administration a "great team." "Well," Clark said, "like most Americans, I wanted them to succeed."

(Did they, by the way? I didn't.)

"Yeah, but why call them a 'great team' if you disagreed with them on Iraq?" Fournier asked.

"Because they were making the wrong decisions then," Clark answered nonsensically.

A murmur shot through the crowd. "What the hell does that mean?" I heard someone say behind me.
Clark elicited a similar response at the same press conference when he made one of the more cryptic--and in retrospect, one of the more meaningful--statements of his campaign. "The legacy of Vietnam," he said, "will be put to rest by the legacy of Iraq."

A few reporters asked Clark to explain himself, but the general basically just repeated the statement before leaving the podium.

[Totally Committed]

135. Thank you for the link and the quote.

The Nation is probably one of the most anti-Clark Liberal mags around. I'm not surprised that you got the mistaken impression that you did from that piece of trash. The article you linked was so melodramatic. And, Fournier, in particular, just hates him. He wrote several hit pieces on Wes during the primaries that were shocking in their intensity. Anyway...

Wes has explained several times that he was speaking about the Democratic Party's Vietnam legacy with the military, and with the "Red Staters". Since you were so kind as to provide your link and quote, maybe I can find the link and quote I was thinking of, and share it with you as a gesture of goodwill.

I don't know why you are so angry with me, with Clark, or with Clarkies in general, but I can assure you, you don't need to be. The reason I gave you the "personal advice" is that I used to get very worked up about political things (okay, I still do, but not as much, because I really try not to), and it has affected my physical health quite adversely. Just trying to pass on a little wisdom.

Peace.

[Totally Committed]

138. Kenny, Here's my quote and link for you:

"Get Moving" - and Interview wth Wes Clark by Salon.com

Excerpt (First Q & A set up context, pertenent quote in second answer in italics):

What should the Democrats be doing and saying now about Iraq?
First of all, we've got to support the troops that are there, their families at home, the military as an institution that's fighting the war, and our veterans. We have to do that because it's a duty for Americans, and if we're going to be the leading party in America, then we have to lead. There's nothing more important for a government than protecting the safety and security of its people, and that requires a strong and ready armed force. So that's the first thing that Democrats have to do. I think we've done a good job at that, and I think we're getting increasing recognition for that. It's been Democrats who have supported and proposed measures to make sure every vehicle has the appropriate armor, to make sure every solider has body armor and adequate ammunition and training, to make sure that our veterans and our returning soldiers can be taken care of. Democrats have a long-standing reputation for being more interested in the people than in the weapons systems.

But the right hammered Kerry in 2004 for not "supporting the troops." Is the trick to avoiding that next time by building this four-year message you're describing?

You've got to have a consistent message. I wouldn't put a set term on it -- if you had an eight-year or 12-year or 28-year term, that would be even better. What's behind all of this is the legacy of Vietnam, the frustration of veterans. People have gravitated to the other party based on a recollection of angry voices and rallies that condemned the troops when all the troops were doing was supporting a policy that a democratically elected government had put in place. So Democrats have to pull off being critical of the administration's Iraq policy -- and articulating a better policy of their own -- while not being perceived as denigrating the troops.

First, it's still true that the war in Iraq was a strategic blunder. Even had the intelligence been proven to be correct, it wouldn't have established a compelling necessity to go to war when we did. Second, the intelligence wasn't correct. That said, once we're there, we want to succeed.

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

Entire Interview:

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

And at:

http://knightrider.forclark.com/story/2005/6/20/92658/4319

TC

[dogman]

143. This makes it clear, a Taibbi acolyte.

Quotes from a hit piece by this Milosevic apologist don't carry a lot of weight. Now I understand your twisted logic, it is the same as what Taibbi uses in this article. Incomplete anecdotes and biased opinion are not really journalism let alone facts. This hit piece is worthy of O'Liely. Clark's statement above is a clear example. When Clark said he wanted the administration to succeed was in reference to the take down of Bin Laden. Taibbi makes it clear that he is happy, since Bin laden is still at large, that they did not succeed. The "wrong decisions" refers to leaving the hunt for Bin laden and attacking Iraq. That has been his stance all along. Only someone with an agenda of their own would portray this as confusing. Note the correction by The Nation on a quote by Taibbi, how many other errors were there that were not challenged?

[Totally Committed]

70. Q&A from the WaPo live-blogging this afternooon:

Washington, D.C.: It's hard for me to envision anytime when even a small US troop presence in Iraq could be anything but a magnet for terrorism and destabilization of the Iraqi government. How can we ever get to the point, as in Korea or the Balkans, where a US troop presence is a force for stability and progress, not the other way around?

General Clark: Great question, and that's why I believe we should say we don't want permanent bases in Iraq. But, if the Iraqi government really gains legitimacy and if we provide the leadership in generating regional cooperation, then I suppose we could be asked to stay, and we would seriously have to consider this. For now, that seems a long time away.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/08/25/DI2005082501346.html

[goodboy]

80. If the Dem. Party had gotten behind him, he'd have won in 04 no question

he sounds pretty presidential here too.

He's got to at least be a VP nominee in 08

[Clarkie1]

81. Clark has provided THE rope the Republicans may either grab onto or...

hang themselves with.

"If the administration won't adopt a winning strategy, then the American people will be justified in demanding that it bring our troops home."

[Donna Zen]

87. that is a very important line

Many people reading this have missed the point: what needs to be done if you were to implement a successful strategy in Iraq? The WSJ came out in June with a scathing editorial accusing Democrats and Clark in particular with yammering but not having a plan. Clark was furious when the WSJ refused to print his plan as a response.

This is a plan that does not pull out the troops, because that is the criticism he was responding to.

That final line is very important because what he is saying is here's the plan and if you don't do it, or give us a plan that can work, then the American people are justified in demanding that we leave.

My way or the highway. This is a very different twist on the Democratic response than we've seen before. Gauntlet down.

[wisteria]

104. This is more or less what John Kerry has been saying,

He ads a bit more detail and a few of his own suggestions (Kerry offered his own too)on the troops and bases, but still expresses the same general thoughts and ideas. I don't disagree with either of them, I just wonder why these ideas aren't being adopted by our party.

[dogman]

106. Clark was an adviser to Kerry.

The Foreign Policy, National Security people in the Dem Party worked together with Kerry and are still working with Dem Party leadership. There is a vacuum in the leadership until a candidate emerges to take the lead. This is one of the difficulties of being the party that is out of power. Leadership comes from a couple of different committees and it is hard to get a consensus.

[Kahuna]

116. Yeah. Right after he heard Wes say it.

:thumbsup:

[bklyncowgirl]

117. With all due respect to Wes Clark, it may be too late.

This plan might well have worked back in January under a new administration but so much water has gone under the bridge and people everywhere have seen so much bad faith and incompetence on the part of the Bush administration that it is becoming inconceivable that they would be able to manage a transition to a stable and secure Iraq. Unless somehow this evil and imcompetent adminstration and their followers are removed from office the situation will only get worse.

There comes a time when so much damage has been done that nothing can be salvaged. We are rapidly reaching that point if we have not reached it already. By rushing headlong into this war the Bush administration has slaughtered and maimed thousands of young Americans and thousands more innocent Iraqis. If we stay thousands more Americans and Iraqis will die. If we pull out thousands of Iraqis will be slaughtered in a bloody civil war fueled by resentments of thousands of years of grievences.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their followers and boosters have dragged the good name of our country through the mud.

I hate those bastards.

[RandomUser]

120. This plan is really about 2006...see my post #85 (n/t)

no text

[Totally Committed]

121. Jeezus... I never thought of it that way before!

Re: post #85 -- You are a genius! That is exactly what he is doing.

Thank you so much for that refreshingly new way to view Wes's postion!

[robbedvoter]

122. beautifully put. It dimly occured to me - but you stated it clearly.

For all the "to later's - may I remind you that Clark consistently opposed starting the war, then offered exit strategies eversince we went it.
He did so during the primaries - and BFEE was alarmed enough to achieve media blackout of Clark speech by hastily scheduling a W Iraq speech at the same time.

[Totally Committed]

123. Robbed!

So nice to "see" you! :hug:

TC

[robbedvoter]

174. Same here, Totally!

:loveya:

[RandomUser]

124. it's an interactive process.

That's the beauty of places like DU and other liberal boards. I wouldn't have been able to vocalize and visualize the problem in this way if I hadn't read other insightful posts like yours and others who've touched on the issue. So I should be the one thanking you! :)

[Totally Committed]

125. Ah, but the sheer elegance and wisdom of your post belies

an intelligence that would have "gotten" that no matter what you read. There are times when I get that "beam of light" awareness, but not as often as I'd like these days. It requires a certain mix of inner peace and outward agitation that rarely presents itself on any consistent basis.

I'm either so enraged or pissed off that I can't see straight, or in a sort of "ignore it all" mode. But, when that sort of inner ennui and outward agitation combine -- look out! LOL!

I just envy it wherever I see it. When a post comes from that sort of "beam of light", it is so obvious. Yours was one of those. I makes perfect rational sense to me.

Thanks again for posting it. What a gift it was!!!

TC

[McCamy Taylor]

132. By 2009 the best we will be able to do is a Saigon airlift.

[lateo]

137. I just LOVE Wes Clark...

It is a damned shame he didn't get the nod last election.

[Gloria]

152. Did you see the poll that says that 60% of the American people

agree with Bush that troops shouldn't just be pulled out....was it the Gallup poll?

Which means, Clark's message is on target with many Americans who can see that an orderly plan must be in place. So, he's talking to them in a very constructive way...

[IndianaGreen]

157. Compare Clark to Russ Feingold

Feingold Proposes Target Time For Completion Of Military Mission In Iraq; Says Senators Must Break "Taboo" On Discussing Timing Of End Of Mission

Proposes Gradual Troop Drawdown with Target Completion Date of
December 31, 2006

August 18, 2005

Marquette, WI -- U.S. Senator Russ Feingold today, at a local Listening Session in Marquette, Wisconsin, proposed a target timeframe for the completion of the military mission in Iraq and suggested December 31, 2006 as the target date for the completion of the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.

In June, Feingold introduced a resolution calling for the President to clarify the military mission in Iraq, lay out a plan and timeframe for accomplishing that mission, and publicly articulate a plan for subsequent troop withdrawal. Because of the Administration's recent flurry of conflicting signals about the duration of U.S. troop deployments, Feingold said he feels obligated to help jump start that process by proposing a specific goal for bringing U.S. forces home from Iraq.

The former chief of Australia's armed forces, General Peter Cosgrove, recently argued that the foreign troop presence was fueling terrorist activity in Iraq, and called for foreign troops to be out of Iraq by the end of 2006. "Those remarks were constructive, and we need to be having this discussion here at home. I am putting a vision of when this ends on the table in the hope that we can get the focus back on our top priority and that is keeping America and the American people safe," Feingold said.

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/releases/05/08/iraqwithdraw.html

Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold On the Lack of a Coherent Policy in Iraq

From the Senate Floor
July 27, 2005

Finally, Mr. President, I want to talk about the most common criticism leveled at anyone who invokes the phrase "timetable" in talking about our military deployment in Iraq. The charge goes something like this: if the insurgents know when we plan to go, they will simply hunker down and lie in wait for the time when we are no longer present in large numbers, and then they will attack.

Well, Mr. President, if that were the insurgents' plan, why wouldn't they cease all attacks now, lay low, let everyone believe that stability has been achieved, and spring up again once the security presence in Iraq is dramatically reduced? If we really believe the argument that any kind of timetable is a "lifeline" to the insurgents, then why wouldn't they try to induce us to throw them that lifeline?

We cannot know all the reasons behind the choices made by the diverse elements waging Iraq's insurgency. But one thing is clear: ultimately, we will withdraw from Iraq, and it will not be secret when we do. Does the Administration believe that the insurgents will be entirely defeated at that point? Is it really our policy to stay in Iraq until every last insurgent and every last terrorist is defeated? Recently Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld made news when he said that the insurgency could well last a decade or more, and that ultimately, "foreign forces are not going to repress that insurgency," rather it is going to be defeated by the Iraqis themselves. I think this analysis makes good sense -- especially given the fact that our very presence in Iraq is helping to recruit more foreign jihadists every day. But the Secretary's candor made waves, because for long, costly months we lacked clarity on this critical point regarding just what the remaining U.S. military mission is in Iraq. Is it to defeat the insurgency, or is it to give the Iraqis the tools to do that themselves?

If the remaining military mission is to train Iraqis to provide for their own security, we ought to be able to articulate a clear plan for getting that job done. If we know how many troops we need to train, and we know how long it takes to train effectively, then we ought to have some sense of how long it will take to accomplish our mission.

When I was in Baghdad in February, a senior coalition officer told me that he believes the U.S. could "take the wind out of the sails of the insurgents" by providing a clear, public plan and timeframe for the remaining U.S. mission. He thought this could rob them of their recruiting momentum. I also think it could rob them of some unity. All reports indicate that the forces fighting U.S. troops and attacking Iraqi police, soldiers, and civilians are a disparate bunch with different agendas, from embittered former regime elements to foreign fighters. The one thing that unites them is opposition to America's presence in Iraq. Remove that factor, and we may see a more divided, less effective, more easily defeated insurgency.

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/releases/05/07/Iraqstatement.html

[Totally Committed]

158. What I see are two patriots, each doing what they think is best:

Russ is asking the President to set a date for leaving Iraq.

Wes is presenting a plan for ending Iraq and then leaving.

Both are Patriots. Both are Democrats. Both are presenting plans that will never be implemented. So, all this is just subjective anyway. If we continue to argue this out, based on our preferences, we will be arguing until Christmas.

To us Clarkies, Wes's plan is awesome. I know if we ask you, you'll tell us Russ's plan is awesome. Right?

Iti's called stalemate. :banghead:

TC

[IndianaGreen]

159. How many names do we want on the Iraq War Memorial?

That's really the only question that demands a clear and unequivocal answer, and it is a question that must be answered by all of those seeking the Presidency.

[Totally Committed]

162. Why don't we just agree that if either Clark OR Feingold were POTUS

there would never have been an Iraq War?

Why does there have to be all this adversarial stuff day in and day out over every single thing that comes up?

Neither of their plans is going to even register on the WH radar. If Bush doesn't read Intelligence briefs, he sure-as-hell ain't gonna even read, much less consider either of these plans.

Clark is a good decent man, a patriot, and a Democrat.

Feingold is a good decent man, a patriot, and a Democrat.

Bravo to both for caring enough to come up with anything at all in the face of what they both must know is a wall of futility. I am absolutely effing exhausted from all of this. I truly am.

TC

[FrenchieCat]

166. I'm sorry, but I am missing something....

What is Feingold's Iraq War plan, beyond getting out in 1.4 years?

Could someone provide a link on this plan that is being referred to?

[FrenchieCat]

165. I don't think that either Feingold or Clark want anymore names

on a memorial.

But the question is how many more names can get on the Iraq War memorial in 1.5 years, if we don't suggest a viable plan?

Feingold is asking the administration to come up with a plan, and pressuring them to come with some dates of sorts, and provides his own suggestion. He does not however, profer up a plan.

Clark is giving the administration a plan, and letting them know that if they don't change their course, that pretty soon, it won't much matter what they do; that Americans will demand that the troops be brought home, and that they would be justified.

I'm not sure why Feingold's suggestion seem better to you than Clark's. It isn't to me. In essence, Feingold did exactly what Democrats are being criticized by the press. He offered a critique and very little in a way of a plan, beyond stating that they should get out at some point, the sooner the better. But 1.5 years is a long time, in where there could be many more killed, at the rate that we are going.

So please let me know how a critique without a suggested specific plan and a 1.5 year away timeline is so superior?

Far as I am concerned, if the Bush Admin stays with it present course, it may be in six months that Americans will be demanding a pull out. Seems like Feingold is allowing for quite a window! Or at least, it doesn't sound like "Out now"....as some want to suggest.

[Tom Rinaldo]

175. That is never the only question

I respect where you are coming from and do not belittle your point, but that is never the only question. If that were the case no military conflict would ever be risked except perhaps defending one's village from a Viking invasion. Whether or not the Nazi's were exterminating the Jews would not have been a factor in deciding whether or not to fight World War II. There would not have been an American Revolution. We would not, and did not unfortunately, intervene in Rwanda to stop genocide there. All of those actions predictably increased the amount of American military casualties.

I am not trying to make light of your position on this matter. There are strong enough arguments that support it, but it can not be boiled down to the one question of how many more deaths are acceptable. No death is acceptable from one perspective. Over 90% of Americans are anti-war intrinsically, and less than 5% or so at most would call themselves pacifists. That leaves everyone else deciding when, in the context of whatever big picture is being looked at at the moment, accepting continuing American deaths through combat is warranted. That is the only question that demands a clear and unequivocal answer.

[IndianaGreen]

176. US invasion of Iraq is on same moral plane as Iraq's invasion of Kuwait

From a moral, religious, and ethical standpoint, American troops are cast in the same role as the German troops that invaded Poland, or the Japanese troops that invaded China. Our armies are the armies of aggression, not liberation. Our armies are the armies of an evil empire in quest of conquering and controlling other nations' natural resources. There is only one fate reserved for such armies: defeat and the scorn of future generations!

Whatever one may think of the individual warrior, collectively they are part of the war machine of an aggressive country and they will obey orders no matter how criminal those orders are. The pages of our own nation's history are filled with events in which troops were used to put down strikes, peaceful marches, etc. Liberty has been paid in blood, but it has been the blood of the workers and civilian activists that was shed on our soil to gain our freedoms. The military, with the exception of WWII, has never stood for freedom or democracy either in this country or elsewhere. That's a point that seems missed by the militarists and military worshipers in both major parties!

The late Pope John Paul II sent a Cardinal as his personal emissary to George Bush. The Pope's message was short and blunt: go into Iraq and you will do so without G-d!

The US invasion of Iraq is on the same moral plane as Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. The world demanded the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all Iraqi troops from Kuwait. Nothing less would do! The world is now demanding the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all US and British troops from Iraq. Nothing less will do!

[dogman]

179. When Iraq left Kuwait there was a government to restore rule.

Do we release Saddam and return him to power?

[IndianaGreen]

180. Do you want Iraq under the yoke of theocracy?

Our troops will be in the middle of a civil war, a war in which we have sided with those that want to turn Iraq into another Iran. Is that what you want?

We have been raping Iraq for years, it is time for us to go and leave Iraq in peace!

Pope John Paul II calls War a Defeat for Humanity: Neoconservative Iraq Just War Theories Rejected

by Mark and Louise Zwick

John Paul II has sought to distance the Catholic Church from George Bush's idea of the manifest Christian destiny of the United States, and especially to avoid the appearance of a clash of Christian civilization against Islam. Zenit reported that in his Easter Sunday message this year John Paul II "implored for the world's deliverance from the peril of the tragic clash between cultures and religions." The Pope also sent his message to terrorists: "Let there be an end to the chain of hatred and terrorism which threatens the orderly development of the human family." As he had done in his invitation to religious leaders from many faiths to Assisi at the beginning of 2002, he reached out again to leaders of other religions: "May faith and love of God make the followers of every religion courageous builders of under-standing and forgiveness, patient weavers of a fruitful inter-religious dialogue, capable of inaugurating a new era of justice and peace."

Catholic World News quoted the Latin-rite Bishop of Baghdad, Bishop Jean-Benjamin Sleimaan as saying in the Italian daily La Repubblica that the Pope's high-profile opposition to a war on Iraq has helped to avoid a sort of Manichaeism that would set up an opposition between the West and the East, in which Christianity is linked to the West and Islam to the East.

While the Iraqi War II turned out to be "short," violations of "just war" principles abounded. Bombing included such targets as an open market and a hotel where the world's journalists were staying. While most television and newspaper reports in the United States minimized coverage of deaths and injuries to the Iraqi people, reports of many civilian casualties did come out. CBS news reported on April 7 stories of civilians pouring into hospitals in Baghdad, threatening to over-whelm medical staff, and the damage inflicted by bombs which targeted homes: "The old, the young, men and women alike, no one has been spared. One hospital reported receiving 175 wounded by midday. A crater is all that remains of four families and their homes-obliterated by a massive bomb that dropped from the sky without warning in the middle afternoon." The Canadian press carried a Red Cross report of "incredible" levels of civilian casualties from Nasiriyah, of a truckload of dismembered women and children arriving at the hospital in Hilla from that village, their deaths the result of "bombs, projectiles."

As talk escalated about a U. S. attack on Iraq, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Prefect of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, began stating unequivocally that "The concept of a 'preventive war' does not appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church." His comments had been published as early as September 2002 and were repeated several times as war seemed imminent.

http://www.cjd.org/paper/jp2war.html

[Totally Committed]

182. It doesn't matter what we "want"...

Bush's war has all but guaranteed that that's what there will be as a government in that country. It will end up being whatever that country decides "democratically" -- we will have no say, whatsoever. And leaving now or leaving months from now will not change it.

None of us here wants that, but there is nothing we can do to prevent it. NOTHING. Bush is the villain on that score, not us.

TC

[IndianaGreen]

183. The more reason why we should pull the troops out now!

Nothing we do will matter. Iraq will end like Vietnam, with the US leaving in a hurry and with those that collaborated with us trying to flee for their lives.

[Totally Committed]

185. From MTP this morning:

MR. RUSSERT: General Clark, you wrote an op-ed piece for The Washington Post on Friday and I want to cite it and come back and talk about it. "Before It's Too Late in Iraq. The growing chorus of voices demanding a pullout should seriously alarm the Bush administration, because President Bush and his team are repeating the failure of Vietnam: failing to craft a realistic and infective policy and instead simply demanding that the American people show resolve. Resolve isn't enough to mend a flawed approach--or to save the lives of our troops. If the administration won't adopt a winning strategy, then the American people will be justified in demanding that it bring our troops home."

GEN. CLARK: Exactly. And it starts with the intent and the purposes, the mind-set of the administration when it went into Iraq. This administration went into Iraq as this was the first of a number of states that it was going to knock off, get leadership change in, maybe even move military forces against. They expected to be welcomed as liberators. Then they refused to really construct a diplomatic dialogue in the region. For us to succeed in Iraq, we've got to deal with Iraq's neighbors. You cannot isolate Iraq from its neighborhood. Iraq's neighbors are part of the problem, and they've got to be part of the solution. That means we're going to have to talk to Syria and Iran and Turkey and Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and the best thing to do is to try to get them all together in a step-by-step process so that there can be a regional dialogue. If we can put a regional dialogue together on top of the political process that's going on in Iraq, then maybe we've got a chance. Without that, then it's in the interest of every one of those states to fight inside Iraq for their own interests. So the Iranians pull their faction in Iraq one way. The Syrians and the Saudis work on the Sunnis to do what they want. And this state is getting ripped apart from the outside. We want to help put that state together, we've got to work with Iraq's neighbors.

MR. RUSSERT: Why is it in Iran or Syria's interests to help us? Why not let the current status quo continue and they can take full advantage of having a radical Islamic state in Iraq, which is fueled by terrorism who can help destroy the United States?

GEN. CLARK: Well, it's up to U.S. diplomacy to find those elements of common interest. And here's the way I'd it. If you look at Iran, what they want is a Shia-dominated buffer state in Iraq. After all, they were invaded by Iraq once. They see this as an historic opportunity to advance the cause of Shia Islam. That's exactly what the Saudis and the Kuwaitis and other Gulf states don't want. And so between those two diverging points of views, we could pull together the common interests, broker the compromises, work the arrangements, and craft a state in Iraq that meets everybody's concerns in the regions and gives the Iraqi people the kind of self-determination and regional support that they're going to need.

MR. RUSSERT: Was it a mistake to go into Iraq?

GEN. CLARK: Well, I think it was a strategic blunder. First it wasn't connected to the war on terror, at least not to the people that struck us. Secondly, it has proved a huge recruitment tool for al-Qaeda. It's a feed lot for terrorists who want to learn how to fight Americans. We put our American soldiers at risk there. And we're producing terrorists out there. It's a training ground. And seeing American soldiers engaged there just raises the temperature and the blood pressure throughout the Islamic world. So I wish we hadn't done it. But having said that, I still believe there's an opportunity to make the best of a bad situation in Iraq. I don't want to see us come out of there if we can put a strategy together that will leave that region more peaceful and protect our interests and the interests of the other nations.

MR. RUSSERT: Would Iraq have been more stable with Saddam Hussein?

GEN. CLARK: I think we could have worked against Saddam Hussein in a different way. We hadn't exhausted the diplomatic process. We hadn't finished squeezing him. There were lots of different moves we could have put on Saddam Hussein and maintained the focus on Afghanistan, where we've still got significant problems. We really haven't addressed the issues of Pakistan yet. We really haven't worked the whole arrangement of militant Wahabism coming out of Saudi Arabia, the funding, the ideology. If we're going to succeed in the war on terror, we have to succeed first on an ideological basis. It's about persuading people that they don't want to feel this way and that they shouldn't feel this way. It's about changing minds before it's about killing people.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9064938/

TC

[Tom Rinaldo]

184. Given your view your position makes sense, but...

That is not my view. I do not even believe that one can state with any certainty that the majority of Iraq citizens want an immediate and unconditional withdrawal of US and British troops, let alone "the world". I recognize that a substantial number of Iraq citizens would back an immediate U.S and British unconditional withdrawal, but I believe that a majority would not, though part of that group would include Iraq citizens who want clear assurances of when the U.S. and British will withdraw, including some who would demand a specific deadline. This is a fluid situation and the number of Iraq citizens who want an immediate withdrawal fluctuates and may be growing.

We agree that it was a terrible mistake for the U.S. to invade Iraq the way it did. WE have introduced deadly chaos into their nation. Virtually all Iraq citizens agree that they want the U.S. out of Iraq as soon as possible, (there are exceptions among the 20% of Kurds who see the U.S. as protecting their cultural and political viability from Iraq Arab domination), the debate is only on the interpretation

[LandOLincoln]

160. Excellent, TC. I'd only add that, although I haven't had time

to do anything but a quick perusal of both plans, so far the only major difference I see is that Russ wants a date certain and Wes advises against it.

No offense to Russ, but on matters of strategy I'll put my trust in Wes the professional and former J5.

And Clark/Feingold '08 is looking better and better all the time, isn't it?

[FrenchieCat]

163. I read the two links that you put up on Feingold's Iraq position,

and what Russ Feingold did was a critique on what is currently happening with Bush and his war, and then he set a deadline that is 1 1/2 years away. But he did not offer up a alternate Iraq plan, as Wes Clark did.

I'm not sure what Feingold is suggesting should be done for that year and a half, prior to the troops leaving......because in what he writes, he is asking the President to come up with a plan and present it to congress...
My resolution does not dictate deadlines or dates certain. And it does request flexible timeframes for achieving our goals in Iraq rather than imposing any, because drawing up timeframes is best and most appropriately left to the Administration, in consultation with military leaders. And, of course, any timeframe has to be flexible -- there are variables that will affect how quickly various missions can be accomplished. But it's hard to conceive of an effective strategic plan that isn't linked to some timeframes. That is what the Administration needs to share.
snip
Mr. President, it is also clear that we must not accept a false choice between supporting the status quo in Iraq and "cutting and running." The status quo -- staying a rudderless course without a clear destination -- would be a mistake. The course we are on is not leading to strength. In fact, Mr. President, I am concerned that it is making America weaker and our enemies stronger. --Russ Feingold
http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/releases/05/07/Iraqstatement.htm

"Intense American diplomatic and political engagement in and support for Iraq will likely last long after the troops' mission is accomplished and they are withdrawn. I expect that we will continue some important degree of military and security cooperation with the Iraqis, as we work with them and with others around the world to combat terrorist networks, whether they are operating in Iraq or Afghanistan or England," said Feingold.

"But it's almost as if talking about completing the mission in Iraq has become 'taboo,'" said Feingold. "It's time for senators and Members of Congress, especially those from my own party, to be less timid whilethis Administration neglects urgent national security priorities in favor of staying a flawed policy course in Iraq.http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/releases/05/08/iraqwithdraw.html

Wes Clark gave a plausible plan that could be acted on right now, but it won't. He also profers up a critique of what has occurred up to this point, and has stated that if the course is not changed, then the only alternate left will be a pull out.

I don't see any points of disagreement between Clark and Feingold. In fact I see what they are saying basically the same thing and are more in concert with each other than with the rest of the Democratic crew.

What's your take, Indiana Green. I'm curious as to what you see as the difference with their approaches, and if you feel they are at odds or are pretty much sending a similar message?

[LandOLincoln]

167. Here's Feingold again, from a link on Buzzflash:

"We have to go on the offensive to show the American people that we're not afraid to disagree," Feingold said.

He said he believes that an immediate withdrawal does not make military sense but that the public needs reassurance that the Iraq operation is moving purposefully toward completion. "We need to talk in Congress about this more openly and freely," Feingold said. "There's a rudderless quality that is making people nervous."
(Emphasis added)

http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/5579747.html

Sure looks to me as though Wes and Russ are on the same page, only Wes--as befits his training and experience--has come up with a specific plan, while Russ has simply expressed the need for one.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

164. Thank God for Wes Clark!