Rank the Generals--MTP today--only one deserves a star

[Gloria]

Clark was the only one with real guts today on MTP--Here are the rankings/review


Clark was the only one of the generals to take it to Bushco's phoney foreign policy and the only one without the "happy scenario" for the next year or so....

Let's rank the generals:


Downing--admitted he was a a former member of the Buscho Admin., and kept trying to say he wasn't political in his comments (once in an obvious slam at Clark). But over and over, it was all sunshine for Downing and he was the most optimistic of all...Bigtime Bushco shill.

Meigs--favored going in, more balanced than Downing, but still less critical that McCaffrey or Clark. Happy face for a year or so out.

McCaffrey--favored going in, slammed Bushco pretty much across the board, publicly agreed with Clark on a couple of things, but in the end, he turned on the happy face for a year or so out, which was sort of a jolt!

Clark--Strongly stood by his WaPo oped from yesterday as quoted; Stuck his neck out to go after Bushco "diplomacy" (Downing countered him); explained clearly what diplomacy is supposed to be, ie,
getting the states around Iraq into discussion; explained all the tensions in the area; brought up the 2006 politics of withdrawal first; and then saw continued strife over the next year or so. Said the Admin. would fudge it all for 2006, declaring the mess a win, but pointed out that we had to look 5 or 10 years out before knowing what was left. Brought up Afghanistan, too. Also said that the military guys who didn't fight Rummy were COMPLICIT in the policy...said military guys who disagree strongly will retire or resign...implication was that that didin't happen.

Clearly positioned himself STRONGLY apart from the rest of them and obviously was the "black sheep".

WINNER hands down: CLARK for clarity, long range vision, and willingness to take on the politics of Bushco.


At the beginning of the show, Clark was introduced first, then later, Downig. I noticed later that under Clark, later in the show, the ID was "FOX News Analyst." While I wasn't overly pleased with some of his early bits on FAUX, and haven't been able to catch the most recent ones, I did relish the fact that here was the FOX analyst doing the real slamming against BUSHCO. I was SO HAPPY to see Clark NOT deliver a softened line to please anybody over at FAUX!!

He was BRILLIANT!

[still_one]

1. I agree on your evaluation, Clark definitely on the right side

problem I have, was that his solution calls for more diplomacy in his open letter, and it is much to late for that. In fact we are a catalyst for violence there now. The sooner we realize this, and leave the better off everyone will be

[Gloria]

2. Yes, he was VERY CLEAR in stating that Iraq was now a

hotbed of terrorist training......

[FrenchieCat]

5. Diplomacy is needed no matter what.....

doncha think?

Even if there was an "immediate" pull out...do you really think that diplomacy will never be needed.

Do we let the world explode into WWIII and act like we ain't got nothin' to do with it.

Diplomacy when used as it should be is always a winning tool to have in your arsenal. Period.

[still_one]

9. yes it should, but we are NOT the honest broker

The United Nations should take over

[FrenchieCat]

13. But that cannot be a criticism of Clark.....

That has to be a criticism of the current administration....

BTW, Clark agrees with you that this administration is not an honest broker.

[still_one]

19. valid point

[Texas_Kat]

10. One of the Generals said "he was sure...

there was 'diplomacy' going on behind the scenes...."

Clarks response:

Secondly, with regard to diplomacy, I've talked to members on the NSC staff. I know they're not doing the diplomacy. Going to the Iranians and asking them not to help their side is not the kind of contact I'm talking about. I'm talking about having something like a contact group which we set up in the Balkans at the diplomatic level, at the representational level, in public where you can get nations' interests out on the table, where you can talk about regional issues, including trade and travel, you know, tourism, visiting Najaf, where the airport are going to be. All of these are regional concerns, and they need to be dealt with in an open fashion.

It's not just about cutting off the supply of weapons or the flow of jihaddists, although that's part of it. This administration needs to bite the bullet and say, "Look, we're in a part of the world where there are going to be people that we wouldn't necessarily run their countries the way they're doing it. But they are the governments, and we're going to talk to them even if we don't agree with everything they say." It's up to us find areas of common interest and try to work this.

Negotiate with people you may not like.... what a concept!

Bush's problem has alway been that he can't stand to look in the eyes of those who disagree with him.

[still_one]

11. I definitely have no issue with that, but I think we have lost all

credibility as an honest broker, and it is time for someone else to take over

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. This may sound odd but

Actually I think a lot of our military officers in the field in Iraq DO have credibility at the local level. These men and women are known players to a lot of the local leaders over there.

This will be a strange comparison but somehow I think it is apt. I've studied the history of the American Indian Wars during the 19th century. Often it was the Generals and Lieutenants who had the best lines of communications open with Tribal leaders. There was often even grudging mutual respect. Those people were most motivated to work something out if possible (not counting the ladder climbing over dead Indian's Backs kind) that would avoid the need for continuing bloodshed. Usually it was the civilian leadership coming from Washington that undermined the integrity of positive negotiations that were possible at the field level.

I think Bosnia and Kosovo could be models for U.S. involvement. THe U.S. did and does take a peace keeping leadership role on the ground in many cases, but it was/is under the umbrella of international institutions. I would love it if the United Nations was a stronger body than it is, and I do strongly favor the United States working through the United Nations, but even putting aside for a second all the bluster that comes from Washington regarding the UN and the reaction there to it, the U.S. remains an important part of the United Nations. So I am not really disagreeing, just saying that the U.S. would need to stay in the mix at least for a transition period even with vastly increased U.N. involvement, which I would support if the U.N. was willing to go there.

[still_one]

18. I hope you are right, but Abu Garib(sic), and the civillian deaths

caused by our bombs I think will make it quite difficult

Assumming that you are correct, I find it very doubtful if this administration will compromise on anything

[Tom Rinaldo]

23. Well, I agree with you on your points,

You know that most of the problems at Abu Ghraib (not all but most) can be traced back to civilian interference in standard military practices, starting with Rumsfeld and Gonzalez of course, but on the field level it was the imported civilian contractors who introduced the disregard for basic human rights into interrogation techniques. After it blew up in our faces and military specialists were allowed to reassert more direct hands on control inside Iraq prisons the rate of abuses fell dramatically.

Civilian deaths caused by bombs certainly will permanently alienate many Iraq citizens, but it is not a given that it will permanently alienate most of them. In Afghanistan there was widespread acceptance by many civilians when U.S. force accidental killed civilians who actually supported us. People wanted the Taliban out of power and knew that war is a very blunt tool. The history of Colonialism has many examples of peoples who suffered terribly under colonialism who very quickly after Independence established reasonably good working relations with their former Colonial "masters", if they believed that their legitimate national self interests could be advanced by doing so.

Honestly the biggest sticking point I believe is your third one, a doubt that this Administration will compromise on anything.

[still_one]

24. yes, I do know, titan corporation and others

the problem is none of them have been held accountable, probably because they had authorization from the bush administration

[Totally Committed]

3. General Clark was outstanding.

Yes, I am a Clark supporter. But, even when you support a candidate, there are some days when they are just better than others. Today was one of Wes's best days.

Normally, I watch him, and hear him say things I agree with, but today he actually said things that left me cheering. He was so righteous, and so honest. His passion was obvious. He pulled no punches. He came out looking all the more like a hero to me.

Thanks for the very insightful "ranking". To my mind, Wes was definitely #1, the rest were all just no match.

TC

[MADem]

4. Sadly, the real winner was none other than

General Electric, the NBC overseer. Russert did a shitty job, he softballed the questions, he did not punch or push like he does when the guy on the hotseat is a Dean or a Kerry, and he let people get away without answering.

General Electric, hands down...

NBC Universal (80%-owned by GE, 20% controlled by Vivendi Universal)

[FrenchieCat]

7. The overall winner is always the powerful media....

But that doesn't mean that we lay down and die, does it?

I think that Wes Clark did a remarkable job considering a 3 against 1 odd, and 4 against 1 if you add Russert (although Russert did better than I have seen him in the past).

[MADem]

12. Of those at the table, Clark did the best

He spoke cogently, he had on the best suit, his pancake was not too-too, his hair was right on the mark (you may laugh at these minor notes, but these things, if not done right, are a source of distraction for sheep). But at the end of the day, the whole exercise was lame, low level of heat, same watery light--Timmy TwoShoes had an agenda, and his questions were softballs, simply because he did not FORCE answers like he does with those from the People's side of the aisle.

That is why, imo, General Electric was the winner....

As far as laying down and dying, of COURSE not--but I don't live and die by what happens on that 'Meet Tim Russert' shill show, in any event!!!

[FourStarDemocrat]

6. Four Stars for Gen. Wes Clark!

Clark was insightful, informative, and articulate. He gave a cogent, brilliant analysis.. good roundtable discussion by all the Generals, however Clark was the only one out of the four to stress the need for diplomacy in the region in order to counteract the pulling of Iraq from all sides in order to prevent civil war.

[niallmac]

8. Clark is someone I could warm up to.

I simply do not trust Hillary when it comes to bucking the popularity headwinds and that's what I call leadership.

[Totally Committed]

35. niallmac, Wes is the real deal!

If this Party has any smarts at all, he will be the nominee. (Should he run, of course... ;) )

TC

[niallmac]

37. I am ever hopeful.

Right now he is eloquent and up front. The real test of a leader is when they officially throw their hat into the ring. The money starts to come in and big money starts to ask that you 'remember them' and the strategists with their noses in every poll every second of the day could care less about principals and core values. I'm a big core value guy. You have to believe in them and stick with them and not go wobbly when the sun doesn't shine occasionally.

[Catchawave]

14. I saw the show.....

Weren't they all armchair General Quarterbacking? Though, I did agree with Gen Clark's comments more. Water under the bridge if the Bushies won't pay attention :(

With hopes they dug into Rummy enough to make a difference in the mission statement for Iraq.

[FrenchieCat]

16. That's what the freepers were saying.....

calling Clark an Armchair Quarterback. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1472161/posts

That's a silly thing to say. These men have the experience and the ability to articulate what is going on. Who else can do that?

Water under the bridge? What about 2006.....will Iraq be an issue?

If it is (and it certainly will be)....then it is not water under the bridge...is is framing the issue that we may be able to use to win back our country.

Water under the bridge indeed! :shrug:

[Catchawave]

20. Nah, that's what Russert said....and they all bumbled ~nt

[FrenchieCat]

21. You are too much....

on another thread, you are pushing Edwards in '08...and when I asked you for his Iraq plan....you failed to give me one...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2041400&mesg_id=2041632

But yet, "they all bumbled"?

Please, your colors are showing.

[Adelante]

17. Gloria's happy

:D

"I did relish the fact that here was the FOX analyst doing the real slamming against BUSHCO. I was SO HAPPY to see Clark NOT deliver a softened line to please anybody over at FAUX!!"

I am happy, too. :)

[Gloria]

26. HA, HA! WesDem....Clark's been better in the straight

Q and A in the mornings (the few I saw live and on video) as opposed to a couple of times with Hannity/O'Reilly at the beginning which had me wondering.

Anyway, to see today without question that he has NOT sold himself out to FAUX-think really made my day!!

[capi888]

22. We Need REAL LEADERSHIP !

WKC, fills the bill, he has the experience as SCOTUS, to end this fiasco that BushCo has put the World's Peace at Risk. Also, UNLESS this War is ended, we will NEVER be able to achieve the goals here in the U.S. Economy,Jobs,Healthcare, will all be under the table, as the Civil War in Iraq, plus, intervention in Iran, North Korea, progresses!
We need a LEADER, that has had the experience, solved these types of problems, has not been born with a silver spoon, is not a Washington Insider, and Loves his Country and the People in it. Not withstanding, he NEVER supported us going to War with Iraq...has said it over and over. Also, has very positive relationships abroad with Leaders of Countries.
We are in a terrible mess, in my opinion! I will support WKC as the leader to find the way OUT of this MESS!
I respect the others that may run for President, their ideas, but have to think about WHO is intellectually and experienced,to solve the problems we face in the future, both abroad and at home!

[Gloria]

25. Re: US not being an "honest broker"---I really believe that if we

had a President in there in 2008 who actually had close, working ties with Europe, they would rally around and formulate a revitalized foreign policy and the US would also regain its crediblity. A President who was not out to destroy the U.N., either.

The only one with that experience is Clark. I don't see any Republican OR Democrat at this point who has those kind of credentials and depth of experience. And don't forget, Clark also knows the Korea situation, too.

Democrats should wise up and start grooming him and forget the Bidens of the world and the DLCers in general.

[Clark2008]

39. Problem is that the Democratic Party doesn't want to

groom someone who refuses to be beholden to big business.

The Party needs to be gutted, if you ask me. Howard Dean is a step in the right direction, but he can't do it alone.

[BillORightsMan]

27. Meet the Press repeat & transcript

In case you missed MTP this morning, you can catch it tonite at 10 PM and 1 AM EASTERN on MSNBC - Check your local listings to be sure.

Also, The full transcript is already up (if you want to peek)

MTP Transcript for August 28
U.S. Amb. to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad on the new Iraqi constitution. Then analysis of the war with Gen. Wesley Clark (Ret.), Gen. Wayne Downing (Ret.), Gen. Barry McCaffrey (Ret.) & Gen. Montgomery Meigs (Ret.).

I wonder how many "stars" were on that set? Clark has Four Stars; how about the rest?

Clark was outstanding and did a fine job of pointing out (again) that going into Iraq was "a strategic blunder". Even Meigs took a stab at that point later, saying, "I think we are all citizens frustrated by the fact that the precepts upon which this war was ostensibly based proved to be wrong. And I think the historians will tear that apart when the proper documents are finally declassified in a decade or two."

I don't want to wait 10-20 years for the Historians! Let's get bu$hco held accountable NOW! (my 2¢, fwiw)

:patriot:

[cheeto]

28. What the transcript doesn't say...

is the expression on Wes Clark's face when Gen. Downing said he didn't agree with Wes that there was no diplomacy happening.

Priceless.

yellowdogdem.com/expression.WMV (3 MG)

[Totally Committed]

29. OMG...

:rofl:

I didn't notice it first time around! Wes looks like he wants to break something. What masterful control, but, oh, the face is priceless!

:rofl:

TC

[LandOLincoln]

31. LOL! A friend of mine called me from the east coast to

make sure I didn't miss that moment. Boy, was she right.

Can't wait to catch the reruns on MSNBC.

[Sparkly]

30. LOL!!

He all BUT rolled his eyes!! (Remember the Bill Maher show, with David Frum, I think it was? He had that expression nearly the whole time.) :rofl:

[judy from nj]

33. Thanks for that

That was priceless. I think Downing really feels overmatched by Wes.

[newyawker99]

38. Hi cheeto!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Gloria]

32. Hey the Iranian FM agrees with Clark!! today's IRNA news....

along with our best buds in Kuwait....

http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-24/0508288543181807.htm

Iranian, Kuwaiti foreign ministers study situation in Iraq
Tehran, Aug 28, IRNA


Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki and his Kuwaiti counterpart Sheikh Muhammad Sabah al-Salim as-Sabah on Sunday held talks on current situation in neighboring Iraq and piping drinking water from Iran to Kuwait.

The two foreign ministers also exchanged views on developments on the oil market and cooperation within Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).

They emphasized establishment of security in Iraq with the Kuwaiti foreign minister saying that foreign ministers of Iraqi neighboring states would hold a meeting to study ways to help restore security to Iraq.

Mottaki said that Iraqi police should be strengthened to overcome the elements involved in weakening Iraqi security and that the Iraqi people should be helped to administer their national affairs.

He said that long presence of foreign troops in Iraq will not help stability of the country.

"The neighboring states should hold consultations for a collective decision on regional security and cooperate to this end," Mottaki said.

MORE

[Gloria]

34. Clark's WaPo oped on Iraq picked up by GulfNewsOnline, UAE.....

http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/OpinionNF.asp?ArticleID=179103

[win_in_06]

36. Sadly, all of the Generals envision us being there for years to come