Village Voice: Wesley Clark Sketches Iraq Exit, Rangel Talks Impeachment

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

Wesley Clark Sketches an Exit Plan for Iraq
Meanwhile, Charles Rangel talks impeachment
by Sarah Ferguson
September 23rd, 2005 10:54 PM

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0539,fergusonclar,68194,2.html



On Friday, Sheehan appeared on a Congressional Black Caucus breakfast panel with General Wesley Clark, the former NATO commander and presidential hopeful, who was there to address the issue of whether the U.S. can “win” the war in Iraq.

“We’re involved in a war that we didn’t have to fight. That’s the simple truth,” Clark said. “Now it’s in trouble, deep trouble. I wish it was just as simple as saying, Mr. President, you made a mistake, get those troops out now." The trouble is, he continued, that the Islamic extremists “really do want to attack us. Getting out of Iraq will be a great defeat for us unless we do it in the right way.” Clark said the anti-war movement should demand that Bush establish a “regional dialogue with other Arab states, including people we don’t like, like Syria and Iran,” and focus on “changing the minds and cutting off the recruiting” of those now blowing up tanks and buses in Iraq. “We need to turn off the flow of weapons and fighters going into Iraq and turn off the invective and fears and create a climate where the Iraqis don’t need to fight each other,” he said. “And then we can come home.”

Speaking of the expected 100,000 strong anti-war march on Saturday, Clark told Sheehan and the other military families arrayed in the audience that they should “march with the flag, because this is about the future of America.” It was all too much for Carlos Arredondo of Roslindale, Massachusetts, who lost his 20-year-old son in Iraq. He ran up to the podium holding a hand-lettered “IMPEACH” sign. Clark smiled and shook his head. “This should not be a partisan issue,” he said. “America is only strong when we come together. This is really about changing the direction this country is heading in. We have to bring people together from all walks of life.”

At this, Charles Rangel, the moderator, stepped in: “I’ve been here 35 years, and I know impeachment when I see it,” said the New York congressman. “If the president knew there were no weapons of mass destruction and knew there was no connection between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, and if the president knew the Iraqis were not involved in the attack on the twin towers and still allowed our nation to believe that we had to invade Iraq for it, then I’m a lawyer and a former federal prosecutor, and these are impeachable offenses,” he said, to a burst of applause from the audience.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

1. My God! That picture!

Is that for real? Look at his eyes - he looks like Crazy Guggenheim.

[Frederik]

2. He's drunk

BTW, Go Rangel!

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

3. Yes, unfortunately, that picture is 100% real.

:scared:

:evilgrin:

[Donna Zen]

4. If only 'murica could see him without the makeup

n/t

[Totally Committed]

5. ROTFLMAO....

:rofl:

Donna, you kill me.

(It's even better because it's TRUE!)

:rofl:

TC

[Independent_Liberal]

6. Kick!

[welshTerrier2]

7. i really disagree with Clark's position on Iraq ...

Clark argues that we should push for a regional dialog with other Arab states including Syria and Iran ... i think that's great ... and he argues that we should work to turn off the flow of weapons and fighters going into Iraq ... well, that's fine too ...

but these ideas cannot succeed as long as the US is viewed as an imperialist occupation force ... and no "dialog" is going to change the hearts and minds of people in the Middle East anytime soon ... the US has been an abuser in the Middle East as far back as FDR if not before ... we assassinated Mossadeq in Iran ... we installed the tyrannical Shah ... we supported the tyrannical Saddam ... we invaded Iraq on a pack of lies ... we've propped up the hideous royal family in Saudi Arabia for decades ... and rightly or wrongly, US support for Israel is a major source of hatred for the US in the region ...

the US has squandered its good will and built a horrible reputation throughout the Middle East ... the idea that we could have bush convene a "dialog" to build credibility for any kind of peace or stability process, let alone democracy, while we continue to be imperialist occupiers is frankly absurd ... and to make matters worse, Clark supports the building of US military bases in the country ... he justifies this by arguing they are needed to safeguard American troops ... i can't think of a worse signal we could send to those worried about permanent American military occupation ...

I appreciate Clark's sincerity in looking for solutions in Iraq ... i think his ideas were exactly what was needed after the first Gulf war ... support from the region at that time should have been built upon ... unfortunately, greed and oil got in the way ...

the problem i have with General Clark's position, at least to the extent it is explained in the BP, is that General Clark seems unwilling to recognize the extent to which the US does not hold the moral suasion to drive any kind of negotiating process ... any path to peace or stability needs to start with the end of US occupation ... no one in the Middle East is going to trust the US or its motives while we continue to impose our will inside Iraq ... and furthermore, it is NOT at all clear that negotiating at a government to government level will resolve the infiltration issues either ... if we can't get Tehran to abandon its nuclear program, what makes General Clark believe we could get the Iranians to side with the US on quelling the violence inside Iraq ... you build good diplomatic relationships by respecting national sovereignty; not by invading and becoming a long-term occupation force ...

the solution to Iraq begins with withdrawal ... after that, we should look at the kind of regional negotiating framework, driven by the UN not the US, that Clark is calling for ... we cannot gain trust and act as neutral "umpires" when we're one of the teams in the game ...

sorry, Clarkies ... that's the way i see it ...

[Texas_Kat]

8. You have an interesting perspective

... but I think Clark's proposal to convene essentially a 'summit' is not with the 'man on the street' in the Middle East, but rather with the leadership of Iraq's neighbors.

You're right in believing that such a discussion will not change the man on the street's opinion much, but apparently he is convinced that the leadership of Syria, Saudi, Jordan etc are open to discussion and that the Bush junta is ignoring diplomatic signals to open that discussion.

I'd take his opinion seriously since there are reports that he has personally had discussions in his various trips overseas with some of those people in leadership positions in the ME (though probably not at the highest level).