Concord Article on Clark's statement

[slinkerwink]

"If I'm president of the United States, I'm going to take care of the American people," Clark said in a meeting with the Monitor editorial board. "We are not going to have one of these incidents." Clark, a retired Army general, envisioned a future in which Americans "have more confidence in ourselves as a people." He continued: "Nothing is going to hurt this country - not bioweapons, not a nuclear weapon, not a terrorist strike - there is nothing that can hurt us if we stay united and move together and have a vision for moving to the future the right way."

Former U.S. senator Warren Rudman of New Hampshire led a bipartisan commission that warned a year ago that the country remains at risk of a terrorist plot. And former U.S. senator Sam Nunn, a member of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, told a college convention in Manchester yesterday that the risk of a biological attack remains high.

Told of Clark's remarks, Dr. Michael Osterholm, an epidemiologist who appeared with Nunn, said he was troubled by Clark's certainty. "I'm looking to leaders today who are not out there trying to unnecessarily scare the public. But I think it's equally dangerous to try to reassure the public," said Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease and Research at the University of Minnesota. "We have to tell the truth, and the truth of the matter is that America still remains vulnerable."

…

North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, one of Clark's rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination, also met with the Monitor editorial board yesterday. When a Monitor editor read Clark's comments regarding the inevitability of 9/11 or a future attack, Edwards called Clark's comments overstated.

…

http://concordmonitor.com/stories/front200...0904_2004.shtml

[SahaleArm]

1. Dean - When I'm president we're going to have another 9/11 so vote for me?

This is a dupe.

[OrAnarch]

15. Im pretty concerned more about how we are going to react to them...

And how we are going to prevent them liberalistically by taking away incentives to become terrorists.


My only problem with Clark's statement is it suggests frankly that he may not fully understand the nature of terrorism or how to truly combat it on a global scale, which believe it or not, doesn't require military intervention. Just the tough guy approach gets under my skin. At least he didn't say, "Bring it on!" Kudos for that!!!

[SahaleArm]

21. Don't react fix the foreign policy first - If we don't...

then we'll be reacting for the next 100 years. I consider his statement to be optomistic rather than bombastic.

[OrAnarch]

22. Reactions are included in our foreign policy. :)

Its part of our policy how we reacted imperialistically after 9/11, etc. Its important to me we do not do that and create more chaos. A quick change wont automatically eliminate all threat period, so our reactions must always be considered in a utilitarian fashion. There is no way to gaurentee it will never happen in the next 8 years no matter who is elected and what is done, so we must prepare to react correctly if it does. We cannot erase decades of bad foreign policy in amonth from many peopel's minds, especially when our nation has become a symbol, so it is foolish to think any action at this point eliminates for sure the threat.


But yes, in the long run, much has to do with changing our foreign policies and establishing a global liberalistic social contract, in which poorer world citizens have incentives to follow rules in which we profit inproportionally from. I do not neccessarily see Clark doing such personally.

[SahaleArm]

25. The problem is much greater because of our current economic dependency...

On non-renewable natural resources and it's not just oil. The other problem is that Republicans, who represent 1% of the population, have duped the rest into keeping them in power. None of this can be fixed overnight; it'll take a few decades. The idea that if we withdrew from abroad today and dropped all trade we would fix all of America's ills is naive at best. It's also naive to believe that without capital third-world countries will come up to US/Euro standards in standards. National goals for the next century has to address each of these issues.

[mmonk]

2. I'm still looking

for all the controversy:shrug:

[in_cog_ni_to]

3. 3rd thread on same subject. n/t

[returnable]

4. Hey, Hep...

See what I mean? :hi:

[mmonk]

6. What do you mean?

[Hep]

9. We were sharing our frustration

with these kinds of posts.

[mmonk]

12. ahh

I can relate.

[returnable]

13. In another thread...

...on this very topic, a Dean supporter said that if Dean had made such a comment, the forum would have multiple threads discussing it as a gaffe.

I was just pointing out that the Dean campaign isn't the only one that has to deal with the same issue ad nauseum on these boards :hi:

[Hep]

8. Yep

I'm right below ya!

[returnable]

14. Ah, there you are...

By the way, congrats on the Harkin nod :toast:

[maddezmom]

5. dupe

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=91151&mesg_id=91151

[Hep]

7. We don't need this

story to further our movement. I'm down with the underlying commentary you are making though I don't think people are getting it. I'd be a hypocrite though if I didn't tell you that I'm no fan of this strategy.

[w13rd0]

17. I'm no fan of it either...

...but I'm "angry", ya know...

[Lobo_13]

10. Obviously Clark is pandering

He can't actually promise this, so why would someone who is purportedly so upright and concientous lying and making promises that he can't deliver on?

I tell you, this is only the tip of the iceberg.

[dave29]

11. The biggest lie...

"The biggest lie people like me tell people like you is that if you vote for me, I'm going to solve all your problems" - Howard Dean

[returnable]

16. Man, this is kind of sad...

In another thread on this very topic that YOU started, Clark supporters explained how he wasn't guaranteeing there'd be no more terrorist attacks, just that his administration would not indulge the same kind of intelligence failures of the Bush administration.

And you acknowledged the statement was clarified to your satisfaction:

"Still think this wasn't one of his brighter statements - but in the context of how good Dean or Clark or really any of the Dems will be on National Security compared to Bush - he's absolutely right about the failures of this administration."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=90135&mesg_id=90476&page=


So why do you fan the flames now with this Dean quote, the sole intention being to imply Clark is lying about what he can do in the name of national security? :shrug:

[dave29]

18. because

I truly believe it wasn't a very bright statement. I agreed with and appreciated Clark's supporters answers to my questions about the Patriot Act (which is where my concerns with Clark center) - but I still thought his generic statement was a mistake. A big one. You can't go around making promises like that. Positive vision, yes. Better results, yes. Promise the absolutely unknowable, no. I could see how one might interpret it in the favorable light Clark folks have - but even those asked about the statement in the article thought it was a bit of a stretch - to say the least. In my original post I wanted to use the Dean quote - because it was the first thing I thought of when I read this from Clark. Of course it's great to have a positive view, but you can't promise something you may not be able to control the outcome of. I didn't post it originally because I knew I would get my butt chewed off- then someone else did.

I posted it in one of the dupe threads because I felt it needed to be pointed out again, because it is true - you can't promise complete security. It's just not wise.

Dean comments get dissected ad nauseum around these parts - and I don't usually go around complaining about things Clark says - this was just something that I found very disturbing.

Thats it.

[returnable]

19. Fair enough

And I know your guy has been on the other end enough times, too. :toast:

[dave29]

20. I think both our guys

are going through heck - we could all use some :toast:

thanks for that :)

[Bread and Circus]

23. We have nothing to fear but fear itself....

Roosevelt.

[ClarkGraham2004]

24. I don't understand the problem?

Clark is being a LEADER.



www.clark04.com

[rumguy]

26. What's the relevance of Clark's statment? It sounds good

to me...