Wesley Clark disappointing on This Week- excuses for Dubai

[liveoaktx]

ports. Does he have a financial interest in this?

[acmavm]

1. This is not good. Especially for a true-blue Clarkie like myself. n/t

[liveoaktx]

3. I'll cliip some of this- you're watching, right? You see how he wouldn't

answer the question. Just blah blah blah, I think he must have some financial interest.

I also don't like what he's saying about Iraq.

[xultar]

7. I'm tellling y'all Clark is a FOB and he doesn't wanna diss his friend.

[Tom Rinaldo]

29. On Iraq also Clark doesn't aim to please

He says the best thing we could have done for Iraq and America was never have invaded in the first place of course, but that Americans have ongoing concerns in the middle east regardless of whether we have or do not have troops inside Iraq, so leaving Iraq now will not free us from concerns over what happens next there. Clark ticked off three ongoing concerns. Nuclear proliferation, energy sources, and the Israel Palestinian conflict. Regardless of what any of us feel as individuals about any of those issues, Clark is right. All three will continue to be viewed as continuing areas of national interest by any administration that gets elected in 2008, Democratic or Republican.

Clark's point is what emerges inside Iraq next is of course Iraq's business but it is simply not true that our concern with the answer to that question ends when our troops leave. And for anyone who thinks that automatically is code for a drive to control middle east oil; could be but not necessarily. It could also mean a desire to make sure that oil exports from the region are not cut off by a regional war that results in blown up pipe lines and mined ports and sunk oil tankers in narrow shipping lanes and the like. A major disruption of middle east oil exports could trigger a world wide recession or depression. There is a difference between Right wing Republicans having wanted to maintain a colonial presence in the Panama Canal zone and Carter's concern that the Panama Canal be handed off with assurances that it remain open to international shipping. One is imperialist on the face of it, the other isn't.

Iraq is now at the political end game for establishing some kind of national accord to prevent full scale civil war. Clark thinks the United States still has a few chips to play to attempt to tilt that end game toward a political accord rather than full civil war. If that is possible it will be directly reflected in the make up of the new 4 year national Iraq government now being negotiated by all the parties potentially involved, including some Sunni elements associated with the current insurgency. He believes it would be counter productive right now to establish deadlines for pulling out American troops. Others disagree but that is how he sees it.

[serryjw]

40. God Bless You!..Clark was brilliant!

It's the RWers that answer questions with (KKKarl Rove) sound bites. He answered all the question completely, try educate america on the geopolitical chooses and consequences of our decisions. I thought he sounded very presidential, knowledgeable and I LOVE HIM EVEN more now, than before!

Wes Clark 2008! YOU ROCK!!!!!

[xultar]

2. Bill Clinton...

[Coexist]

4. no - but he has an expansive world view

I love General Clark, and am going to have to agree to disagree with him on this.

[liveoaktx]

6. After watching the booktv program on "Global World Class" this

morning, I'm pondering the motives of people who would seem to put corporate interests above sensibility.

[JohnyCanuck]

16. You need to read this article

The Global Elite: Who are they?

SNIP

The global elite march in three essential columns: Corporate, Political and Academic. For the sake of clarity, these names will be used herein to refer to these three groups.

In general, the goals for globalism are created by Corporate. Academic then provides studies and white papers that justify Corporate's goals. Political sells Academic's arguments to the public and if necessary, changes laws to accommodate and facilitate Corporate in getting what it wants.

An important ancillary player in globalism is the media, which we will call Press in this report. Press is necessary to filter Corporate, Academic and Political's communications to the public. Press is not a fourth column, however, because it's purpose is merely reflective. However, we will see that Press is dominated by members of Corporate, Political and Academic who sit on the various boards of directors of major Press organizations.

This report will attempt to identify and label the core players in the globalization process. The intent is to show the makeup and pattern of the core, not to list every person in it. Nevertheless, many people will be named and their associations and connections revealed.

http://www.augustreview.com/index.php?module=pagesetter&func=viewpub&tid=4&pid=9

[Strelnikov_]

37. AKA 'The Party Of Davos'

Saw it last week, very unsettling, in that it seems to tie all the threads together.

An article by Jeff Faux.

The Party of Davos

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060213/faux

Americans are of course prominent members of this "Party of Davos," which relies on the financial and military might of the US superpower to support its agenda. In exchange, the American members of the Party of Davos get a privileged place for their projects--and themselves. Whether it's at Davos, at NATO headquarters or in the boardroom of the International Monetary Fund, heads turn and people listen more carefully when the American speaks.

. . .

That the global economy is developing a global ruling class should come as no shock. All markets generate economic class differences. In stable, self-contained national economies, where capital and labor need each other, political bargaining produces a social contract that allows enough wealth to trickle down from the top to keep the majority loyal. "What's good for General Motors is good for America," Dwight Eisenhower's Defense Secretary famously said in the 1950s. The United Auto Workers agreed, which at the time seemed to toss the notion of class warfare into the dustbin of history. But as domestic markets become global, investors increasingly find workers, customers and business partners almost anywhere. Not surprisingly, they have come to share more economic interests with their peers in other countries than with people who simply have the same nationality. They also share a common interest in escaping the restrictions of their domestic social contracts.

The class politics of this new world economic order is obscured by the confused language that filters the globalization debate from talk radio to Congressional hearings to university seminars. On the one hand, we are told that the flow of money and goods across borders is making nation-states obsolete. On the other, global economic competition is almost always defined as conflict among national interests. Thus, for example, the US press warns us of a dire economic threat from China. Yet much of the "Chinese" menace is a business partnership between China's commissars, who supply the cheap labor, and America's (and Japan's and Europe's) capitalists, who supply the technology and capital. "World poverty" is likewise framed as an issue of the distribution of wealth between rich and poor countries, ignoring the existence of rich people in poor countries and poor people in rich countries.

. . .

The conventional wisdom makes globalization synonymous with "free trade" among autonomous nations. Yet as Renato Ruggiero, the first director-general of the World Trade Organization, noted in a rare moment of candor, "We are no longer writing the rules of interaction among separate national economies. We are writing the constitution of a single global economy."

[MoonRiver]

5. Didn't hear that part, but

he is discussing how the disaster in Iraq is based on *'s emphasis on using the military, rather than political leverage and diplomacy. He says we have to do this before it is TOO LATE. Good points.

[AndreaCG]

8. All I heard was the SO military S

I was disappointed too. Felt his soution was not far enough from the Bush maladministration.

[MoonRiver]

9. He said the solution was NOT a military one.

Said the * administration has failed miserably. If he does support the Dubai deal I disagree, but otherwise I liked what he said. :shrug:

[Patiod]

10. I'm not jumping ship over the ports deal

Disagree, but there's no one I agree with on each and every single issue

[xultar]

11. I'm the same way, So far this is the only thing I've heard Clark say

that I have an issue with. Furthermore I know he's got a pinch from Clinton on this os I know he may be conflicted on this.

[goclark]

20. goclark will agree to disagree with him

on this one ~ but it is hard and I am crazy about Wes Clark.

[MoonRiver]

12. I totally agree.

What I love about General Clark is his uncompromising honesty and integrity. I'm sure he knows that taking that position on Dubai is unpopular, but he's not about to play politics and equivocate. When the chips are down, I'd trust Clark over any other leader in this country.

[capi888]

13. He did not say he if for or against the Port Deal...he said...

He believes we need to focus on HOW the Ports are REGULATED AND OPERATED ABROAD. Once the Cargo is loaded and shipped into America, is crucial to our security, to attack the problem from their shipping points. He believes this is the crucial point. He said, it needs to be taken apart piece by piece. Never said if he was FOR or AGAINST DPW....

[Kahuna]

19. RIGHT! See my post below. I heard it the same way you did and

I agree with what Clark said.

[Ilsa]

26. I'm with you on this. It doesn't have to be a

black or white issue. I have preferences: that the jobs are for us, and the ownership, regulation, and administration remain with us. But I can't honestly say that I mind if a true ally, like Canada, etc, plays a role if it benefits us all the way around.

I think Clark is right, though, about the security starting at the point fo origin. I don't think it does us much good here to have every container inspected if a terrorist sets off a nuclear device 30 miles from port. This issue needs to be worked over on a national and international basis.

[Strelnikov_]

39. Sounds Like He Has Learned A Lot About Politics

since 03/04.

Avoid boxing yourself in, steer the response toward your bigger picture view.

[serryjw]

41. Thanks for listening

that's what he said..Shall we all remember the Hart/Rudman warned Congress about our lack of port security BEFORE 9-11.

[DemExpat]

14. Ignorant question here....

but maybe some people are pressured into half-heartedly backing this port deal because otherwise there are no "locals" or trusted allied companies to take over this task?..... or no other parties interested in doing this?

If London sold this, then somebody has to be there to do the job in these ports at present, right? So wrangling over this done deal - and trying to find new management - wouild be very detrimental for the managing of these ports NOW?
???????????????????????????/

:shrug:

DemEx

[Mass]

15. I disagree - He was excellent

He understands that the issue is not Dubai, it is that our government does not take the security issue seriously and that they do not lead on this issue.

He is right to say that that we live in a global world and that we should not veil our face to this fact.

I am tired to see people be silent for the last 4 years about port security, then jump on the "bad arabs".

[cali]

18. I listened to both Clark and Murtha

this morning. Murtha was far, far more compelling re Iraq than General Clark.

[Mass]

23. I agree more with Murtha too, but Clark has had this position for a

long time and he has not changed.

If I was to grade Murtha, Clark and Edwards for their prestation today, I would give Murtha an A, Clark a B+ and Edwards a C.

[cali]

28. I know he hasn't changed

but the realities on the ground have. They've gotten steadily worse and worse. I like and respect Clark, but he doesn't represent my POV on the war, thus I can't see supporting him for prez.

[Tom Rinaldo]

31. Clark wouldn't have gotten us into this war

And hardly anyone, including all of us on DU, are realistically talking about preventing the next war with Iran, but Clark is. I almost want to repeat that sentence three times damn it!

By the time the next President takes office in January 2009 (barring an impeachment of both Bush and Cheney of course) the war in Iraq will have long ago played itself out to whatever bloody conclusion is destined to be. That's almost three years from now. Clark has integrity on Iraq whether or not you agree on his read on what still can/must be accomplished to partially salvage the damage already caused there. But what is more important is that Clark keeps looking forward to head off trouble coming down the pike toward us so that war will truly be used only, only, only as a last resort. His leadership regarding Iran is the current version of his leadership regarding Iraq in 2002/2003.

[blm]

38. ANY Democrat would have given the weapons inspectors the time they needed

to complete their work which would have prevented any military action - I even believe Lieberman would have.

No Democrat would have followed through militarily after the weapons inspections report - they would have relied on diplomatic measures given there were no WMDS.

[Mass]

30. Who is talking about supporting him for president here?

Not me. I was answering about the criticism concerning his take of the UAE deal.

I disagree with Clark on his take on Iraq (and disagree with most of the potential Democratic candidates, to be frank). But, at least compared to others, Clark can explain his view with some substance, and it is more than some can do. That is all I meant.

[Kahuna]

17. Nope. What he what saying is the truth. It doesn't matter who

controls the security here, because the problem is not with the port inspections which is already so woefully inadequate that we would never discover dangerous contraband regardless of who is in charge of the inspections. The problem is; Where the containers are loaded and originate from. By the time they get here it is already too late.

So he wasn't saying he favors letting the deal do through. He was saying that management of the ports over here is not what we need to fear most. I agree with this. But what Wes didn't say and looked like he was debating with himself on whether he SHOULD say it is, we just don't know if Dubai would allow dangerous contraband to be loaded and headed to our ports. And this is my problem with Dubai ownership. Can they be trusted to NOT allow or abet terrorist send a nuke over here? I think the risk is too great and not worth it.

[Tom Rinaldo]

21. Go back and listen to his comments about ports of origin

Clark has never been one to take a complex issue and boil it down into a popular rallying cry. It isn't who he has ever been, he thinks that is a disservice to the nation. Clark did not say he approved this deal. He said it needs to be investigated and looked at from every angle, and of course we agree with that. Even if we already think we know the right answer to this deal, we still should agree with that need to investigate, because it is only through systematic investigation of a problematic incident that we cast a light on systematic problems.

Clark said this is a more complex issue than meets the eye and he is right on that. Some of the examples he gave take the sharp contrast out of black and white, but that is where current reality lies. Ownership of contracts does not equate with ownership of a Port, but the details shift from contract to contract in exactly what it does entail regarding security arrangements. An American firm could manage a port but subcontract to a Chinese firm to manage one or more of the terminals in that port. That happens today, but it wouldn't show up on most people's radar screens because the prime Contractor would show up as being American.

And as Clark pointed out, who is to say what is an American company anymore with multinational boards and headquarters spread around the globe, and interlocking business deals, and minority corporate stakes owned by foreign nationals that though they may not be majority share holders, they still can be the controlling share holder. Most of the politicians screaming over this deal don't want to touch with a ten foot pole any of these questions which probably would only be "fully resolved" by nationalizing our ports if that is still possible. Who is to say that an "American Company" has fully patriotic as opposed to economic self interest motives that would lead them into cutting corners with foreign subcontractors to maximize their profits, or to win favor on some other deal with another country?

If this deal with a Dubai company was struck to further Bush and his friend's personal business interests for example, which I think is true to a large extent, that is a different line of attack than the issue of who gets to manage a port on security grounds. That is a case of corruption and abuse of power which might make the prime issue here that Bush did not weigh security interests because of economic interests, but it puts the initial onus back on Bush and not on Dubai as an unworthy security partner.

But back to the port of origin issue. Clark stressed that most of the security damage is already done well before whatever company has a contract at one of our ports even comes into play. It happens at the point of origin where cargo is loaded in the first place. If efforts at screening cargo being loaded are poor or non existent, the risk at the receiving end at U.S. ports is greatly magnified. A dirty bomb could be exploded in a harbor, it doesn't even need to be unloaded from a ship first. Dubai has a much more thorough program of inspecting cargo being loaded onto ships in their harbor than virtually any other port in the world. That has been the subject of much negotiation with the leaders of the U.A.E. Clark said in this interview that he knows there are problems with nations in that area. His focus is on problem solving the specifics, investigating the process, and keying in on the actions that should be taken both domestically and abroad that will have the greatest impact on protecting our ports.

[Pithy Cherub]

22. Disagree! Clark demonstrated a global expansive world view

that was not limited to a narrow siloed focus on just military means. Clark showed a range of expertise, foreign policy knowledge and strongly leanded on full uilization of diplomatic means at multiple levels. Wes Clark excoriated the failure of a one party republican system domestically in the US and the implications of not having accountability here at home. Clark was truly a national virtuoso and able to comment cogently and intelligently on each and every question. He didn't say he needed advisors to teach him how. Clark was truly the essence of presidential.

[FreedomAngel82]

24. I wonder why too

:shrug: Carter and Bill Clinton are also fine. I haven't heard Gore speak about it either.

[helderheid]

25. I wonder how many republicans will agree to disagree with * about this.

[Hamlette]

27. excuses for Dubai? You heard a different program than I did.

He's right, actually. What he said is: the issue isn't ownership but security. When asked about the legislation to prohibit foreign ownership he very correctly pointed out most US companies have some foreign ownership. Hell, our whole country is owned by China.

[Clark2008]

32. That's what I thought, too.

These people above apparently didn't watch the same show you and I did. I didn't hear any excuses for Dubai - I heard the God's honest truth about foreign ownership, both by other governments within the United States and by the United States' ownership of business in other countries.

:shrug:

I also have always agreed with Clark about getting the troops out of Iraq: I'd like it sooner than later, but I don't want it politically expediated so that we're left with another Taliban-type government in Iraq.

[indie_voter]

33. I agree. He didn't make excuses, he pointed out the real problem. n/t

[WilliamPitt]

34. That's exactly it

If the Dems are smart, they will focus on the lax security and not the ownership issue.

[Tinksrival]

36. I agree!

Clark frames the issue correctly.......

The debate should not be just Dubai but Dubya's lack of National Security. If Dems can take national security from repubs we've got 06 and 08!

[Clarkie1]

35. He's not making any excuses for the current administrations incompetence

on the issue of port security. In fact, he's the only Democrat I know of to have correctly identified the major issue to be security at foreign ports. If terrorists sneak something on, they don't have to unload it at the U.S. port to achieve their goal; it could be set to go off before while the ship is at port, or even while the ship is approaching port. This is so obvious, yet I admit it had not crossed my mind, and as I said Wes is the only one I have heard make this obvious point.

He also emphasized the reality that many companies have multi-national ownership...U.S. ones included. We can't change that fact to deal with port security now. We have to focus on the world as it is, and deal with security issues in that context to keep our nation safe.

Wes has spent considerable time prior to this interview strongly criticizing the lack of a proper review process which led to this. What Clark is against is carelessness, incompetence, and an over-reliance on easy answers as solutions to complex problems. One positive thing to come out of all this is it has raised the issue of port security, and I hope that more intelligent, knowledgeable folks in this area, paticularly Democrats, will use this issue as Clark is to point out broader areas of incompetence on the part of this administration in the area of national security, and act to keep our nation safe.

My opinions have changed on this. The more I learn about port security, then more I realize this is a much, much, bigger issue than what company is running a particular terminal. There is a danger if we spend too much time focusing on that small piece of the puzzle, we will ignore the bigger issues. It may not be as politically easy or rewarding at this moment in time to approach the problem that way, but in the long run will do more to keep us safe.

[FrenchieCat]

42. I was pleasantly intrigued w/t what Wes Clark had to say on the port deal

as he offered some original thinking as opposed to him proclaiming which "bandwagon" he would hop on!

This Black and White 24/7 news media is notoriously known for framing the issues poorly and then forcing politicians to take sides, and only allowing two sides to be represented - See the "Get out" or "Stay the Course" in Iraq, or For or Against the Port Deal, etc.. ).


The thing about Clark that I admire is the way that he thinks "out of the box" instead of choosing sides and the manner in which he points out the obvious that most don't even think of, let alone bring up in conversation.

Clark could easily have pandered for political brownie points, one way or the other.....but to be truthful, the real discussion on "Port Security" should be about "Port Security", and yet the Republicans and the Democrats are all rallying around the point of ownership of the Ports only, and so the discussion has been stymied to our detriment to only equal the issue of ownership and nothing else.

Clark made the point that many are not even entertaining which is that the point of origin of cargo headed for the United States should be our starting point, and where the United States demands more control. If it's coming here, to our shores, we really need to have safeguard BEFORE it reaches us....as opposed to after-the-fact (since after-the-fact would be too late).

Clark does this with all of the issues, and it's refreshing to see and hear. This is too complex a world for Black and White politicians who will not question what the issues are but rather will work with what has been framed by others (mainly the media and the opposition).

Same on his take of Iran. He really is the only one stating that we need to have a true dialogue with Iran before anything else.

I'm with him on most of what he states because there is no easy solution for very complex problems....but if we don't even get a chance to discuss "what" the problems truly are, solutions will not be arrived at....only bandaids!


Plus I like the fact that his mantra for why Democrats should be elected in 2006 is because America really should not be a one party system. I think that this approach is much more commonsensical in getting the voting populace (who might otherwise just automatically vote for Republicans) to think about why they may want to consider voting Democratic. It makes them think that one's patriotic duty is making sure that checks and balances are the way to go...rather than ideological supreme rule.

In the Today interview, I felt that Clark was honest, passionate, knowledgable, and not willing to have others determine what the issues are.

He "gets" leadership, even if many of us have been conditioned not to recognize when we see it.

[joanski0]

43. I totally agree.

Clark was excellent.