Mea Culpa

[cali]

I just posted a thread quoting Joseph Cirincione saying that Wesley Clark favored striking Iranian targets, and that he'd said this last week on Fox News. Ciricione did say this, but plenty of people posted evidence to the contrary on the thread. It appears that Cirincione was wrong, and took Clark's comments out of context. I apologize. I was not trying to denigrate Clark or roil the waters. I was simply taking Cirincione at face value. I apologize.

[NMDemDist2]

1. I caught his remarks too, thanks for clearing that up. I was surprised

when he said that about the General

[benburch]

2. Apology accepted.

You were a victim of an attempted swiftboating.

[rodeodance]

3. I head Joe. C say that also. Do you know the 'context' of clark's comment?

[cali]

4. I believe that the

full text of Clark's remarks are on the other thread. In any case, someone on that thread said that they had recorded all of Clark's appearances on Fox, so the remarks in question should be available.

[benburch]

5. The context was Clark being asked, as a Military expert...

what Bush would do if he attacked.

It was a military opinion of a policy he stated emphatically he did not endorse. The person on CSPAN was attempting to Swiftboat Wes Clark.

[Donna Zen]

6. And did a very fine job

Easy with all the help from liberal boards.

You know why this makes me sick? Because when others (Dems) were aiding and abetting that fuck head in the WHouse, General Clark stood up and spoke the truth. He lost friends over his stance; people in the military who believe that an officer doesn't criticize the CiC during time of war. He quit every job he had when we asked him to run, while others kept drawing their taxpayer salaries. When he dropped out, he said that he had decide if he would pay his secretary or his mortage.

And now this fucking shit. Give the man some credit? I doubt it; more likely you will continue to help the right twist every word he says.

As for Iran? The General has said: what's the end game? Do we think that after we bomb them...Iran will say: "we give up and want to be your friends."

General Clark warned you in 2002 about Iran, unfortunately, the Dems that you now give too much credit, weren't listening then.

Too say that this event pisses me right the fuck off, is to underestimate my reaction by 10,000 degrees of pissed off.

[benburch]

8. AMEN.

I am sick of those who repeat Right Wing spin without qualms, and who then attack Democrats when they say something that seems "unfair" to the other side.

These people do not want to win.

[Tom Rinaldo]

10. Is this what you were thinking of Donna?

General Wesley Clark on Your World with Neil Cavuto
January 25, 2006
Transcript by RegNYC


"...Neil Cavuto: When you say it's over-stretched, too over-stretched to do something about Iran right now?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Depends on what you're going to do about Iran. Now, you can certainly run bombing strikes and Special Forces activities and you can go after those nuclear sites. You could-

Neil Cavuto: You have to know where those nuclear sites are.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think that's less of a problem. I think the, the greater problem is figuring out what's the end state. Let's say you, you run eight to fourteen days of bombing against Iran. You take out thirty sites, maybe fifteen of them were the nuclear sites. You've taken out some command and control, his missiles, his air bases, some of the stuff that would threaten us along the literal of the Persian Gulf. Okay, and then what? What happens? Does he then say, 'Oh, I give up. I surrender. I'll be your friend."? No, he's not going to say that.

Neil Cavuto: But who cares, if he's less of a threat?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Because what he's going to do is he's going to be a magnet-

Neil Cavuto: I see.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: - pulling in all kinds of anti-American resistance. How do we know A.-

Neil Cavuto: So, it'll actually galvanize Arab-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: How do we know A.Q. Kahn's not going to replenish that nuclear stock right away.


Neil Cavuto: Yeah.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: So, it's a danger. We've got to think through the thing, not just from the initial strikes, not 'Can we hit the target? Can we penetrate Iranian airspace?' Of course we can do that. It's 'What's the end state- strategically, geopolitically? How do we handle the conflict in this part of the world?'..."
http://securingamerica.com/node/549


Then there is this:

General Wesley Clark on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos"
March 5, 200
Transcript by Melange
http://securingamerica.com/node/692

George Stephanopoulos: Let me turn to Iran. You told the Council on Foreign Relations earlier this month, that before we take Iran to the UN Security Council over their proposed nuclear weapons program, we should try talking to them directly and doing business with Iranian businesses. That's a very different approach from what other Democrats, like Senator Evan Bayh and Senator Clinton, are calling for. They say we need tough sanctions now. Why are you convinced that your approach is better?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, maybe we will need tough sanctions later on. But before any of that happens…years ago we should have talked to Iran, and it's not too late right now.

George Stephanopoulos: Directly.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Directly to Iran. The Iranian state is not unified. There are differences of opinion in Iran, but rather that passing a $75 million Iranian Liberation Act funding proposal, why don't we just talk to the Iranian leadership and see if there's not a way <crosstalk>

George Stephanopoulos: But don't you believe that if they're this intent on developing a nuclear weapon…

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think they are intent and the more we press against them, the more difficult it would be for them to change their direction. Iran represents an historic opportunity for the Shias to have leadership in the Islamic world and this nuclear issue is being crystallized in such a way that it's going to make it extremely difficult for them to back off.

George Stephanopoulos: But don't they know that the message is 'if you don't give up your nuclear program then you're not going to be able to join this modern world'? Isn't that what the United States is saying; isn't that what the European community is saying?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, it's a very mixed message going to the Iranians, frankly. We're not saying we're not going to buy their oil. China's not telling the Iranians 'we won't help you build subways'. The Russians aren't telling the Iranians 'you're not going to get our billion dollars worth of weapons that you've ordered'. It's a very mixed message and really it's the United States which hasn't taken its leadership responsibilities seriously enough to go and talk to the Iranians first before this crisis comes to a head.

[Donna Zen]

11. Yes, and there are pages of these transcripts...

But what difference does it make when people would rather bash than listen to him. He warned in 2002 about the effect of Iraq on Iran. As long as the left refuses to do their homework, he's wasting his time and the credentials afforded to Democrats by his stars.

A few days before General Clark entered the 2004 race, Joe Conason mused about how America would treat one of their "best and brightest." I've watched with revulsion for 3 years, but now I know. At least I know the reaction on the left. But...but...he's a republican!!!! he's a baby killer!!! omg, he's part of the MIC.

I'm perfectly pissed off about this...and so much more.

[cali]

12. Sorry, I think you're doing some major over reacting.

By and large, General Clark has been welcomed and treated with respect by the left. Yes, there are people who jump all over him. Guess what? That's true for practically every prominent dem, and particularly true of presidential candidates. John Kerry gets slammed far more often than Clark. During the run up to 2004, Dean came in for a lot of bashing. It's just part of the package. I have never posted anything negative about Clark. To the contrary, I like him, and I've posted plenty of positive remarks. The post I put up this morning quoting Cirincione, I posted because in the past, I've respected Cirincione, and his is an important voice. He was wrong. I was wrong, and I took immediate steps to rectify any false impression by post may have caused, including asking that my original post be deleted, (at the suggestion of a mod, who saw this thread) and posting a public apology. You're being far to thin skinned.

[Donna Zen]

13. We must agree to disagree

I haven't ever started a thread to bash a candidate, so really I would know how or who responds. I do know that the left (have you read the Nation or listen to Cirincione?) has gone out of its way to trash the man. I do know the degree to which Clark was attacked, because I fought in the battle thread aimed at Clark. Personally, I know longer give a shit.

General Clark has spoken out for 3 fucking years. Tthat people at DU pay him no heed but rather chose to jump on Cirincione bandwagon would make one think that Clark is wasting his time. You call it "thin-skinned," I call fed up.

[Tom Rinaldo]

14. I agree with both of you

What Donna is talking about is very real. Fortunately those sentiments are not held by a majority or even a sizable minority of leftists, but many of those who do harbor those feelings are far more vicious and unrelenting in their attacks on Clark than they are on other liberal Democratic leaders. Whereas most Democrats might be accused by them of being enablers of corporate and right wing interests, Clark is directly attacked AS an enemy who infiltrated Democratic ranks. Clark can do 500 fund raisers for Democrats in three years but all they remember is that he was a speaker at a local Little Rock Republican fundraiser shortly after he retired from the military (though they never mention that Clark also spoke at an Arkansas Democratic fundraiser during the same week), and they act like Clark still has to prove he's a Democrat. It gets very old and very frustrating.

However I don't blame Cali at all for starting her initial thread. That misinformation on Clark was broadcast on CSPAN, it wasn't dug up by some Troll hit and run artist piecing together stray Clark quotes to make a slandering DU post. Best that it got out in the open where people who knew the truth could debunk it. I think any anger at Cali over this would be completely misdirected. Cali started this thread to make a public apology, and to help set the record straight. If more of us were willing to do this when we accidentally carry an anti-Democrat attack virus into public discussion, we would wipe those infections clear off of DU within hours.

[Jai4WKC08]

18. Well said, Tom! n/t

[Jai4WKC08]

17. Let me join in thanking you...

For your apology on the other thread, and for starting this one. I know you didn't mean to pass on a lie, and I think was reasonable for someone who isn't up on what Clark has been preaching about Iran to take Cirincione at face value. As alarming as what he alleged Clark to have said was (and I heard it first hand--I was completely pissed off at the time... and still am... because I knew it was untrue), I'm sure someone was bound to post it to DU, and I am glad it was someone as honorable as you.

But let me defend DonnaZ too. I think you're wrong that she's over-reacting. We hear this shit all the time and it's outrageous. All you have to do read some of the replies in your original thread. Some of those same people show up in almost every thread with Clark in the subject to repeat the same old tired shit. And sadly, they're not limited to a few DUers. There are a number of left-wing voices in the media and among the political crowd who find their way into the media who think nothing of just making shit up about Clark.

I know that Kerry, Dean and pretty much everyone in politics gets bashed unfairly from time to time. But I do think the nature of the bashing is different. No one questions Kerry's or Dean's credentials as a Democrat. But they do Clark's, which ultimately equates to questioning his integrity and basic decency.

And fundamentally, I think a lot of it goes back to the problem some on the left have with the military, which hurts our whole party and our chances for 2006.

[cali]

19. Thank you all for being

so gracious about my error. It's true I don't go on all the Clark threads, so I don't see all the negative comments. I've been on some, and posted on some, but I haven't paid close attention. It's unfortunate that some people formulate opinions that aren't rooted in fact, but in irrational dislike, and then view everything about that issue or person through a that particular lens.

[Tom Rinaldo]

7. Thank you Cali for being so highly responsible

We all get taken in by misinformation sometimes, but not everyone will keep an open mind and make the effort to clean up for an error when it happens. I've always respected you, now I just respect you more.

[cali]

9. Thank you, Tom

That's kind of you to say. I truly don't want to slur General Clark. I may not be a "clarkie", but I have an open mind about him.

[Adelante]

16. I didn't take it as bashing from you, cali

You've always been fair. I understand impatience, too, because it gets tiresome and irksome, to say the least, every time. But I believe you intended no harm to Clark, and if it had been true, you would have been right to sound the alarm.

[renate]

15. thank you, cali

:applause: for setting the record straight.

And thank you Donna Zen and Tom Rinaldo for posting all that great information.

[Donna Zen]

20. I didn't post much of anything useful

Tom did, and plenty of Clarkie's who haven't reached my point of absolutely anger have said nice things.

I'm pissed that General Clark never ever gets any credit what so ever from either the MSM or the Democrats for all that he has done. I see the press falling over themselves to congratulate some Generals (republicans) who were happy to keep their mouths shut for 2 fucking years.

The only time General Clark is mentioned is if the powers that be need to tell another lie.

I am not angry with Cali; but I am digusted that our companions on-line would think that we would ever support someone as vile and dumb as the General is reported to be in the press.

[wicket]

21. We still love you Cali!

:yourock:

[FrenchieCat]

22. Thank you Cali for the apology......

You making a thread just about that is sincerely appreciated.

I am just recovering from fighting a Kerryite who has been calling the General a Liar, and stated, without evidence, that Wes Clark advocated for the use of force in Iraq during the run up to the war in 2002. Wouldn't be surprised if that same poster will be saying the same thing about Clark and Iran 3 years from now.

What I do hate is that Wes really isn't ever given the credit for forewarning us....as he has time and time again, ahead of time on subjects that we end up discussing months later. Wes Clark stated last spring that the Bush admin would probably try and start some stuff with Iran right around June OF THIS YEAR (just in time for our 2006 election) as well as pulling troops out of Iraq to great fanfare right before the election.

No one paid Clark much mind when I posted this information at DU.....but when and if it does happen, heaven forbid, most will not even remember that Clark tried to tell us....and while there are many who are just too busy fighting 2008 Pre-primary wars here at DU, when the shit hits the fan, same folks will be scratching their asses trying to figure out what happened.

Just like Gen. Clark called for Rumsfeld's resignation back in November of 2003, now everyone is doing it. Does Clark get credit for making that call before the shit totally fell apart? Hell naw!

Does it matter now if Rumsfeld stays or Go? Hell no...cause Bush is the one that should be held accountable, at this point, for having kept Rumsfeld as long as he did. But what do we hear all day long on the Teevee?..."Retired Generals asking Rumsfeld to Resign...just like Zinni (for those who Loooove Zinni, just remember if Rumsfeld resigns, Bush gets off with a rebirth and a new chance to fuck up once again).

Ditto with the issue of what is currently happening with Darfur. Gen. Clark has been talking about this issue forever (did an Oped on it just two days ago in a major newspaper).....and what are DUers concerned about? Anything but that. They are overjoyed about some Iraq May 15th deadline that doesn't even do shit (since it ain't a Bush deadline).....a gamble that if something happens (that's being worked on anyways) prior to May 15th...someone can claim the credit....and if May 15th comes and goes, then so what...kept somebody in the news? Or a call for Censure (slap on the hand) that will not happen as long as we have a GOP majority, when fucking impeachment is what would should be waiting to call AFTER election 2006.

It is truly sickening how those here at DU, who claim to be leftwing liberals concerned about world events, really show what they are concerned about via the topic of the threads that are kept up-top floating while Darfur threads (about 450,000 innocent killed) drop harder and faster than cement.

Thanks for letting me rant! :hi:

[cali]

23. Frenchiecat, why not

post a thread about this?

"Wes Clark stated last spring that the Bush admin would probably try and start some stuff with Iran right around June OF THIS YEAR (just in time for our 2006 election) as well as pulling troops out of Iraq to great fanfare right before the election."


Back it up with his own words.

Maybe you've already done this, but if not.......

(And you're welcome. It's important to me to admit error and apologize if I've said something, or repeated something, false about someone.)