Is this Clark quote a good thing or a bad thing?

[dkf]

"The legacy of Vietnam," he said, "will be put to rest by the legacy of Iraq."

[FrenchieCat]

1. Do you have the link and the context, please? (n/t)

[joeybee12]

5. Yeah, context please--could go either way by itself.

[dkf]

6. Writer just calls it a "cryptic" statement.

Clark elicited a similar response at the same press conference when he made one of the more cryptic--and in retrospect, one of the more meaningful--statements of his campaign. "The legacy of Vietnam," he said, "will be put to rest by the legacy of Iraq."

A few reporters asked Clark to explain himself, but the general basically just repeated the statement before leaving the podium. As it turned out, only one journalist wrote it up in the post-mortems. Afterward, I went up to Clark spokesman Bill Buck and found out what he meant.

snip

In Vietnam, Buck said, we had no strategy for going in and winning. In Iraq, we have the opportunity to "be successful."

"And success means winning, not withdrawing?" I said.

"Success means winning," he said. "He's made no secret about that."

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031215&c=4&s=taibbi

[FrenchieCat]

12. You are quote the Taibbi article in the nation?????

that would mean we still don't know the context. Where have you been the last few days. There has been numerous threads on that particular article. Do you catch up on threads that you may have missed ...or do you post quotes out of context from disreputable author smear pieces and leave it at that!

Taibbi's most redeeming feature.
That he failed to disclose in his "undercover" hit piece is his real agenda: his true love: Slobodan Milosevic. It seems Taibbi feels that the entire world (Wesley Clark, his followers, NATO the international community, the judges and witnesses at Hague are guilty of conspiring against Taibbi's one and true love: pure as driven snow Milosevic.

Here's one Taibbi piece to deminstrating this: http://www.agitprop.org.au/stopnato/19990509exilewalker.htm Yes, Matt Taibi - the world is wrong. You and Slobodan are right. But if you believe that to be true, why not disclose your reasons in your article? The defense of genocide!

[dkf]

15. OK found the quote in another article and not from Taibbi but

still kind of a hanging statement if you ask me:

http://nashuatelegraph.com/Main.asp?SectionID=25&SubSectionID=354&ArticleID=92896

CONCORD – The attack against Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism, but was the work of military leaders in the Bush administration with a long score to settle, retired Gen. Wesley Clark charged Wednesday.

The Democratic presidential candidate predicted that poor planning and the cost of the Iraq war aftermath would lead to a political realignment, since Americans no longer see Republicans as more trustworthy on national security issues.

“The legacy of Vietnam will be put to rest by the legacy of Iraq,” Clark said during remarks at the New Hampshire Political Library.

Clark said a memo from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in New York and Washington was a foreshadowing of the effort to remove Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

[virtualobserver]

2. it sounds like it is left up in the air.........

I guess it depends on how Iraq is ultimately handled.

But IRAQ is so significant it replaces Vietnam either way.

[VolcanoJen]

3. It's both.

It's a good thing, because it's truthful.

It's a bad thing, because we really shouldn't diminish or downplay the legacy of Vietnam. I think, however, that it's especially upsetting to men like Clark, and Anthony Zinni, that we're repeating history by waging another distant war with an unreachable political objective, with the price being death, destruction, global destabilization, and the loss of U.S. respect in the eyes of the world.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

4. Bingo! We are in "Iraqnam"!

.

[KittyWampus]

7. Is This Some Kind Of Inkblot Test?

:shrug:

[RichM]

8. It's a bad thing, because it means he intends to "win" in Iraq.

Clark is a standard issue US militarist/imperialist. He talks out of both sides of his mouth at the same time.

Look, for example, at this quote from last Monday's debate, where he pretends to be interested in giving Iraq back to the Iraqi people, but at the same time is talking about "beating down an insurgency" and "devising a military strategy to succeed."

================
CLARK: ...What's going on in Iraq is a struggle by the Iraqi people to maintain control of their own country.

We need to change a little bit what we're doing in the military over there. We need to have lots of people in our armed forces studying Arabic. We need to put people who can speak Arabic in there and communicate with the Iraqi people. We are not doing that.
And when we stand up those police stations and we leave them alone and they're attacked, we need people there who can call in the kind of U.S. support that's necessary to beat down this insurgency.

We can have a successful policy, but only if the Iraqis are in charge of their own country, and only if we have the right military plans to succeed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10799-2003Nov24_4.html

=====================

So Clark wants to be able to "call in US support TO BEAT DOWN THIS INSURGENCY." Just what you'd expect from a US general -- a few pretty words about letting the Iraqis have their own country, then POW! Down comes the iron fist. He is not really talking about giving the Iraqis their country back. He is talking about making sure the US military operation "succeeds." This implies STAYING in Iraq and "winning" and maintaining control.

If the Iraqis are really "in charge of their own country," why should the US military be the real force behind the scenes? Why should they be there at all? Clark is on both sides of this issue at the same time. On the one hand, he's "giving them back their own country;" on the other hand, the US Army is still there, with the "right military plans to succeed," & ready to be called in to crush "insurgencies." This is not much different than Bush's plan. It's Bush's plan with some lipstick on it.

[mmonk]

9. good bye

[mmonk]

10. How come you always leave out

the part where he says I wouldn't be there in the first place? Is this intentional because it would mess up your thesis or do you really not know Clark's positions? Again, Good bye.

[dkf]

13. I want to know what he will do now.

Isn't that relevant?

[mmonk]

14. Yes its relevant and I wonder

why no one pays attention to what he says. He says he will put in a NATO force. He will bring in other countries to handle the transfer of Iraqi sovereignty which will be headed by a civilian that is not an American. The American and NATO forces will be there for security and to put down the insurgency in order for the transition to Iraqi sovereignty (government) can be completed.

[dkf]

18. Do you think NATO will agree?

I think Europeans are going to be just as targeted as Americans.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20031129/D7V4E2700.html
Six Spanish Recon Soldiers Killed in Iraq
Nov 29, 1:10 PM (ET)

By NIKO PRICE

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Attackers ambushed a convoy of Spanish military intelligence officers on a highway south of Baghdad on Saturday, killing at least six agents and wounding one, a Spanish defense ministry official said.

--
Frankly, I think the only option with the smallest bit of chance is Dean's Muslim speaking troop idea and I don't know if it is possible to convince them to join us.

I always saw Iraq as unwinnable which is why I want to get a feel for how far the candidates will go to "win" this thing.

My take on Clark's statement is that it will please people who want to win at all costs and will displease those who are very wary of having another Vietnam. I am finding that quite a few people I know personally are in the 1st category.

[mmonk]

33. everyone will be targeted

I disagree with your assessment. He wants to bring in other nations whereby they can have a say so in the formation of the new Iraq. Many will want that. Most if not all members of NATO I think will agree to use NATO. It is the better approach than going to the UN where you will almost assuredly get nowhere. Is the whole point against Clark that he is a retired general? What does he say or what in his ideas on the subject make them less credible? Remember, a civilian who became president got us into this. A civilian who became president got us into Vietnam. If your thesis is since he is a retired general, he would be more apt to get us into war, seems a little flawed to me. But maybe I'm too grounded in reality to have that paranoid streak about me.

[RichM]

16. Clark's "positions" - supported the Vietnam War, & now wants to

crush an "insurgency" in Iraq, by putting in place "the right military plans to succeed." I'm simply quoting him -- & noticing that he talks out of both sides of his mouth, & that his real philosophy is that of a typical militarist.

This is precisely what one expects from someone who opposes corporate re-regulation; from someone who spent his whole life in the military; from someone who voted for Nixon, Reagan, & Daddy Bush; from someone who praises the whole cabal & still thinks Colin Powell is a great guy.

[mmonk]

17. Good bye

since you have nothing intelligent to add.

[Pastiche423]

19. And "khaki" colored lipstick, at that

[0007]

22. Very very good post RichM....

and when I hear talk like that coming from Clark it reminds me all the more of the stepped up action in Vietnam that didn't lead to victory.

We reached a compromise in Korea. It got Eisenhower elected and another source of tungsten was found in Vietnam. We didn't win in Korea. We didn't win in Vietnam and I don't see how we can win in the middle east.

The French, General de Gaulle, told Eisenhower that if he were wise he wouldn't send one soldier to Vietnam, because the prize wasn't worth it.
Eisenhower took took de Gaulle's advice. Kennedy did sent a few troops in to protect the business interest of an America mining corporation.

Now we're doing the same thing all over again. Except it oil this time. I think we're better than this, but what in the living fuck do I know?

[OKNancy]

11. The legacy of Vietnam was a major

fuck up. Iraq will eclipse that legacy as an even greater fuck up.

[mrgorth]

21. This is what he meant and he's right.

wE'LL BE THERE FOREVER.

[FrenchieCat]

20. Here are 4 threads on the matter of the "Nation" article....

I know there were more, but this makes my case...IMO


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=787090

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=108&topic_id=92700&mesg_id=92700

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=23136

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=23176

[dkf]

24. Frenchie: Found another article with the same quote.

Still hanging though.

Please don't deny that Clark said it. I know you discount everything Taibbi wrote so I went through the trouble of verifying these words for you.

http://nashuatelegraph.com/Main.asp?SectionID=25&SubSectionID=354&ArticleID=92896

[KittyWampus]

26. So What Clark Said It.

You have no clue what he meant.

All several posters have done here is pontificate on one sentence given with NO context and in the process come out looking like biased jackasses.

Who is your preferred candidate?

I'm sure I can find ONE sentence, take it out of context and ask "What does X mean by this".

[Scott Lee]

23. My read on it says it's a good and accurate quote...

I admit it was really cryptic, but in context I believe Wes Clark was trying to say that the Iraq debacle would forever smash the Vietnam era notion that only Republican administrations can successfully wage and/or end wars.

I wish he chose a better way to say it.

[0007]

25. Clark has a hard time making himself clear.....

on many things. I run hot and cold with this guy. At this point I'm going cold. But Clark also knows that the big oil companies aren't willing to let go that easily. They have a big investment in the middle east. So I have a feeling a few big oil lobbyist are chasing Clark around town.

[dkf]

27. Fascinating.

How far do you think he would go?

I'm worried that if it gets really bad, we won't be able to find any help and that we will have to do this by ourselves and possibly w/Britain.

I am also worried that enlistments and re-enlistments will plummet and that we will need a draft in order to staff our military.

It seems to me that Clark considers the draft a duty of eligible Americans if necessary.

When asked about the draft in an interview I heard some time ago, I believe he said that it was not necessary as enlistments were going fine. But he did NOT say that a draft was out of the question, just that it was not needed at this time.

[KittyWampus]

28. Clark Said He Was Against The Draft

Jeebus, what moronic garbage....

[dkf]

30. You sure about that?

I'll take it back and it will make me feel a lot better if you could show me something on it.

[Shakespeare]

32. One of our own DUers got to ask him this face to face...

The thread was from a week or two ago. At a fundraiser, she asked him if he would reinstate the draft, and he told her, without hesitation, "no."

[FrenchieCat]

29. Who do you support anyway?

In your statements you have a lot of "I think".....

That's not enough.

That's ok........

It doesn't even matter....

I will go back to writing my letters now....

[creativelcro]

31. and keep converting those guys. You'll need a big army of them

good luck.

[wtmusic]

34. The legacy of Vietnam is that Republicans 'ended' it?

And he didn't say 'smash', he said 'put to rest'. Are we trying to put lipstick on a pig?

[TahitiNut]

35. Enough (locking as 'duplicate')

The Nation article has spawned enough DU threads.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=794139
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=92700
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=23136

Rules to start discussion threads in the General Discussion forum.

1. The subject line of a discussion thread must accurately reflect the actual content of the message.

2. The subject line of a discussion thread and the entire text of the message which starts the thread may not include profanity, excessive capitalization, or excessive punctuation. Inflammatory rhetoric should also be avoided.

3. If you post an article or other published content which is from a conservative source or which expresses a traditionally conservative viewpoint, you must state your opinion about the piece and/or the issues it raises.

4. If you wish to start a vanity thread (ie: a discussion thread in which the sole purpose is to share your personal opinion) you must state your opinion in a non-inflammatory manner which respects differences in opinion and facilitates actual discussion.

5. You may not start a new discussion thread in order to continue a current or recent flame war from another thread. The moderators have the authority to lock threads in order to contain flaming on a particular topic to only one thread at a time.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation,
TahitiNut - DU moderator