WESLEY CLARK HITS BUSH ON IRAQ POLICY

[ClarkUSA]

My favorite gutsy Democrat telling it like it is:

Retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark said Thursday that the rebuilding of Iraq could be hampered by the Bush administration's failure to follow through on measures necessary for success.

Clark, who was a candidate for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, also said he expects the Army to announce a substantial pullout of troops from the region by the end of the summer.

"Barring some vast systemic change in Iraq in which the reception of the troops . . . was entirely different, I think it's clear that we need to reduce the size of the forces there," Clark told The Associated Press.
...............

Clark, who is scheduled to be in New Hampshire this weekend for a Democratic fund-raiser, called the war a strategic blunder and faulted Bush for taking too long to set up an Iraqi government and train local security forces.

continued...

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050610/REPOSITORY/506100354/1001/NEWS01

[wtmusic]

1. Trying to find out what he basing his statement that

"he expects the Army to announce a substantial pullout of troops from the region by the end of the summer" on.

Is he in the loop enough to know about something like this, or is it just a misquote by the paper?

[11cents]

2. He's said in the past that he expects this.

He's said that he thinks the Bush regime wants to declare victory, start withdrawing troops by the end of the summer, then turn its attention to Iran.

[wtmusic]

3. Well seeing as the end of summer is 3 months away,

there is a civil war raging there, and we have a massive investment in oil-stealing infrastructure that prediction seems completely out to lunch

[ClarkUSA]

6. How so? Bush & the GOP Congress' approval numbers will soar if it happens

Drawing down troop numbers will be a nice boost for those nervous GOP incumbents who are getting an earful right now from their constituents and gives Republicans huge photo-op PR engine going into 2006, which the media whores will eat up.

Bush won't be leaving the country completely anyway. There's the present puppet Halliburton/CIA gov't. and there will always be U.S. troops there guarding those oil fields but just not 150,000 of them.

[Massacure]

58. Until the resistance overthrows the Iraqi government.

[Texas_Kat]

7. NO, I'd say that Clark's predictions have been spot on.

For instance, Clark was trying to get the word out 18 months ago that the Bush admin was skewing the intelligence about Iraq. (Bush was highlighting only the intelligence that supported their agenda). That is, (in Britishspeak) the intelligence was "fixed on" the case for war.

Besides, Bush's corporate buddies now have their hooks into Iraq. What makes you think that their 'massive investment in oil-stealing infrastructure' would go away.

[wtmusic]

9. 18 months ago

was about a year too late to be a prediction. :eyes:

[Texas_Kat]

10. So why all the surprise about the Downing Street memo here at DU?

I suspect what he knows may seem like a 'prediction' to those who don't have his contacts and insight.

[wtmusic]

11. No surprise here

"The Vice President dropped by a Senate Republican policy lunch soon after his 10-day tour of the Middle East ...Before he spoke, he said no one should repeat what he said. Then he gave them some surprising news. The question was no longer if the U.S. would attack Iraq, he said. The only question was when."
Time Magazine
May 5, 2002

"'F___ Saddam. We're taking him out.' Those were the words of President George W. Bush, who had poked his head into the office of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. It was March 2002, and Rice was meeting with three U.S. Senators. "
Time Magazine
March 31, 2003

This is old, old, old news. The only reason DSM has legs is because the war is going poorly.

[indie_voter]

14. "The only reason DSM has legs is because the war is going poorly."

BINGO!!!

Very few would care otherwise. :(

[wtmusic]

12. omg

You're obviously a big WC fan. Don't let it get in the way of reason.

If this is knowledge, it's way out of line for him to announce it publicly (and as a military man he wouldn't do it anyway). Therefore it's safe to say it's a prediction.

[ClarkUSA]

13. This is something Wes Clark believes might happen

Is that better?

Let's keep the snarky comments to a minimum. Reason would prevent us from splitting hairs over synonyms.

[wtmusic]

18. Whatever you wish

Most would call it a prediction, but since you like the more awkward "something he believes might happen" it's all yours...

Snarky? Because I don't see any reason to fawn over Wes and his arguable insight? Let's instead go back to my original objection to the "something he believes might happen" and see if we can find any basis for a pullout of troops that would leave us only more vulnerable.

[Tom Rinaldo]

21. I already gave a basis in an earlier post

By the way Clark believes that the Bush Administration consistently leaves us vulnerable. While other Democratic leaders were going around saying that it was over the top to "blame 9/11 on Bush" Clark was holding Bush accountable for taking his eye off the real threat to America during his first 6 months in office.

[Sparkly]

23. "basis for a pullout of troops"

As I see it, one basis is that the war is going badly and is hurting Republicans politically. Poll numbers show there is less and less support for it. Since they've screwed up every other possible option for success, they can either institute a draft or "cut and run," as they used to call it -- particularly if they have designs on Syria or Iran.

When Iraq becomes a big enough threat to other countries, perhaps somebody else will have to step in and deal with the mess BushCo made. We can hope there's not a world war by then.

[wtmusic]

24. Makes sense

but we're in this far too deep to cut and run. A partial pullout would be a disaster--there would be a distinct possibility the rest of our troops would be overrun.

A complete pullout would be an admission of failure, at least by the end of summer, and it would take a far greater man than Dubya to admit it.

IMO we should get out now, admit defeat, admit failure, and start reparations. I just don't believe that could happen under this administration.

[ClarkUSA]

25. No one, including Wes Clark has mentioned "A complete pullout"

I was trying to make this clear earlier.

[Sparkly]

31. I see what you're saying.

But what would be the role of a smaller troop presence -- not "peacekeeping," as there's no peace there to keep. Not trying to win via military might, because even what we have now can't do that. Not training Iraqi forces in effective numbers, for the same reason.

So in a sense, it's "cut and run" as far as trying to win militarily, nor will this administration be able to win via a political solution, it seems. :shrug:

I'm not challenging what Clark said; just trying to get more info on what he said.

[ClarkUSA]

27. No one is fawning over anyone

Some of us who are his supporters have learned to trust his insights. It's that simple. There is no need for perjoratives about groups of supporters.

I also gave you a basis in my earlier post (see #6).

[Texas_Kat]

16. Interesting ..

I believe that as retired military, he is no longer privy to classified information.

BTW, I'm not anybody's 'fan". Just an observer and occasional advocate for reason.

I've always found Clark's 'predictions' to be worth paying attention to.

[FrenchieCat]

26. Why would it be "out of line" for Wes to say this publicly?

Should he go and "clear" his statements with the White House?

The statement is his opinion of what may happen based on his sources. I would imagine that many in the military at various levels are none too happy about what Bush has done to our military. If you don't think that a 35 year veteran doesn't have inside sources, I believe that you are uninformed and lack obvious insight as to Clark's prior statements....

Whether you "like" Clark or not, he has consistently been prescient when it comes to this administration's actions.

It's easy to say what was news after the fact. Point is, that even during the 2004 primaries....none of the candidates were clearer in stating what you, apparently, would call "the obvious" and "old news":

Bush used 9/11 as a pretext to implement Iraq invasion plan

Clark told me how he learned of a secret war scheme within the Bush Administration, of which Iraq was just one piece. Shortly after 9/11, Clark visited the Pentagon, where a 3-star general confided that Rumsfeld's team planned to use the 9/11 attacks as a pretext for going to war against Iraq. Clark said, "Rather than searching for a solution to a problem, they had the solution, and their difficulty was to make it appear as though it were in response to the problem." Clark was told that the Bush team, unable or unwilling to fight the actual terrorists responsible for 9/11, had devised a 5-year plan to topple the regimes in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Iran, and Sudan.
Clark's central contention-that Bush used 9/11 as a pretext to attack Saddam-has been part of the public debate since well before the Iraq war. It is rooted in the advocacy of the Project for the New American Century, a neo-conservative think tank that had been openly arguing for regime change in Iraq since 1998.
Source: The New Yorker magazine, "Gen. Clark's Battles"

[wtmusic]

32. Because if it was specific information

it would not only be classified but would be extremely harmful to morale.

Regarding Clark's New Yorker interview--you didn't post a date. Hmm...could that be because it was from November 2003, some eight months after the war was underway?

Somehow Prophet/Seer/Clairvoyant Wes couldn't bring himself to speak out publicly against the war before it happened. He was doing play by play on CNN, talking about capability blah blah blah (presumably profiting from it as well) and never could find the gumption to just say "this war is a bad idea". What makes him different from any of the other media whores who profited from this illegal, immoral adventure?

That's my problem with Wes Clark. I'm not going to get in a flamefest here because that's so 2004, and to be honest it's pointless. So correct me if I'm wrong (I love to be educated) but please, please don't tell me how great Wes Clark is. I know how great he is.

[ClarkUSA]

35. Correct me if I'm wrong, but no one has said this was classified info

Wes Clark's 2002 HASC testimony is quite clearly against the Bush/PNAC rationale for war to the point an exasperated Richard Perle sneered:

"(Clark) seems to be preoccupied, and I'm quoting now, with building legitimacy, with exhausting all diplomatic remedies... ÊSo I think General Clark simply doesn't want to see us use military force and he has thrown out as many reasons as he can develop to that but the bottom line is he just doesn't want to take action. He wants to wait."
~ Richard Perle, Iraq war-mongerer, before congress Sept. 26, 2002

Read Wes Clark's Iraq testimony before House Armed Services Committee
in September 2002 testimony for yourself before you throw rocks, where he predicts much of the insurgent mess we are experiencing now: http://www.securingamerica.com/?q=node/118

BTW, there was a certain Democrat who was referring to Saddam as a threat in September of 2002 who went on to become the darling of the antiwar set, so let's not get too self-righteous.

CLARKÕS CONSISTENCY OF VIEWS ON IRAQ

If you will take the trouble to read Clark's books (especially pages 456-461 of Waging Modern War) and his article "An Army of One?" (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0209.clark.html), you will see that his statements have not changed before, during, or after the war.

Just for fun, here's a cartoon:
http://www.dailygusto.com/news/july/wesley-clark-072803.html

[FrenchieCat]

40. I think your opinion of Wes Clark is one

without regard to the facts. I hope you read the below provided and I await your comment, i.e., a response to this post.

You're not going to get into a "flamefest"....but you are going to bash Wes Clark, and then run and hide? Sounds cowardly to do what you are doing, and then say that continuing is "pointless". Please understand that you've already made your "point" and therefore.....you are the one who started what you claim you don't want to start. :shrug:

Doing military analysis vs. doing policy analysis is not the same thing. However, many Dems are guilty of what you are doing, making the two the same....which is why, unfortunately, Dems as a whole, are often accused of "not supporting the troups" (quick, look in the mirror) due to the fact that they cannot separate order carried by the troups vs. who is giving the orders and why....which is why the Republicans think that the flag and National Security Strength belongs to them... and one of the reasons why we lost the election (see--Bin Laden Tape on the October 29th--election Surprise).

Actually, I believe that Clark's decision to do commentary during the invasion of Iraq was a sound one.

Personally, I particularily enjoyed the CNN commentary where Clark defended Michael Moore's First Amendment right to Free speech...right there on CNN ...when none of the Democrats were anywhere to be found (guess some were in between their legs busy looking for their BALLS!)

In the statement General Clark gave before the armed services committee the day Drudge talks about, September 26, 2002, Clark made clear he thought the President should not distract from the actual war on terror with Al Qaeda, should not rush to war but instead employ diplomacy, and that the gun was not to our heads and we had some time to deal with things. In addition, he warned of the potential consequences of war.

So here is what Clark actually had to say when he testified before the House Armed Services Committee on September 26, 2004, told in context, and not in the typical amoral, dishonest way the right-wing Bush-butt-kissing puppeteers like Drudge abuse things:

“Saddam has been pursuing nuclear weapons for over twenty years. According to all estimates made available he does not now have these weapons.”

“The best public assessment is that… he might field some type of weapon in two years…perhaps five years might be required.”

“What makes the situation relatively more dangerous today is that the UN weapons inspectors… have been absent from Iraq for over four years.”

“The problem of Iraq is only an element of the broader security challenges facing our country. We have an unfinished, world-wide war against Al Qaeda, a war that has to be won in conjunction with friends and allies, and that ultimately will be won by persuasion as much as by force, when we turn off the Al Qaeda recruiting machine.”

“Some three thousand deaths on September 11th testify to the real danger from Al Qaeda, and as all acknowledge, Al Qaeda has not yet been defeated.”

“The critical issue facing the United States now is how to force action against Saddam Hussein and his weapons programs without detracting from our focus on Al Qaeda and efforts to deal with other immediate, mid and long-term security problems. In this regard, I would offer the following considerations:

“1) The United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be further strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing US determination to act if the United Nations will not. The use of force must remain a US option under active consideration. The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail… The more nearly unanimous the resolution, the greater its impact in the diplomatic efforts underway.”

“2) The President and his national security team must deploy imagination, leverage, and patience in crafting UN engagement. In the near term, time is on our side, and we should endeavor to use the UN if at all possible. This may require a period of time for inspections or even the development of a more intrusive inspection program, if necessary backed by force. This is foremost an effort to gain world-wide legitimacy for US concerns and possible later action, but it may also impede Saddam’s weapons programs and further constrain his freedom of action. Yes, there is a risk that inspections would fail to provide the evidence of his weapons programs, but the difficulties of dealing with this outcome are more than offset by opportunity to gain allies and support in the campaign against Saddam.”

“If efforts to resolve the problem by using the United Nations fail… the US should form the broadest possible coalition, including its NATO allies and the North Atlantic Council if possible, to bring force to bear. Force should not be used until the personnel and organizations to be involved in post-conflict Iraq are identified and readied… This includes… humanitarian assistance, police, and judicial capabilities, emergency medical and reconstruction assistance and preparation for a governing body … Ideally, international and multinational organizations will participate… including the UN, NATO, and other regional and Islamic organizations.”
=======
What was that? “Force should not be used until…” Wow, again, exactly the opposite of what Drudge claims Clark said. And again, Clark making the case that anything that is done must be unilateral, and that the post-war should be planned and include all nations – the opposite of what Bush did.

And perhaps just in case idiots like Drudge were sitting around out there waiting to try and misquote him, Clark made everything very clear again at the end of his statement:

“Force should be used as the last resort; after all diplomatic means have been exhausted…”

What was that, did he say, “We must go to war right now, as the President says?” or, “Screw the UN,” as the President said all summer, “we need to do this now and by ourselves?” Sorry, Drudge you idiot, the actual words were “as a last resort, after all diplomatic means have been exhausted,” barring the sudden appearance of an immediate threat, which Clark made clear was not the case at that time.

And to conclude, Clark both made clear once again our main focus must remain Al Qaeda and that using diplomacy instead of force could have great result not just with Iraq but with the entire region:

“If we proceed as outlined above, we may be able to minimize the disruption to the ongoing campaign against Al Qaeda, reduce the impact on friendly governments in the region, and even contribute to the resolution of other regional issues such as the Arab-Israeli conflict, Iranian efforts to develop nuclear capabilities, and Saudi funding for terrorism.

And he ended with one final warning about invading Iraq:

“The war is unpredictable and could be difficult and costly. And what is at risk in the aftermath is an open-ended American ground commitment in Iraq and an even deeper sense of humiliation in the Arab world, which could intensify our problems in the region and elsewhere.”

Drudge excerpts the question and answer session which took place after this statement on his site, of course misleadingly and out of context, so just for a capper, here are a few excerpts from there that definitively show Drudge, RNC Chairman Gillespie, and the rest of them to be flat out lying scum.

General Clark: “The honest truth is that the absence of intelligence is not an adequate reason to go forward to war in and of itself.”

And Drudge claims Clark embraced the same pro-war stance as Richard Perle that day. Well, here, to finish things off conclusively, is Perle himself speaking after Clark had left the hearing for the day.

“So I think General Clark doesn’t want to see us use military force, and he has thrown out as many reasons as he can develop for that, but the bottom line is he just doesn’t want to take action. He wants to wait.”

Nothing could be clearer. These right-wingers who now are pretending Clark spoke with them clearly stated on that day that Clark doesn’t support the war and was opposed to their plan.

And now, to see them come out, led by the Republican National Committee Chairman President Bush directly appointed, and lie and smear, pretending Clark said the opposite, is an open and shut case. Once again you see the Bush/Limbaugh right sinking beyond all possible comprehension and decency to serve no other purpose than keep Bush/Limbaugians in power – and the direct involvement of RNC Chairman Gillespie proves this is not just talk radio or FOX News but President Bush and the Republican Party he leads directly. They clearly show they are a party that doesn’t care about truth, doesn’t care about America – they have no moral code of any sort.

(Clark’s Statement before the House Armed Services Committee, September 26, 2002) (Question and answer session: U.S. Policy Toward Iraq)

Clark's Actual Testimony before Congress - 9/26/02:
http://tinyurl.com/m6os

Clark's Actual Testimony before the Senate 9/23/02:
http://www.clarks-army.com/iraq.pdf

The Moderate Independent's report rebutting the issue:
http://tinyurl.com/2un5c

========

Statement by Sen. Wellstone Regarding Military Action Against Iraq
Washington, D.C. October 3, 2002
http://www.wellstone.org/print_article.aspx?itemID=2778&catID=298
Mr. President, as we turn later today to address our policy on Iraq, I want to take a few minutes to outline my views.

The situation remains fluid, and Administration officials are engaged in negotiations at the United Nations over what approach we ought to take, with our allies, to disarm the brutal and dictatorial Iraqi regime.

Our debate here is critical because the administration seeks our authorization now for military action including possibly unprecedented, pre-emptive, go-it-alone military action in Iraq, even as it seeks to garner support from our allies on a tough new UN disarmament resolution.

Let me be clear: Saddam Hussein is a brutal, ruthless dictator who has repressed his own people, attacked his neighbors, and remains an international outlaw. The world would be a much better place if he were gone and the regime in Iraq were changed. That's why the U.S. should unite the world against Saddam, and not allow him to unite forces against us.

A go-it-alone approach, allowing for a ground invasion of Iraq without the support of other countries, could give Saddam exactly that chance.

A pre-emptive go-it-alone strategy towards Iraq is wrong. I oppose it. I support ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction through unfettered U.N. inspections, which should begin as soon as possible. Only a broad coalition of nations, united to disarm Saddam, while preserving our war on terror, is likely to succeed. Our primary focus now must be on Iraq's verifiable disarmament of weapons of mass destruction. This will help maintain international support, and could even eventually result in Saddam's loss of power. Of course, I would welcome this, as would most of our allies.
snip
.... But as General Wes Clark, former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe has recently noted, a premature go-it-alone invasion of Iraq "would super-charge recruiting for Al Qaida."
snip
Only a broad coalition of nations, united to disarm Saddam, while preserving our war on terror, can succeed. Our response will be far more effective if Saddam sees the whole world arrayed against him. We should act forcefully, resolutely, sensibly with our allies, and not alone, to disarm Saddam. Authorizing the pre-emptive, go-it-alone use of force now, right in the midst of continuing efforts to enlist the world community to back a tough new disarmament resolution on Iraq, could be a costly mistake for our country.

[FrenchieCat]

48. Are you gonna come back and give us some facts to back up

your smear of Wes Clark....or what?


waiting......:popcorn:

[wtmusic]

53. offerchrissake

What the hell did I say that was a smear? I think him whoring off the war showed his true colors. You still haven't answered to that charge.

I don't particularly blame him--he's a military man. He and Colin Powell are in the same boat sailing over the sunset in my book. All words, no action.

[Tom Rinaldo]

62. It was the part saying he didn't oppose invading Iraq that got challenged

I don't consider what Clark did on CNN as "whoring" but I can see how subjectively we can reach different conclusions about that. A lot of good Democrats saw Clark differently than you did back then, and it helped them later overcome their sense of isolation and helplessness to realize that someone who clearly knew what he was talking about was able to shred Bush's rational for that war.

But again, I understand that we can differ on that part

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wtmusic]

67. If you want to hide behind ad hominems

and remain ignorant to the meaning of the word "smear" there's nothing I can do for you.

Clark has had a distinguished military career. Does that make him a great politician? Hardly. When you can refute Clark's whoring for the media, we have a conversation.

*crickets*

[FrenchieCat]

68. Crickets? Where? In your head....instead of rational thoughts?

I answered both of your smears against the General.

YOu have yet to acknowledge my answers....

Let me repeat one of them now....and let's HOPE that EVEN YOU can understand....

You want me to prove a negative? Since Clark never fucking Whored himself on CNN......what do you want me to show you? Articles saying that he was attacking the administration while on TV doing Military commentary. OK...than that's what I'll have to do.

HERE'S SOME PROOF TO DISPELL YOUR MADE UP SMEAR.

Straight talk or nothing for CNN's Dobbs
Retired Gen. Wesley Clark was a long-time CNN military analyst but there's one cable network host he didn't impress: Lou Dobbs. Clark was a guest on Dobb's business show during the Iraq war and the host felt the former NATO boss seemed to push his own political agenda rather than provide the straight military skinny on the Pentagon plan, reports our Mark Mazzetti. The result: Dobbs, who hosts "Lou Dobbs Tonight," told a conference of reporters and military brass last week that he barred Clark from his show for the remainder of the war. Of course, he might not have know that CNN had moved to do the same thing when it came to using the likely Democratic presidential candidate as an impartial war analyst.

PONTEFICATIONS
"THE GUY MUST HAVE A BEDROOM AT CNN,” my wife would joke. It seemed true, because at every hour of the day or night during the Iraq War, retired General Wesley K. Clark could be seen on the Cable News Network as a “military expert” criticizing the Bush Administration.

A quick victory in Iraq “was not going to happen,” he told viewers on March 25, shortly before the quickest blitzkrieg victory of its size in military history occurred. But his words doubtless brought comfort to the fans of a network slanted so far to the Left that the most asked question about its name is whether the “C” in CNN stands for Clinton, Castro or Communist News Network.

snip
Dobbs banished Clark from his show because, as Mark Mazzetti and Paul Bedard of U.S. News & World Report reported, “the former NATO boss seemed to push his own political agenda rather than provide the straight military skinny.”
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9522

Wesley Clark was top of his class at West Point, a Rhodes scholar, a decorated four-star general and the man who humbled Slobodan Milosevic when Clark was Supreme Allied Commander in Europe. But if he made any impression at all on many Americans, it happened after he retired and found stardom on cnn as one of the smoothest and most antiwar of the corps of generals turned commentators during the Iraq war.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030929-488778,00.html

MY RESPONSE IN POST #40 to your smear of the General "Whoring for CNN" was this (doh) :eyes: ...Doing military analysis vs. doing policy analysis is not the same thing. However, many Dems are guilty of what you are doing, making the two the same....which is why, unfortunately, Dems as a whole, are often accused of "not supporting the troups" (quick, look in the mirror) due to the fact that they cannot separate order carried by the troups vs. who is giving the orders and why....which is why the Republicans think that the flag and National Security Strength belongs to them... and one of the reasons why we lost the election (see--Bin Laden Tape on the October 29th--election Surprise).

Actually, I believe that Clark's decision to do commentary during the invasion of Iraq was a sound one.

Personally, I particularily enjoyed the CNN commentary where Clark defended Michael Moore's First Amendment right to Free speech...right there on CNN ...when none of the Democrats were anywhere to be found (guess some were in between their legs busy looking for their BALLS!)

In addition, others have responded...but you failed to want to actually debate, and instead continue to repeat your smears.

Further, you wanted to know what Clark had done prior to 2003, in reference to Iraq. You said that he wasn't against this war....and when we posted Sept 2002 quotations, you ignore the entire issue.

The man testified before both houses of congress......and AFTER went on CNN...where it was clear, that whatever military commentary he was giving were separate from his feelings about the policies...which he did articulate, although most likely you just weren't fucking listening.

Is your fucking name on John O'neill's Wall of Heroes?

Didn't think so.

[CJCRANE]

72. "Whoring"

and being a commentator are two different things. Clark could only be accused of whoring if he was paid to push an agenda or say things that he didn't actually believe in.

[roguevalley]

91. THe only way they can do Iran is to leave Iraq. This news has

been speculated about for months. He isn't revealing anything classified and from the tone of your comments, he could say anything and you'd sarcasm it to death. Too bad. He's a good man.

[CarolNYC]

97. Wes against the War

I take it you didn't know of his testimony before the HASC before the War. That was kind of public and he was speaking out where he thought he might be able to do some good to stop it.....Or do you only know Drudge and Gillespie's version of his testimony? If so, I'd suggest that you follow the link below and read the actual testimony. Obviously, you weren't listening when it was happening. Unfortunately, it seems not enough people were...but at least Paul Wellstone and Ted Kennedy heard as they both, I believe, used reference to Clark's testimony in speaking out against the War.

He also spoke to salon immediately before the War started....and it was this interview that introduced me to Gen Clark. At a time when I was really just in despair about the whole situationa dn then I read the General's words and I had hope again....

If you've never read the interview, that's another thing you should read.

Couple of excerpts:

You've referred to the campaign against Iraq as "elective surgery"; I imagine that means that you support disarming Saddam in principle, just not with the same urgency the Bush administration feels.

My view on it was and has been that at some point you're going to need to take actions to deal with the problem of Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction. But those actions didn't have to necessarily be military and they didn't have to be now. It's the administration that chose to do this set of actions at this time. And the reason they've had problems persuading people of the necessity for doing it has been because they couldn't address the urgency.......Subsequent to 9/11, there was a decision then made, "Let's go attack Iraq" -- apparently that decision was made -- and the framework of the decision wasn't "Gee, we've got a terrible problem with Iraq, what are we going to do, let's talk about the problem." Instead, they apparently moved in their own private counsel and said simply, "We've got to have regime change in Baghdad."

.....

You've used the term "colonial presence" for what we're going to be after this war, and compared the U.S. to the British and the Ottoman empires in that respect. Are you being a little hyperbolic there? I mean, it's not really a colonial presence, we're not going to stay there.

Well, I certainly hope we're not going to stay there. I hope we'll get out as rapidly as is feasible. But we also have to recognize that it may take some time there before we can expect a democracy and a stable environment. I mean, we're moving into what has historically been a Middle Eastern Yugoslavia, racked by internal tension and fractious relations welded together in a state by the iron grip of Saddam Hussein. With that off, there's no telling what the fractionating forces will seek.

So the idea that you can sort of come in there quickly and say, "OK, you got your liberty, here it is, don't starve, be good," and leave is stretching. In addition to all the other problems, you're dealing with an Islamic country and the Islamic world is going to resent what we're doing. And that will add to the pressures and frictions that we will face there -- on the other hand, providing us with ample reason to leave sooner and on the other hand, making a transition to a pro-Western Iraqi government more difficult and problematic.

So you don't share the president's optimism that this is going to be the first Middle Eastern country in a sort of democracy domino effect?

I think that's possible, but I wouldn't say that's the most likely outcome. The most likely outcome is a stuttering instability in the region, intensified repression by some states, marginal moderation in others, and for the region more uncertainty ... that's the most likely outcome.

Should we work to make it a better outcome than that? Absolutely. Could we do that? Perhaps we can. But the "optimistic outlook" that some people have talked about is exactly that: It is optimistic, and it's not the most likely outcome.

http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2003/03/24/clark/index.html

If you are looking for someone, however, who was going to criticize the troops once the war started then, no, Wes Clark's definitely not your man.

[Boo Boo]

41. Oh yeah, that's likely...

Wes Clark, 34 years in the military, a four star General, is completely out of touch.

:eyes:

Seems pretty obvious to me that we're getting ready to draw down our forces. We're concentrating them at four major bases, which is a pullback any way you slice it. Why would we be doing that? Well, it sure makes it a lot easier to leave, for one thing.

Also, he didn't say we were leaving altogether. The fact is we don't need all those forces to do what we are currently doing. We really needed even more forces to impose order post-invasion, but we're way past that now and only a fraction of the forces in-country are actually directly fighting the insurgency. I'm guessing we pull out regular army and leave special forces and marines to continue fighting the insurgency along with Iraqi army and police forces.

[wtmusic]

56. There is a real possibility

of our troops being overrun if we take anyone out--they're already stretched to the limit (as I pointed out in #24). You think the Iraqis are going to just behave if half of our soldiers come home?

The Iraqi army and police forces are like "preschoolers with guns", as one GI put it. They are not only incompetent but there is considerable evidence that their weapons are ending up in insurgents' hands (or they are the insurgents). Scaling back, and not completely pulling out, is courting disaster.

In three months we'll find out.

[FrenchieCat]

69. OK....Mr. Military expert!

Amazing how much more you know than General Clark. :sarcasm:

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FrenchieCat]

71. Your debating skills are lacking, IMO.

You have yet to respond to the refutiations of the smears you have lodged against the General.

You can get defensive if you want to, but the truth still shows;
you have no answers.

Smears are especially cheap when you can't back them up....and it appears that you can't.

The game is over.

Sorry, you lose.

[Clark2008]

79. So... you can make ad hominem attacks against Clark

and then accuse others of making them against you?

Hmmm... interesting logic.

In short, I'll say this: those of us who have been following Clark since 2003 know that the vast majority of his 'predictions' have come true. In fact, there was an article written in late December/early January 2003/4 called, "Clark's loose lips" or somesuch... in any case, it was a slam article alledging that Clark didn't know what he was talking about.

However, when you go back and read the damn piece of trash, you'll find that, amazingly, everything Clark predicted has come true or is on its way to becoming true.

Is Clark right about everything? Probably not. No human is. But, Clark's intelligence, insight, connections and ability to listen objectively and take all points of view, makes his predicitions and/or statements more accurate, on the whole - particularly in comparision with this lousy administration.

[Boo Boo]

74. I disagree with that.

I don't believe that the insurgent forces have the capacity to "overrun" US forces. They don't have the capacity to do anything but what they are doing now, which is hit and run attacks and bombings. US forces are stretched thin in the World as a whole and readiness is being ruined, but in terms of combat power, in terms of fighting the insurgents and defending themselves, they are not stretched thin in Iraq. Not having enough forces to police a country and maintain security is another matter.

Anyway, if Clark says we're going to bring troops home then that's probably what he's hearing through the grapevine---preparations would have to be made and he would certainly find out about that. He may not get to see intelligence these days, but he's got more friends in the Army than Don Rumsfeld will ever have. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't predict a draw-down of forces unless he knew it was already in the works.

[Adelante]

77. Do you understand?

Clark is commenting on Bush policy? Clark does not advocate troop withdrawal from Iraq. In fact, he has favored a more of a Marshall Plan strategy for Iraq. However, in view of the American public's now failing support for the war, in view of the imminent recruitment crisis, he is saying that Bush will begin pulling troops out. That's how he sees it.

Scaling back is not Clark's idea.

Immediate withdrawal is not Clark's idea.

He wants the UN to work with Iraq's neighbors to convince them that a stable Iraq is in their interest so they will monitor their own borders.

He wants high level diplomacy - a summit of European, Arab, Asian, and UN leaders. He wants to trade off on things like the ICC, Kyoto and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to get these other countries to join an international effort to resolve the Iraq crisis on all levels, political, military, security -- working with the Iraqi government.

He wants the military operation to be a NATO operation.

He wants the Iraqi forces that Bush let walk away reinstated to handle security on the local level, guard the border and fight the insurgency.

He wants the ammunition stockpiles destroyed.

He wants time for the growth of civic organizations, media, neighborhood groups -- and to promote reconstruction.

Once this program is in place, he wants the US to start pulling out.

He wants to leave Iraq, but he doesn't want to abandon it to chaos.

So you and Clark rather agree.

[CarolNYC]

49. "out to lunch"

It wouldn't be the first time he was called out to lunch, crazy, whatever else for something he said...only to be proven right in the long run...and I'm sure it won't be the last.

[Pepperbelly]

95. I've got an idea ...

Let's wait and see who is right.

Rather than arguing over it. 3 months and we know.

[ClarkUSA]

8. That's right

Iran by next summer, timed just right for 2006 elections. The article is not a totally comphrehensive picture of what Wes Clark said, however (no surprise there). During the Ed Shultz show, he outlined other scenarios also.

Hopefully, there will be better reporting of his speech at the Democratic fundraiser this Sunday in NH: http://www.securingamerica.com/?q=node/150

[Tom Rinaldo]

4. Well, he's often in ear shot of the loop...

He knows a lot of military insider. It's not a misquote, it is an informed opinion. Clark sees reality through a clear lens. Recruitment for the military is falling off dramatically. The National Guard is deployed overseas and is unavailable for domestic needs like fire fighting. Unless Iraq becomes a friendlier place, or at least a less dangerous place for Americans, the military will keep missing quotas forcing extended deployments which will hurt recruitment further. If Bush wants troops available to send into new "adventures" he has to get some out of harms way in Iraq before his voluntary Army starts unraveling.

[ClarkUSA]

5. On the Ed Shultz show yesterday, Wes Clark said...

(paraphrasing) that we may run out of troops. And sure, he's in the loop, considering the people he must know. And he blamed the Bush administration without sounding angry or negative, just dead-serious but hopeful that Americans deserve better leaders than what we've got now.

Too bad there isn't a transcript or a video link that I know of. If someone knows of any, please let us all know.

How long do you think the MSM will keep ignoring what this former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO (who happens to be a proud liberal Democrat) is saying?

:banghead:

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. Story is short on details, typical for American Media.

But the headline is a good one. It fits nicely with many people's bumper sticker attention spans. I really wish this story could have at least detailed Clark's position on how Iraq's neighbors should have and still should be dealt with. Through engagement. Through giving them a stake in Iraq succeeding rather than their current stake in Iraq failing. For all this story explains Clark could be suggesting we bomb them into the stone age. It is frightening how little attention is being paid to the actual foreign policy priorities of the Bush Administration and the consequences of them. Sure the media is doing a daily Iraq body count, and that is hurting Bush, but so few are looking at the larger picture, which is how we get into a mess like this in the first place.

[TheFarseer]

17. Dean should be more like Clark

Clark says it like it is, doesn't pull any punches, states the case calmly, but gets in all the damaging information. He doesn't need to insult or say that he hates anyone or use stereotypes. Sorry to be of topic, but that's the first thing that popped into my head.

[wtmusic]

19. If Dean was more like Clark

he wouldn't be DNC chairman.

[ClarkUSA]

29. Clark was asked to run for DNC Chairman, but he declined

Dean clearly wanted the job and he ran hard for it and succeeded.

The Democratic Party has a wide pool of Talent, obviously.

Subjective comparisons are predictable, depending on the partisan involved, so I try not to make them.

[CarolNYC]

51. well, this is true

Clark turned down an invite to run for the position...

[wtmusic]

54. Clark didn't have a chance

Has he been a Democrat for a year yet? :eyes:

[CarolNYC]

61. No way to know for sure if he would have had a chance or not.

He chose not to put himself in the running.

Has he been a Democrat for a year yet? Registered Democrat, yes, going on two years now. :) But he's been a Dem at heart for a lot longer than that....

Hey, I didn't ask him to go for it....but others did.

[Clark2008]

80. Stupid attack

Have you been in the real world for a year, yet? Have you tasted it, at all?

In the real world, people change their minds, grow, reason and clarify positions.

In wtmusic's world, apparently, if they weren't born a Democrat, ate from the manna of the DNC since they cut their teeth and became indoctrinated with party-line politics, they have no business being a leader in the party.

Hogwash.

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. I disagree

You can not clone leaders. Each has an individual style. The trick is matching the best task to the appropriate style. No one is perfect, Clark muffs a question sometimes too, though overall I think he is excellent at it. I think Dean has the right role for his talents. He is a partisan leader of a partisan organization, not someone pledged to represent a mixed constituency. Even the best medication usually comes with some side effects. Our political system is very ill and Dean is strong medicine.

[Imagevision]

64. I agree, Clark is a true statesman - just the facts that'll do...

[Sparkly]

22. I wish I'd heard the whole interview.

Is it online anywhere, either as a transcript or an audio file?

I think it's very interesting that he says he expects the army to announce a pullout. I would love to hear the complete context. It sounds like he's saying the administration blew every option for real success, but we can't sustain this level of deployment so they'll cut their losses and withdraw. Is that right? (I can't imagine what else they could do, actually, without a draft.)

[tishaLA]

28. Sparkly, this sounds like what he said to Schultz

the way I wrote it down in the Clark group is somewhat fragmentary because I was working for speed, but the essence of it is this:

He was asked about Biden's comments that the troops will be in Iraq for the next two years. Clark said he agrees with that assessment and he believes that it could very well extend beyond two years because of the realities on the ground.

Clark said he expects a partial pullout by late summer because of two factors. One is that we have had terrible recruitment for the past four months and we just don't have the bodies available to keep up the troop levels when people don't want to go to Iraq and Afghanistan. The other is that politically it is not efficacious for george to maintain troop levels as they are currently.

I know this doesn't address your question directly, but his statement in the OP seems to echo those made to Schultz.

[Sparkly]

30. Sorry I'm so confused -- I thought the article was based on the Schultz

interview. No?

What would be the role of a smaller troop presence there?

[tishaLA]

33. The article says it's an AP interview

so I don't think it's based on Schultz.

I don't recall Gen. Clark talking about the role of the troop presence. He addressed why they needed to do it (i.e., politics and recruitment), but now how he imagined they would be used. I don't think he approved of any of these shenanigans, anyhow, because they are transparent efforts to make george's loony policies look viable.

[Sparkly]

38. So it does!

:dunce:

I wonder whether they'll keep troops on the Syrian border, and go for what I think Jon Stewart called "Operation: While You're Up There..."

Then all they'd need is for Israel to make a move against Iran. I remember Cheney saying, "We can't stop Israel from doing something against Iran, if they perceive Iran as a threat. And PS, Iran is a threat." (I'm paraphrasing.)

The GOP needs a war, or at least an enemy at all times, but they also need people to feel a threat and be afraid, imho. I don't think they can keep invading other countries, nor stay in Iraq, without that.

Meanwhile, it's obviously they are completely inept with all things diplomatic AND military.

[CarolNYC]

50. the Schultz interview

Someone from Ed's show is supposed to be emailing the audio to WesPAC so I imagine it will show up on securingamerica.com sometime....

[welshTerrier2]

34. very good but there's room for more ...

Clark's statement "Barring some vast systemic change in Iraq in which the reception of the troops . . . was entirely different, I think it's clear that we need to reduce the size of the forces there" is a breath of fresh air after hearing from all the droning Democrats in the Senate ...

Clark is dead on the money when he acknowledges that more of the same will only yield more of the same ... those of you who agree with Democratic Senators who argue that we must "stay the course" are DEAD WRONG ... with bush in power, the US will NEVER achieve anything worthwhile in Iraq ... "pretty words" about democracy and stabilization are absurd ...

so i strongly commend Clark for his comments on Iraq !!!

now, having said that, let's look at what he did NOT say and let's encourage him to take the next steps ...

1. Clark did not affix any timetable whatsoever in his call for troop reductions ... each day we reamin means more death and more tragedy ...
2. Clark did not call for withdrawal of American forces; he called for "reductions" ... what good is a smaller force? we need to leave ...
3. Clark did not comment on the position of the Democratic Party or on the position held by Senate Democrats ... if he is going to show leadership on this issue, he's off to a very good start ... by leadership requires that you convince others to follow your lead ... the next step is to call on Democratic Senators to support the position Clark is espousing ...

I'm highly appreciative of Clark's thoughtful analysis and his highlighting of the total failure of policy in Iraq ... i eagerly await his taking the next step ...

[Tom Rinaldo]

36. I dunno WT, I would like to please you

but I don't think Clark is actually calling for those withdrawals exactly. He is saying that they are likely to be an inevitable consequence of Bush's mismanagement of the entire Iraq debacle. It's an analysis more than a policy recommendation. But that actually is something that I admire in Clark. He understands that sound policy flows from an honest analysis. You can not "cook the facts" just because the conclusions are troublesome to some.

I think it is safe to say that Clark wishes he were in charge instead of Bush because he would do things differently (that's why he ran). He is worried about Iraq falling into chaos if the U.S. pulls out too suddenly, and what the consequences of that would be. But he also sees that this administration is unwilling or incapable of reversing policies and/ or setting the right priorities so that it could be possible for U.S. forces to effectively offer assistance to the shakey new Iraq government that would actually contribute to stability there more so than our continuing presence tends to further destabilize the situation. Clark is not optimistic about Iraq, and he sees the Bush administration leading us into further conflicts with Syria and Iran.

[Gloria]

44. Link to Schultz thread/comment by Clark on what he would do as Pres.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1842253&mesg_id=1842504

(Pardon my shorthand)....Asked what he would do about Iraq if he were President:

IF PRESIDENT NOW:
Talk to Iraq's neighbors.
More resources into Army so it can restructure itself/train Iraqis
Put best guy he can in there to work to build the political system

[welshTerrier2]

84. just to be clear ...

i think we need to differentiate between what Clark would do as president and what we should do with bush in power ... clearly, the two visions should not be the same ...

one recognizes a possible solution and the other recognizes the entrenched failure ...

with bush in power, getting out is the only thing that makes any sense ...

[Tom Rinaldo]

85. Sadly, you have a valid point

No getting around it. I see your point. What I don't know enough to comment on is risk assessment for various variations on withdrawal scenarios, given that Bush is the one in power. For example, while the American presence in Iraq under Bush carries the seeds of it's own failure, and even further deterioration, there might be a slightly higher chance of avoiding total break down in Iraq if the U.S announced an immediate pull out of X thousand troops, with a time line to withdraw the rest in increments over Y months, compared to announcing that one half were coming home next month and the second half a month after that. Or vice versa. I honestly don't know, which is one reason why I hate having a misguided dangerous ideologically driven and incompetent Administration in power in Washington. I do not trust their judgment. Bah. There really is a great deal at stake too.

[welshTerrier2]

86. just for fun ... try this absurd analogy ...

imagine a situation where the US is trying to win a car race against other countries ...

General Clark analyzes the problem and quickly sees that the US driver is going too slowly ... he reasons that, if he were driving, he could drive much faster, not go so wide on the turns, and still not crash ... perhaps he's right ...

but bush is driving ... you have a power-crazed, pro-corporate, alcoholic imperialist behind the wheel ... is the right solution still to drive faster ?????

when you have a drunk behind the wheel, the only sane advice is to tell him to stop the car ...

[Tom Rinaldo]

87. Oh I understand

But analogies rarely capture all the variables. Let's say instead that we had a dangerously drunk driver who theoretically is taking someone who may be having a heart attack to the hospital in his car. The hospital is 30 miles away. Perhaps the person will die if they do not receive attention. Perhaps they will die if the drunk driver takes them over a cliff. They are currently on a small seldom traveled road where it is unlikely anyone else will come along soon. 5 miles ahead they merge with a slightly more traveled road. Ten miles ahead that merges with an even more traveled road, and so on.

A lot of calculations to do. Is the patient more likely to die in the next few miles in an accident if they let the drunk driver keep driving, or will they die from a heart attack on the side of the road if they get out of the car now? What is the likelihood that another car will come along to save them on this seldom driven road? Should they risk 5 more miles with the drunk driving and then get out on a slightly more traveled road, or ten more miles driving with the drunk, and then get out on a road that has a few more people still traveling on who might pick them up and take them to the hospital? Should they just gamble on the drunk getting them all the way to the hospital even though he is a terrible driver, rather than risk not getting another ride quickly enough 10 or 15 miles miles down the highway, were they to get out of his car?

I guess I am thinking at the moment that the right answer is not to try to have Bush drive all the way to the hospital. I also suspect that the patient should not get out now on this deserted back woods road. But should the patient jump out now, in five miles, in ten miles, or in fifteen miles?

[welshTerrier2]

89. yup ... all good points ...

analogies are often valuable to help clarify a given point but i totally agree with you that they rarely capture all the variables ... that's why i referred to it as an absurd analogy just for fun ...

i wrote it to clarify the distinction between Clark providing advice if he were in power versus Clark providing advice with bush in power ... i was not at all using the analogy to argue my position on withdrawal ...

the analogies you provided are all worthy of consideration ...

[Tom Rinaldo]

37. One detail, on the case for partial short term withdrawal

One model, which works on the assumption that the Iraq's own security forces are gaining in strength and competency but not yet at the point where they can prevail on their own, calls for the U.S. to shrink it's footprint in Iraq, reduce it's forces, and pull back to a more strict training and back up only role. In other words be kept more or less in reserve except under exceptional circumstances during major operations or to provide quick back up for Iraq's security forces should insurgents launch major offensives etc.

That might involve helping to guard key facilities or whatever, leaving Iraq's new forces out there in the cities and on the streets doing almost all of the face to face stuff with the public. I'm not at all a military person, so this is just my best attempt to understand some tactics that I've seen written about in passing.

[Sparkly]

39. They do keep saying that's the strategy, but it doesn't seem possible

It doesn't look like Iraqi forces will be capable of handling the "insurgency" anytime soon, if ever, especially at the rate it's going now.

Maybe the "plan" is to pretend they are able to do so, get the new Iraqi government to "ask us to leave," and get ourselves so bogged down elsewhere we couldn't do anything more anyway. :shrug:

It's hard to know what these people are thinking. And I can't think of anything possible at this point that's a solution, they've created such a dismal situation.

[FrenchieCat]

42. Pretend...

good word.

That's what the Bush admin does about a lot of things.

[Donna Zen]

63. FWIW

From WT2's post:

1. Clark did not affix any timetable whatsoever in his call for troop reductions ... each day we reamin means more death and more tragedy ...

Clark did not affix any timetable because 1) Clark, no matter how much I wish he were, is not in charge. 2) the draw-down is not so much a deliberate plan by the regime, as a forced necessity. 3) Clark believes in benchmarks as opposed to timetables.

2. Clark did not call for withdrawal of American forces; he called for "reductions" ... what good is a smaller force? we need to leave ...

Clark is not in charge of any military actions. He just isn't.

3. Clark did not comment on the position of the Democratic Party or on the position held by Senate Democrats ... if he is going to show leadership on this issue, he's off to a very good start ... by leadership requires that you convince others to follow your lead ... the next step is to call on Democratic Senators to support the position Clark is espousing ...

This is not a position espoused, this is an observation made. While Clark does retain the same security clearance that all other 4 stars have, he is not privy to any operational plans currently being espoused. What he is doing is watching the troop movements, deployments, rotations, and recruiting very carefully. There are particular units that are being used (and abused) in Iraq. There is also a ratio that must be maintained between frontline forces and their support units. The draw-down is a function of what troop strength is available. (That is the new information I took away from the Schultz interview.)

This information is knowable to those watching and will not endanger troop morale; if it did, Clark would be the last person to say it.

I think what Clark is now doing is pre-empting the regime's ability to spin their latest fuck up as PR photo-op event. If the Dems. had an credentials and balls, they would seize the moment to do the same.

If indeed they are pulling the American troops out of the cities; good! Someone mentioned that up-thread, and shrinking the footprint is positive, but it is by no means a withdraw. Bush doesn't intend to leave.

I don't pretend to know who is the greatest general in history, I'm sure the arguments for and against would endless and boring. I do believe that Clark is currently the greatest living American general. Expect the dumb-fucks in the regime to ignore him. Afterall, ignoring him, is what got us into the mess.

[Adelante]

78. Don't commend Clark too quickly, wT2

He's condemning Bush's foreign policies, but he is NOT calling for troop withdrawal or reductions, and saying Bush's policies have made this inevitable.

We've told you before that Wes Clark is never going to be what you want. He is an honorable man and a strong leader, which I think you do acknowledge, but he doesn't see it your way and probably never will.

[welshTerrier2]

81. not sure i did ...

i strongly commended Clark for his comments on Iraq ... i also listed areas that i would like to see him tackle ...

the appreciation i expressed was for this comment: "Barring some vast systemic change in Iraq in which the reception of the troops . . . was entirely different, I think it's clear that we need to reduce the size of the forces there."

this "hits the nail on the head" and blows away the "we're stuck there" argument ... those, especially those misguided Democrats, who support this view (i.e. we're stuck there) are wrong because more of the same will only yield more of the same ... so i strongly agree with Clark on this point ...

while i am totally convinced we need to withdraw because bush is in power and he will not implement "systematic change" in the policy, i have acknowledged that i would be open to a discussion of remaining (briefly) in Iraq with a Democrat in power ... so i agree with Clark's statement that without a systematic change in how we are being perceived in Iraq, we need to "reduce the size of the forces" ... my reduction would bring the size to zero ...

[Adelante]

82. Okay, then, thank you nt

[AaronforAmerica]

43. http://www.StopJohnBolton.com

Hi,

I thought some of you may be interested in helping with a petition site that several of us former Wes Clark campaign staff members just put it. Its an email petition to Senators urging them to vote against John Bolton. I hope you check it out:

http://www.StopJohnBolton.com

Thanks!

take care,
Aaron

[FrenchieCat]

46. Thanks....done did sign

and Welcome!

Very good and constructive post! :hi:

[CarolNYC]

52. thanks for the link, Aaron n/t

[Donna Zen]

60. Done

n/t

[ClarkUSA]

75. Welcome to DU!

I signed up - thanks for dropping by.

[Texas_Kat]

45. Anyone find the recent comments by the Iraqi ambassador enlightening?

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050601/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_iraq

Particularly as it relates to what Wes has said and how Cheney and the Bush junta has been talking about the 'winding down of the insurgency' lately?

Am I connecting dots that aren't there, or are these seeming 'unrelated' stories part of the 'bigger picture? I confess I don't know, but am arming myself with a collander and a fireplace poker, just in case.

Iraq Concerned U.S. May Leave Too Soon

Iraq's foreign minister (Hoshyar Zebari) said he's concerned the United States may pull out of the country before the army and police are ready to take responsibility for the nation's security

snip...

Even though Zebari repeated numerous times in his speech to the council that Iraq still can't survive on its own and needs help, the foreign minister said Iraq isn't certain Washington will stay engaged.

"I am concerned — I am concerned," Zebari said in an interview at the United Nations late Tuesday. "I'm a realist, OK, and we've seen that before. We need to complete this mission with their help. We are getting very close. The riding is getting tougher."

[FrenchieCat]

47. Well, I do!

Like I said, as before, Clark will be proven right.....again.

[Disturbed]

55. The Bush Fascist Regime. has been successful.

1.Saddam will no longer sell Iraqi oil via the Euro.

2.A military foothold in the ME.

3.No countries will be able to buy Iraqi oil that the U.S. disapproves of.

4.The Multi-Intl. Oil Corps are reaping great profits, esp. Bush Junta fave ally Saudi Dicktatorshit.

The Occupation will be declared as over. The remaining troops will be at four major bases and keep a low profile.

“We live a lie when we fail to hold leaders accountable for their lies. By not calling now for impeachment, we are saying that we condone hypocrisy, pseudo-democracy, and murdering thousands of Americans and Iraqis for strategic control of energy resources that we have no right to. Patriotism demands that we insist on the ideals of democracy, not that we support the "leaders" who cynically destroy them.”
Robert Shetterly

[Clarkie1]

57. The policy has failed. It is time to plan an orderly withdrawl.

I should acknowledge, first, the 5 more marines killed in Iraq today. My thoughts and prayers go out to families I will never know.

http://www.cnn.com/

The policy in Iraq cannot succeed with U.S. troops remaining there. There is no way to build sufficient forces to stop the killing of our troops and bring security the region short of reinstating the draft. This failed policy must be changed. Staying without sufficient troop stength is insanity, as is bringing back the draft to build forces in Iraq. The only option is a planned withdrawl of the type suggested by Senator McGovern. We will have to withdraw the troops anyway (unless there is a draft), so we might as well abandon this failure in an organized, plannned way. There is no way for us to "succeed" in Iraq with the current level of forces, and it is uncertain we could "succeed" with more forces. We need to abandon the policy, and make plans accordingly.

Unfortunately, we have a president who never grew up and cannot admit his own mistakes, even mistakes that have led to the unnecessary killings of thousands of people.

GEORGE MCGOVERN AND JIM MCGOVERN
Withdraw from Iraq
By George McGovern and Jim McGovern | June 6, 2005

WE WERE early opponents of the US invasion of Iraq. Nonetheless, once American forces were committed, we hoped that our concerns would be proven wrong. That has not been the case.

The United States must now begin an orderly withdrawal of our forces from this mistaken foreign venture.

The justification for the war was based on false or falsified information. What had been initially characterized by the Bush administration as an uncomplicated military operation has turned into a violent quagmire. Our leaders underestimated not only the insurgency, but also the deep-rooted ethnic divisions in Iraqi society.

There are no clear answers from the administration or the Congress on how long our forces will need to stay in Iraq, what the anticipated costs in human life and treasure will be, or even what would constitute success.

Instead, many of our policymakers seem resigned to an open-ended occupation. Former Defense Undersecretary Paul Wolfowitz has told Congress that we will be there for at least another 10 years. It is common to hear even some who voted against the war say, ''now that we're there, we have no choice but to stay."

We very much disagree. Calls to maintain the status quo echo the same rationale used to keep us in Vietnam. To those who contend that we would weaken our credibility if we withdraw, we believe that the nation's standing would greatly improve if we demonstrate the judgment to terminate an unwise course.

Our continuing presence in Iraq feeds the insurgency and gives the insurgents a certain legitimacy in the eyes of much of the world. We know from our own history that armies of occupation are seldom welcome.

There have been elections in Iraq, and yet it remains unclear whether the different political, ethnic, and religious factions want to work together.

One thing, however, is clear: Washington cannot determine Iraq's destiny. It doesn't matter how many times Condoleezza Rice or Donald Rumsfeld visit. It doesn't matter how many soldiers we deploy. The myriad factions in Iraq themselves must display the political will to demand a system of government that respects the diversity that exists in their country.
There are no easy answers in Iraq. But we are convinced that the United States should now set a dramatically different course -- one that anticipates US military withdrawal sooner rather than later. We should begin the discussions now as to how we can bring our troops home.

The United States should accelerate and pay for the training of Iraqi security forces with the help of Egypt, Jordan, and other Arab allies. We can begin drawing down American forces to coincide with the number of trained Iraqi forces. By that measure, we should bring 30,000 of our troops home now.

President Bush should consult with the current Iraqi government and other Arab nations about the necessity for an Arab-led security force to complement the Iraqis in the short term. Again, the United States should finance this effort.

We should also work with the United Nations to solicit ideas and assistance from the international community on how we can best disengage.

There are no guarantees that militarily withdrawing from Iraq would contribute to stability or would not result in chaos. On the other hand, we do know that under our occupation the violence will continue.We also know that our occupation is one of the chief reasons for hatred of the United States, not only in the Arab world but elsewhere.

Wars are easy to get into, but hard as hell to get out of. After two years in Iraq and the loss of more than 1,600 American soldiers, it is simply not enough to embrace the status quo.
We are not suggesting a ''cut-and-run" strategy. The United States must continue to finance security, training, and reconstruction.

But the combination of stubbornness and saving face is not an adequate rationale for continuing this war. This is not a liberal or conservative issue. It is time for lawmakers in Washington -- and for concerned citizens across the nation -- to demand that this sad chapter in our history come to an end and not be repeated in some other hapless country.
The path of endless war will bankrupt our treasury, devour our soldiers, and degrade the moral and spiritual values of the nation. It is past time to change course.

George McGovern, the 1972 Democratic nominee for president, represented South Dakota in the US Senate. Jim McGovern (no relation) represents the Massachusetts 3d Congressional District.

****

"Running for president is no easy task. And I have the battle scars to show it. I, too, was the subject of a few dirty tricks during my day. But I'll tell you, there is no better man to withstand the Republican attacks then Wes Clark. And the Republicans know that - they're running scared. The last thing they want is a four star general on their hands. ....

Finally, let me say this: There are a lot of good Democrats in this race. But Wes Clark is the best Democrat. He is a true progressive. He's the Democrat's Democrat. I've been around the political block - and I can tell you, I know a true progressive when I see one. And that's why he has my vote." - George McGovern

[RetroLounge]

59. WESLEY CLARK HITS BUSH

a headline I'd love to see...

RL

[FrenchieCat]

66. Yeah.....

BOOM...upside the head, I said Boom upside the head!

[Tom Rinaldo]

73. This reminds me of another Clark accurate analysis

Remember the day after the Iraq elections? The entire media was proclaiming it a great moment, which arguably it was, but more than that, they were using it as proof that Bush was right about Iraq after all, that maybe the invasion was worth it. Even Bill Maher seemed to cave to Bush. Clark gave proper credit to the Iraq people, and to our troops in Iraq. But he said it was too early to say that the Elections marked any turning point, and that the invasion had still been wrong. Clark said it was still very uncertain that the insurgents would lose momentum, and he worried that the Sunni population would feel disenfranchised by the results, causing them to remain restive and fertile to the opposition.

I remember Clark getting blasted for those remarks then by both Republicans and the media, who were giddy over the voter turn out in Iraq and the relative lack of violence. They called him a knee jerk anti-Bush nay sayer, but Clark keyed in on the low turnout in Sunni majority areas, and said near term stability remained very uncertain, that the elections did not resolve the underlying splits in Iraq. The optimistic pundits were wrong again. Clark was right.

[Donna Zen]

76. On Paula Zahn

I'm not sure which interview you mean...maybe Scarborough? Anyway, right before the election in Iraq, Clark was interviewed by Paula Zahn. After a stream of careful questions and strictly factual answers, Zahn asked him a question to which Clark responded: "It will be bloody leading up to the elections and it will bloody following the elections."

Then something happened which struck me as very strange: Zahn recoiled and Clark cracked a huge smile and said: "You asked me," and Zahn with a certain curiously amused resignation in her voice said: "Yes, I did."

Why this has stayed with me is that it appeared that the interview was meant to be a pep-talk about the glorious virtues and outcomes of the election, and Clark, seizing on a question with an opportunity for voicing an opinion, sneeked one in on her.

Until then, Zahn often interviewed Clark, this was the last time she had him on.

[Tom Rinaldo]

83. I remember that now! Great. Was thinking of another though...

Clark wasn't the only guest on the show. Could have been Scarborough. The host and the other guest or guests just could not get over the fact that Clark was not joining in on the big celebration that everything was going to get better now. The implication - hell it wasn't an implication, at least one said it directly - was that Clark was stuck on trying to deny Bush the credit he deserved for being right about Iraq, but Clark would not budge. He gave credit to our military for doing the best job possible under poor circumstances, he gave credit to the bravery of those Iraq citizens who came out to vote, but he stuck to his position that huge problems remained in Iraq. They dismissed him, but of course Clark was right.

[CarolNYC]

96. I think it was Scarborough

I remember a Scarborough interview in which he appeared with Christopher Hitchens. It got kind of nasty, with Scarborough especially being quite disrespectful of the General, which kind of surprised me because, even with their differences, Joe always seems to at least show respect for the General's years of service...but he completely dissed him that night...He even continued to do so with a later guest on the show, if I recall correctly. You're right. Clark didn't back down...and he was right.

[ClarkUSA]

98. It was Scumborough alright

It was the last time I bothered to watch MSNBC.

[libodem]

88. I saw a thread awhile back

that said the Iraqi people would be happy for a truck load of apples. We haven't done squat for most of them. Alot of the infrastructure and water access is still disfunctional. I don't think we can be to high and mighty and proud about fixing what we shocked and awed in the first place. Plus wait until we start seeing the birth defects that will be born of melting the people of Faluja.

[Capn Sunshine]

90. Right on Wesley.

Now we sit back and see the attacks start from the rest of the pink tutus. They can't even stomach the notion that we should demand an exit strategy.

At least Clark has the military knowledge to see a cluster fuck needs to be broken up.

[roguevalley]

92. my nephew was in Kosovo when he was C-In-C and he LOVES

Clark. He loved serving under him and supports him for president. Considering the hell he went through and how he came back alive,
I consider his opinion on Clark supreme.

[Adelante]

93. Thank you

I love to hear that. :)

[usregimechange]

94. Go General! Best hope to save us from a Hillary loss.