Clark on Fox today: "We're doing a lot of great things in this war"

[ruggerson]

He also questioned the policy of the Bush administration in terms of the message we're sending the world with Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, and insisted we needed an international Court to deal with suspected terrorist prisoners.

And he was very clear that he thought the Bush administration was undermining the very moral message we send to the world through its policies. A powerful point. We need to be a country that tells the truth, since these are values we stand for as a nation.

But, I'm wondering, just what are the "great things" we're doing in this war? Rebuilding things we've destroyed? Creating a huge terrorist base in the middle of the region?

What?

I guarantee if Hillary or Warner or Bayh had said this, half of DU would have jumped on it. But no one here bats an eye when Clark says it.

What's the deal?

What are all the "great things" we're doing in this war?

[aquart]

1. Clark who?

[ruggerson]

2. Gen. Wesley Clark n/t

[FrenchieCat]

35. What sentences followed that sentence you selected for

your title? Do you know?

His immediate next sentence was about the men and women in Uniform and the great things that they have done....Which I believe is what he was talking about......

As you said in your op, he said a lot of things as he spoke for about 3 or 4 minutes....and yet, that is the only sentence that I could find that when standing alone could make him look like he's all for this war and feels that it's a good thing.

Of course, You have it standing alone as your OP title......How provocative!

Here's the tape--
(those who don't take the time to watch this tape should opt not to comment on Wes Clark's views based on the sole sentence located and advertised).

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/4587

[ruggerson]

43. Yes, Frenchie, I understand the tortured explanations

but I don't buy them.

I don't think we are "doing a lot of great things in Iraq."

I think we destroyed a country that didn't attack us and in so doing violated two hundred years of American non aggression.

I think we have virtually destroyed our position in the world, the former position of being a moral giant.

I think we have created a terrorist haven in Iraq, one that will plague us for decades, the war has made us FAR less safe.

I think we are "nation building" in the most venal, obscene, imperialistic manner that the world has seen in years, not for altruistic purposes, but to control mideast oil.

I think we invaded another country based on lies, deceptions and horrific manipulation of the fears of the American public.

I don't think we are doing "great things" in Iraq.

I think it's the worst mistake in foreign policy perhaps in the history of the United States and there's not one fucking redeeming thing about it.

[FrenchieCat]

50. Clark agrees with you on that.....

When you say.....I think it's the worst mistake in foreign policy perhaps in the history of the United States....

However, unfortunate as it is, our men and women in uniforms have done great things over there as well (and Clark mentions this in his interview)terrible things. Obviously you differ with Wes Clark on the facts and must feel that our soldiers have not done any redeeming things whatsoever....


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9064938/
Mr. Russert: Was it a mistake to go into Iraq?

Gen. Clark: Well, I think it was a strategic blunder. First it wasn’t connected to the war on terror, at least not to the people that struck us. Secondly, it has proved a huge recruitment tool for al-Qaeda. It’s a feed lot for terrorists who want to learn how to fight Americans. We put our American soldiers at risk there. And we’re producing terrorists out there. It’s a training ground. And seeing American soldiers engaged there just raises the temperature and the blood pressure throughout the Islamic world. So I wish we hadn’t done it. But having said that, I still believe there’s an opportunity to make the best of a bad situation in Iraq. I don’t want to see us come out of there if we can put a strategy together that will leave that region more peaceful and protect our interests and the interests of the other nations.

[Montauk6]

3. I've always found it a wee bit unsavory that Clark actually WORKS for Fox.

[xultar]

16. If you want to change kool-aid drinkers don't you have to go to the tap?

[Frosty1]

27. Clark works for fox??

:think: :think: :wow:
What is he doing for fox?

[Tom Rinaldo]

47. If you watch the video it will answer your question

This is what Clark "does for FOX":

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/4587
the link is to Clark's web site, not to FOX)

He is an expert commentator about four times a week usually for a few minutes each time. I am glad he is doing this because he manages to counter their spin effectively and make points that need to be made. I think it is a service to Democrats that he is doing.

[Frosty1]

73. Sorry

I don't even try to watch videos on my computer Dial up is 24 Kbps :argh:

[Tom Rinaldo]

76. Sorry right back at you, lol. I understand. n/t

[Crunchy Frog]

86. You can also read transcripts of the appearances on his site,

or just download and listen to the audio. The transcript for this appearance doesn't seem to be up yet, but it should be within a few days. Here's a transcript from a Feb 9th FOX appearance if you want to take a look at it.

Welcome to DU. When reading a quote here of something Wes said, it's generally a good idea to read the original source because a few people try to misrepresent things that he's said by posting single lines out of their contexts. That can be done to anyone, but there seems to be a peculiar penchant for doing it specifically to Clark on this site.

[Montauk6]

48. I forget the title... Military Analyst... something like that

[formernaderite]

81. I've always found Clark a wee bit unsavory

he has the look of a weazel...I know, it's personal with me. I just have NEVER warmed up to the guy. Perhaps it's the military background...I don't find it suitable for leadership, and I'd like to get away from the war like image we currently have.

[ewagner]

4. I didnt' hear it

but knowing Gen Clark's history, I assume he was referring to individual acts by the soldiers themselves...there are some stories of selfless actions on the part of our soldiers there....

Clark generally (no pun intedned) likes to "praise the warrior and hate the war." That's what I suspect was going on here.

[ruggerson]

7. but if it's in the context of an unjust murderous, morally

repugnant war, it doesn't jive to say "we're doing a lot of great things in this war" if you're referring to individual acts of kindness by our soldiers.

That's like saying, let's go next door, viciously slaughter the entire family, and when the shocked, grieving cousins show up, we'll make them a really good dinner.

[ewagner]

24. Clark has called this

war "Our biggest blunder in our history".

I wouldn't call him a hawk on this issue.

[Divine Discontent]

5. Clarkies don't care about the 'politicing'

he's being what they can't make fun of by saying those general comments about the war. kerry said we "have troops terrorizing families, kids" etc.. and the other side (the dark side!) using that as propaganda. Watch Clark ---


His stock is going to rise in about a year, he's a VP or P contender, and would fit great with HILLARY, EDWARDS, and good with Kerry, Feingold, & Gore.

He strengthens the ticket as a VP, and totally secures the "security" arguement as President Clark.

[KittyWampus]

6. Provide some fuller context for the quote and we can discuss it.

Often, when Clark makes statements about the war in Iraq, he is showing support for the troops, their actual performance of tasks given them and the role of the troops' in-the-field leadership.

[ruggerson]

9. Here ya go:

http://www.yellowdogdem.com/021806.WMV

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. Folks should watch for themselves. Here's the Clip:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/4587

Also check out the other discussion thread on this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2468198&mesg_id=2468198

[ruggerson]

10. Explain it to me Tom

what are the "lots of great things" we're doing?

[Tom Rinaldo]

14. I replied below but...

I will write more later but now have to run out the door now for a dinner.

[Donna Zen]

17. Great things??

After reading "Assassins' Gate" and "Night Draws Near," two books highly critical of the war and the occupation, both also told the tale of the huge burden placed on the troops who without training stepped up to help the Iraqi people with forming neighbor councils, repairing their sewer systems, settling disputes, and basically getting their lives together. You know, we are not by birth an evil people even though our leadership is currently ranking among the worst on the planet.

All of this simple good acts have been overshadowed by bush's bad policies. But, they did happen.

In the clip, Clark follows his statement by quickly listing the troops and diplomats. He saves his condemnation for the leadership. He has already had one go-around with Hannity when he brought up the kicking down the doors at night. As Clark has said: You don't win hearts and minds by bombing people's families.

[Montauk6]

51. As coroner I must aver... OOPS! Wrong thread

Seriously though, after watching, Wes said nothing that he hadn't said before. I got the impression he was in support of the soldiers, period, but highly critical of the policy. That said, I'd still prefer that he were, say, Pacifica's military analyst. ;)

I was more offended by Rumshead now giving what seems to be the new talking point during his CFR speech; that this is NOW a war for the hearts and minds of Muslims. Basically, a PR campaign.

So, we went from

9/11

to

WMD = mushroom clouds

to

toppling Saddam

to

liberating Iraqis

to

9/11

to

keeping the terrorism isolated

to

9/11

to

protecting the Iraqis quest for democracy

to

9/11

to

this PR campaign.

What's next? 9/11?

[WCGreen]

11. We have done some good things...

We.. No, that didn't happen....

Let's see... Nope, not that either...

Maybe...Nope....

Good things.... Can't see any...

[Tom Rinaldo]

12. Here's my short reply to your queston

It's a fair question of a sort, but without context it doesn't work to say if Warner or Hillary or Bayh said that DU would have erupted but why not now?

Warner and Hillary and Bayh were never strongly on record opposing this war in the first place in the way that Clark was, so it is more clear that Clark is not trying to praise this war. He doesn't says we can "win it" for example, he says the results of our Iraq invasion in a very best case scenario can be no better than a "C minus" at this point, and may well be an "F".

Clark was part of the debate opposing this war but he doesn't blame the men and women on the ground for the war. He thinks that the overwhelming majority of them are doing the best they can to fulfill their obligation to the nation in a way that is consistent with American regard for international law. You heard his reference to international law regarding our prison camp in Cuba for example. He blames the abuses and the tragedies on the policy makers, on the Administration. It is a sure way to lose elections when we shift the blame for Bush's mistakes onto the men and women who serve in our military.

[mom cat]

19. Clark says we can win this war:

"to win this war we have to separate our advasaries from everybody else"

See clip:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/4587
Although I think that Clark says some things that I agree with, He does not explain the "great things" that we are (according to him) doing in Iraq nor does he explain hoe he thinks we are going to "win" this war (his words).

[Donna Zen]

26. He has said how we "win" this war

He said that this war cannot be won militarily, but only politically and diplomatically. He has also said that we can either achieve a C- or an F; the As are all gone. To get the C-, we must help integrate the Sunnis into the new government. I think he believes that there will be a theocratic state. He was just very specific about this entire thing in an appearance before the Foreign Relation Council.

[1932]

34. He blogged at his website that we could have won Vietnam.

When asked to explain he merely cited a book about how awful Mao was.

I'm still not clear how he thinks we could have won Vietnam and I interpret that statement as him saying that we should have used the awfulness of Mao to justify trying harder in Vietnam -- as if Americans would have tolerated more, deadly American imperialism if they had sufficient fear and hatred of Mao. (Does that sound like what we're doing in Iraq today?)

[FrenchieCat]

37. Link to that blog please......

[1932]

40. oh please. Are you seriously denying he said that?

[FrenchieCat]

52. Link please.....

I don't need to deny something you said he said when you (the one doing the accusing) can't even back up your own statement!

[1932]

87. If you believed, in your heart, that Clark was right when he said this

I bet we wouldn't be playing this game where, if you cover your eyes, you can pretend he didn't say it.

[Donna Zen]

39. The Mao book is very interesting

Have you read it?

Clark wrote a master's theses in which he disected every military decision made as illustrated by the Pentagon Papers. Also, how do you know what his solution would be? It is often said that Vietnam (like Iraq) was dragged out needlessly because of the domestic political decisions made by the WHouse. Could have Vietnam had a legitimate government is Washington had understood how weak Mao actually was?


I'm attending a conference at the Kennedy Library in a few weeks: Vietnam and the Presidency. It should be interesting. In a session called: lessons learned, Clark, Bob Herbert, Pete Peterson, and Hegel will discuss this in depth.

"A somber and timely warning to those--in any society--who would evoke the emotions of war for the pursuit of political gain."
~Wes Clark

[1932]

42. how does it suggest 'nam was winnable?

[Tom Rinaldo]

57. If you use value neutral definitions, "Viet Nam" could have been won.

That is obviously true. Viet Nam was a hard fought and protracted true Civil War, one that the United States chose to support one side in. If you strip away questions of whether or not the United States was justified in intervening in that war and/or if we had legitimate national interests in it, and instead look at the Viet Nam War as a military conflict from which military lessons can and should be learned (which is how the military of all nations study prior wars) than "wining" would be defined as securing an independent State in South Viet Nam rather than having the government based in Saigon taken over by the government based in Hanoi.

You are reading in your own beliefs about the morality and justification for U.S. involvement in Viet Nam rather than accepting the obvious on the surface fact that Saigon might have prevailed under different circumstances. Further you are reading in your own interpretation of what different circumstances might have led Saigon to prevail. More deadly force might have done it, or maybe not. Less corruption in Saigon and a greater attention from Saigon to the needs of people in the countryside might have changed the outcome also. And there are many many variables that could have come into play. I think your interpretation, spinning a theoretical statement about possible different outcomes of a Civil War, into advocating more deadly American Imperialism, is purely speculative on your part and far afield from discussing Clark's comments today on FOX.

[Yupster]

66. I certainly hope that our top military minds

(which certainly would include General Cark) have spent thousands of hours looking at every decision we made in Vietnam to see what we could have or should have done differently.

What if scenarios in history are interesting for the layman, but for the prfessional soldier they are vital.

I hope that we have wargamed the Vietnam War a hundred different ways in the last 30 years so that we will try not to make the same mistakes next time.

[Tom Rinaldo]

53. To be more clear about what I meant above...

Hoping for a C Minus grade at best while warning an F is likely is not anyone's idea of a victory in the War on Terror. Our language for wars is mostly binary; win or lose. Clark advised against this war because he knew it would hurt rather than help America. Clark does not think spending hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives hoping for a "C minus" outcome advanced any American Interests. The only thing worse is spending hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives to get an "F" outcome.

When Bush uses the word "win" he means it the way most people hear it, as in "Isn't that great, we won!" Bush claims ultimate Peace and security is being advanced by the United States decision to invade Iraq. Clark strongly disagrees, and says that under any scenario we are worse off for having invaded Iraq. Clark doesn't think there is anything good about this war, though some Americans are trying their best to make the best of the mess the invasion caused, and he appreciates those individual efforts on the ground. Unlike Bush, Clark believes invading Iraq hurt our war on terror, it did not and will not increase our America's security no matter how it is played out from here. The only question remaining is just how badly will the invasion and all that followed in it's wake hurt America's security.

In a best case, Iraq does not descend into total chaos and a terrorist haven, or become a complete client state of Iran, or trigger off a full regional war. In a best case the insurgency, which never would have been triggered off in the first place had the United States not invaded Iraq, will recede and most Iraq Sunnis will eventually continue the fight for their interests within a political rather than military framework. That best case is Clark's relative "win" at this point. That is his "C minus" which is a "Win" only when compared to the alternatives, not when compared to how it could have been had Bush not invaded Iraq. Bush still says invading Iraq was the right thing to do and says America is better off for having done it. Clark says invading Iraq was the wrong thing and the United States is worse off for having done it.

[capi888]

13. Wes Clark was supporting the Troops....as doing "great things"

The Soldiers are doing great things, NOT THE ELECTIVE WAR . I am sure you realize that he was against the war from the getgo. He did an excellent job, stating that what the muslims are against is the POLICIES of this administration. The Abu Ghraib, and cartoons exacerbate the problem but are not the reason for all the turmoil. Its the Bush POLICIES!! He did a great job...today one of the best I have seen.
He also said the war on terror,(Which Iraq is Now) was and is,International Problem, and that is why we need an International solution.

[rodeodance]

15. Where does he stand on bringing troops home?

[Cascadian]

18. Those statements alone should tell you.

If people think Hillary Clinton, Bayh, or Clark will bring the troops home if one of them are elected President, they ought to think again. The Democrats MUST....MUST reassert their view of this fiasco and call not for a retreat but a total withdrawal from Iraq. John Murtha has said this much.

Why would Democrats support somebody who wants to continue the occupation of Iraq? Why? It is wrong!


John

[Donna Zen]

23. Clark has called for no permanent bases in Iraq

He also believes a time-line only makes our position weaker by putting all of the onus on us, thus, dragging out our departure. Murtha calls for moving the troops to the perimeters as practicable, but to keep a force based there to intercept out breaks of internal Iraqi violence.

I doubt the others mentioned would do much of anything because of their fear of looking weak on defense. IIRC, Clinton has agreed with permanent bases. She may have changed her mind, but she is very hawkish as is Bayh.

[Cascadian]

25. Which is why I do not want either Clinton or Bayh as nominees.

n/t



John

[capi888]

28. Gen Clark Wants our Troops home just as much as we do, ...Safely

Gen Clark also said, that an immediate withdrawel will cause the insurgents to inact the bloodiest killing of our soldiers and also the Iraqi people who helped the US . We cannot pull our troops out fast enough to not create security for those left behind. We have 150 thousand of troops in Iraq and There would be immediate civil war, and the results would be tramatic for the Iraqi people. Wes Clark hates Killing innocent people. He wasn't for this war from the beginning. We are there, he knows the window is closing, but wants success for our military, not death. He wants our troops home, when the political and diplomatic issues are under some kind of control for the safty of the Iraqi people.

[KnaveRupe]

20. Clark opposes a Murtha-style withdrawal of troops.

Heard an interview with him on Stephanie Miller show.

Just so y'all know. He's a "finish the job" guy.

[rodeodance]

21. thanks,

[FrenchieCat]

56. Clark is a "since we already fucked up, no need to make it worse"

guy.

For those who want to act like it didn't happen and wishing that we could put the genie back in its box, when it is impossible.

[leesa]

22. I'm not surprised Clark said this. Blowing up Muslims is an acceptable

game to him.

[phillysuse]

32. Clark is a hero to Muslims

Clark saved millions of Albanian Muslims in Kosovo from Milosevic and his ethnic cleansing of Muslims.

He is highly regarded by the Muslim community. It's sort of ironic - a man born of a Jewish father who saved millions of Muslims from rape, and ethnic cleansing - if you talk to people from Albania and I have, he is regarded as a figure like Schindler - except instead of 1200, he saved several million people.

Why don't you consider reading his book about the Kosovo campaign before you sound off so ignorantly.

[Tom Rinaldo]

63. Let me guess. You didn't watch the Video, right?

Clark said several things very sympathetic to Islam in this interview. Did you watch Clark's other recent appearance where Hannerty said he was "Shocked!" to hear Clark say that Americans broke down doors and roughed up civilians in Iraq?

The United States blew up Christians during World War II but no one would spin that reality into saying FDR though blowing up Christians was acceptable. When there is war, people get blown up. Unless you are pointing to a pure pacifist, any member of any political party finds it acceptable to blow up people under certain circumstances. Those circumstances are called War. The real question is when should wars be fought, and Clark fought AGAINST starting this one.

[Radical Activist]

29. Well, we're probably killing one or two terrorists for every 100 innocents

I guess that's a great thing. :eyes:

[Tom Rinaldo]

77. Try running the 2006 election campaign on a platform

that pins the blame directly on the Ammerican troops who were sent to Iraq for killing 98 innocents for every two terrorists killed. See how quickly THAT will end the war in Iraq, or rather how firmly that will secure Republican majorities in place to pursue as many future wars as their hearts and profits desire.

Clark blasted Rumsfeld and the Bush Administration. That is what the interview was about. Did you watch it?

[skipos]

30. You're right toassume DU would jump on Clinton if she said it, and

defend Clark when he says it. I try to be a DUer who doesn't expect to love everything my favorite democrats do, or loathe everything my least favorite democrats do, but I think I may be in the minority here.

Regardless, I hope Clark is speaking about specific soldiers and their work and sacrifice, that would be my guess. If my assumption is wrong, I still find Clark to be a genuine progressive democrat. Though I may not agree with him about everything, I would be doing cartwheels if he was on the ticket in 08.

Also, I am glad Clark is on Fox News. Someone needs to try to be the voice of reason on that network.

[SnookieDog]

31. If he said it, he believed it.

Clark may not be the world's greatest politician, but I look at him a see a man who will not tell a lie. I'm not agreeing with him about "great things" being done in Iraq, if that is what he said, but I sure as hell know that he wouldn't say it if he didn't believe it were true. It doesn't make it true, it just means he believes it to be true. Maybe he saw some Marines building a new hospital or school to replace the ones we blew up . . . who knows? Frankly, I wonder if that comment, if he actually said it, was taken out of context.

[FrenchieCat]

36. Here's the tape.....

Judge for yourself!

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/4587

[Zhade]

33. Great questions.

I fail to see what's so great about brutally occupying a nation we illegally invaded, myself.

[saltpoint]

38. I didn't hear General Clark make that statement, and so I need to hear

him say it in context.

But might he have meant the comment as an emphatic endorsement of the individual's struggle in difficult situations, as opposed to an endorsement of the U.S. occupation?

General Clark is a LOT smarter than whoever planned the assault on Iraq and my own feeling is he would not wish to isolate the men and women who are in that country now, no matter the ferocity of the debate which sent them there, and that he intends to show that he would unite the purposes of military power under a more ethical construct.

I compare General Clark's comments on the Iraq War with Dun Rumsfeld's comment to the press in response to the raiding and looting of the Iraqi National Museum: "Stuff happens." As if there were no U.S. or British troops who could have been assigned to protect the hertigage of a 5,000-year old culture.

[radio4progressives]

41. I don't watch Fox...

[Tom Rinaldo]

44. The links to the video left here are not to FOX

They won't even find out that you watched it.

[ruggerson]

45. exactly.

Unless Brit Hume has left sensors on your computer. :)

[Donna Zen]

46. Me neither

...but the clip is good. He turns the question about Rummy's new pr campaign into a diatribe on how it is our American values that matter. Something about: we believe in truth...I mean don't we believe in truth? He blames all of this on the administrations policies for not acting in accord with what America believes.

He does say at one point when pressed that we have done a lot great things. Then he says But...but <---with emphasis, and goes on to list the atrocities like the torture etc. Personally, if I had a brain in my head, I wouldn't begin blaming the administration by bashing America first. He was excellent.

pssst! This thread is flame bait...just so ya know.

[ruggerson]

49. I'm sorry Donna

but for you to say a thread is "flamebait" because it legitimately questions something Clark said, is just plain ridiculous.

Every single thread about Warner is invaded by people bashing him, many of them Clark supporters. Clark supporters have STARTED numerous anti Warner threads. And they have every right to do that, they don't know what he stands for, and want to find out, and they're upset when they hear him say things they don't like. They're fervent supporters of their guy and that's great.

But, Clark is not immune to criticism. It's perfectly legitimate. And it's asinine to characterize anything that questions him as "flamebait."

I don't think we've "done a lot of great things in this war." I don't think anything about this war is reedemable. I think this war is beyond horrific in every way, and if you think being against this war is "flamebait", because it doesn't jive with your adulation of one man, then so be it.

[Donna Zen]

55. Answering a question in an interview

...with the words "America has done everything wrong" doesn't make people who aren't in your camp listen to your message. If you noticed, he followed those words by negating them with "But..but" BTW, as I've stated above, after reading "Assassins' Gate" and "Night Draws Near" I was amazed by what some of our troops chose to do. It wasn't bad and they had no leadership from Washington. One captain jokingly asked if there was a manual for this. They literally had to take control of the choas perpetrated by Washington. I believe that it was near the end of "Assassins' Gate" that Parker writes that Bremer and all of them should be in jail. As Clark said today, anything that was done by for the good, was over shadowed by bad policy that has made all of this worse. He does not blame the troops. He does not blame America. He puts the blame exactly where is needs to be: on bush's scum-covered desk.

A quote:

The country now is ruled by militias, mullahs, and warlords. The simple citizen is not allowed to have his own rights, to say freely what he wants.” He put part of the blame on the Americans. “They are not caring much for a simple Iraqi citizen. They care for a chief of a tribe here, a mullah there, a religious man here, a militiaman here, head of a party there.”

It was possible to find Iraqis who were already coming forward to lay claim to their country’s political future. They were few in number, vastly outmatched in money and power by the parties and the militias, and they were, I thought, the toughest people on earth. Sometimes there were Americans ready to support them.

The National Democratic Institute was an organization funded largely by the U.S. government and affiliated with the Democratic Party’; it operated with relative independence. The institute’s purpose was to find the “simple citizens” in a place like Iraq and help them to participate in democratic political life. This tended to be obscure, poorly funded work...

The workshop in Hilla took place in the city’s former secret-police headquarters, which had become a human-rights center. Forty Iraqis--including a political science professor and an unemployed sports instructor--had traveled at some risk to the attend the class. They listened intently and took careful notes as Dettman (NDI) stood, shoulders hunched, before a flip chart and resented his ten-step program on message development and voter contact. ..Dettman had told me earlier, “Politics is the art of getting people to vote for you. It’s applicable all over the world. If it wasn’t, I wouldn’t have a job.”

“I’m not the government,” Dettman said. “I’m NDI...”

Assassins’ Gate, G. Parker, (409-410)

[ruggerson]

65. So if he is framing his responses for Republicans

how does that help either him or us? I am fairly sure that if we nominate him, not very many Republicans will vote for the guy. So, why bother framing things for Republicans? Why not frame things for swing voters?

[Donna Zen]

68. Americans

The vast majority of Americans...even Democrats...don't like it when you bash the country.

Plenty of republicans would vote for someone whose first name is "general."

[HootieMcBoob]

78. Clark would get many Republican votes

And he's totally correct in his framing. I'm sure he's read Lakoff and taken his words to heart. Clark fits both frames - "strict father" and "nurturing parent". That's why I believe he, if he were our nominee, would win in a landslide.

[FreedomAngel82]

54. Did he say that?

WHAT great things are we doing in Iraq? Ugh!

[FrenchieCat]

58. read the whole thread......

it might help...

[Donna Zen]

61. It's all about the tag line

It's not about reading the thread or watching the clip. Clever...it's all about the tag line.

[ruggerson]

64. For pete's sakes, he said it.

He didn't amend it, he didn't qualify it. He said it and I have to assume that he believes it.

We have no moral right to be there in the first place! So, I don't understand how anyone can think we are doing "a lot of great things in this war."

You can't do "great things" when the entire premise for you being there is utterly and totally wrong.

That's buying into the whole Republican "ends justifies the means" argument and a very dangerous argument to make to the American public.

[Donna Zen]

70. But...but...

I think we have a lot of tremendous men and women in uniform and out of uniform that we never hear about that are very very important...

[Tom Rinaldo]

72. Do you think international aid workers inside Iraq are acting immoral?

This is how absurd the narrow focus that some are taking in this discussion has become. Nothing that Clark said implies in any way the Iraq War was justified or that it was in either our or Iraq's interests to launch it. Clark was not commenting on the policies pursued by Bush (except to blast them).

Do you think the efforts of United Nations diplomats operating inside of Iraq are all harmful and deplorable. Do you realize that many Americans are involved doing many of the same things, even many American troops? Do you realize that many insurgents would rather negotiate with the American military as go betweens with the Iraq government than with that government directly? Do you remember that it was American troops who raided the secret prisons run by elements of the Iraq Security ministries where Sunnis were being detained and tortured, and that American troops freed them?

Clark made a simple statement. He is supportive of efforts being made by Americans who now are inside of Iraq. He did not support the war that sent them there.

Go ahead, ask Murtha, or Edwards, or Dean, or Feingold, or Boxer, or Conyers to comment on their feelings about the efforts being made by Americans in Iraq today, not whether they should have been sent there or whether we should get them out, ask them how they feel about our Americans on the ground. Ask any one of them if they feel those sons and daughters of America are doing some great things while they are in Iraq, and I guarantee they will respond in the affirmative to that specific question. Sure, then they will elaborate and give their overall view point on the War, whether it was or was not a mistake and what should be done now, but none of them will withhold praise for the Americans who are over in Iraq. They are wise enough to distinguish their differences with the policy makers and their appreciation for those who are in Iraq now risking their lives.

To focus on Clark's comment out of context, made during an interview where he was highly critical of this administration and where he specifically called them out for allowing the torture of Iraqis, is simply a form of Swiftboating. It is a double standard applied to General Clark only when he shows pride in the courage and dedication of those who serve our nation in our military, WHEN SO DOES EVERY OTHER LEADING DEMOCRAT, and no one would suggest for a second that Boxer or Feingold should feel otherwise. But Clark, a man who does admit that we need to make more friends and less enemies in the world and that currently the opposite is true, the one who predicted that an Iraq invasion would drive a wedge between the West and the Islamic World, the one who said on National television that Americans do sometimes rough up Iraqis in the middle of the night when they break into homes, the one who is actually calling torture torture, and saying it is NOT justified for national security reasons, Clark is the one called an apologist for Bush's war.

I'm sorry, but if we don't regain control of at least the Senate or the House in 2006, the war in Iraq will be prolonged. If you want Clark to say on TV that the Americans now in Iraq are doing terrible things to the people of that country, you have a right to that opinion. But you will find very few Democratic candidates running on that platform. They know how to lose a race before it even starts.

[ruggerson]

83. If he was saying what your intepretation of it is

then he should have phrased it differently. I was buying into a lot of what he was saying until that point in the interview. I assure you, other people had the same reaction that I did.

There is an enormous difference between saying "we have done a lot of great things in this war" (which clearly implies *some*, if not MORE than some condoning of POLICY) and saying what he said afterwards: "and I think we have a lot of tremendous men and women in uniform."

If what he wanted to convey was that individual American soldiers have performed individual acts of courage and kindness, I would agree with that totally and so would many people, I imagine. And, if that's what he wanted to convey, then that's what he should have said, and omitted the generalized "we have done great things in this war," which clearly left the impression that he thinks just that: We have done great things in this war.

You must realize that most people are not as familiar as you or other Clarkies here with Clark's nuanced positions on various facets of our engagement in Iraq. Thus, the vast majority of people take what he says at face value, and presume he means what he says.

If he misspoke, fine. If he truly meant to talk only about the greatness of individual American soldiers, fine. But when you are discussing policy matters, a sweeping statement of that nature is going to be interpreted as a remark about American policy not about individual American soldiers.

And, trust me, no one is "swiftboating" anyone by questioning a politician's statements. Let's save accusations of "swiftboating" for when a candidate is being personally, viciously attacked by a venomous mob of Republican hacks who are trying to denigrate personal character and cast aspersions on a candidate's core veracity.

Calling into question what someone said on a television news show is hardly that.

[Tom Rinaldo]

85. Like I said in another post to you, I have no quarrel with you on this

We are having a real discussion. I feel less kindly to attempts made by some others above on this thread who jumped in with harsh comments without viewing the interview for themselves.

I'll let you in on one of those nuances that those who follow Clark closely are tuned into. Clark is always thinking in terms of what an American President should do from this moment on out to deal with situaltions in the world, even while he has strong opinions about mistakes that have been made in the past and why they were made. Clark never loses sight of the fact that the world transcends politics, and I am not saying here that all critics of Clark do lose sight of that, I'm making a different point. Clark thinks that if somehow magically a Democrat could become President tommorrow, there still would be things that needed to be done to help stabalize the mess that Bush made in Iraq. So when the current American Ambassador there, who by most accounts is the first American in a leadership position over in Iraq with any common sense, makes a positive move, Clark will note and appreciate that move. By most reports he has worked to bring about dialog between the non terrorist elements of the insurgency and the current Iraq government for example. Clark will note that.

We can't turn back the clock and make it like the invasion never happened. We have to make the best of the situation though opinions differ on what that is, and some Americans are working to do just that, and always have. The huge problem has always been that the top levels of the Bush Administration start out over ruling any one with any common sense.

[Tom Rinaldo]

60. When the full video is but a mouse click away

please take the few minutes involved to actually see for yourself what Clark said and in what context before you settle on a reaction to it.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/4587

[Catchawave]

59. Clark on Fox ?

Nooooooooo, stop it, get him OFF FOX. Please.

[Tom Rinaldo]

67. With all due respect, I DARE YOU...

or anyone else here, to watch the video of Clark countering Rumsfeld on FOX, and then come back here and tell me why you wish he wasn't on there saying what he did. I know the classic lines of this debate. There are pros and cons for everything. I will hold up this interview as an example of a PRO for Clark being on FOX. To be honest, I do not respect the opinion of someone who takes the CON position, who is not at least willing to look at the evidence on the other side. Did you watch this yet Catcawave?

[Catchawave]

69. Why Tom Why......?

I DON'T WATCH FU*KIINNNNG FOX, okay? With all due respect that is

:smoke:

[Tom Rinaldo]

74. I did not suggest you should watch FOX. Have you been reading?

You don't have to watch FOX to see this video. Two different links have already been left on this thread that allow you to watch the video without having to associate yourself with FOX. One is to a Democratic Blog, the other is to Clark's site. Your lonely little internet hit will not be credited to FOX if you watch this video. You can watch it on a Democratic site, OK?

Why is it OK to read about parts of what Clark said on FOX, here totally seperate from FOX, but not OK to actually see what Clark said on FOX at another Democratic site totally seperate from FOX?

Would you also be unwilling to view the Documentary "Outfoxed", filmed from a strong leftist perspective about FOX, just because it includes actual footage taken off of FOX?

[Crunchy Frog]

88. You don't need to watch FOX to see Clark's appearances there.

His recent media appearances are archived at his site. http://securingamerica.com/taxonomy/term/8

You can watch them, listen to them, or read the transcripts. I don't watch FOX or link to their site either.

I have seen some anecdotal reports that he is reaching some of their viewers. IMHO, that is a good thing.

[ruggerson]

71. I'll buy that

and people should look at the interview. And I thought parts of what he had to say, as I wrote in the OP, were very effective and powerful. I'm still baffled by the framing of the line that bothers me and I think it's perfectly legitimate to point it out. If the guy wants to be our nominee he has to expect people will actually listen to his words, even if they are uttered on Fox.

[Tom Rinaldo]

75. I have no disagreement with you on this point ruggerson

I have no problem with your starting this thread either . You did watch the interview. Your OP was not to restricted to snippets that would cast Clark in a negative light. You left a link to the whole interview. Your question is legitimate. I want to be clear about that, because in one of my posts I got a little emotional and I do not mean to be attacking you personally. But I do think that a double standard is applied to Clark's words, and those who intentionally do that I feel are involved in a form of swiftboating.

[Auntie Bush]

62. Clark was talking to Republicans and needed their attention because

the first thing they would say...if he said the war was a mistake...was, but they are doing great things over there,,,building schools blah, blah, blah. So by prefacing his remarks by first acknowledging they are doing great things...he threw them off balance, got their attention and their confidence then went on to tell what a mistake bush* had made by starting this war. I think it was good psychology to get them to be receptive to his comments.

Besides the fact...I do believe that some of our soldiers must be doing great things for some people. They're all not blundering through this war like our dear leader et al and the folks at A.G. prison.
I don't understand why some people can't believe it was a mistake to go there and also acknowledge that we can be doing something good while we're there. They don't contradict each other. It isn't fair to our soldiers to believe they aren't doing anything good. But yes, I believe we/bush* have done everything wrong and bungled the job as he blunders through history.

[Totally Committed]

79. Nothing but a totally disingenuous misrepresentation, imo...

It's too early to be so desperate to discredit Wes.

TC

[ruggerson]

80. So he was misquoted in the OP?

Is that what you're trying to spin? Show us where he was "misrepresented."

[Tom Rinaldo]

82. Context is everything. Clark was talking about individual Americans

not about it being a great thing that we invaded Iraq. The entire rest of the interview, other than that one sentence, tore apart Rumsfeld and Bush over their actions in Iraq. Most Americans don't want to hear our young men and women who volunteered to serve their nation, get sent to Iraq, and who are coming home with arms missing, should on top of that get blamed for all that is wrong in Iraq, rather than be thanked for their service. Most Americans know where to fix the blame.

Clark did not say America was doing great things being in Iraq. The distinction he made was intentional, and a wise one to make. You know that my reaction to your OP wasn't as strong as TC's, but some on this thread have willfully tried to spin and twist the line in question leading to an overall misrepresentation of Clark.

[ruggerson]

84. Then I think he was not at all clear

if that is what you posit he was trying to get across. See my post to you above.