Who said this??

[welshTerrier2]

both quotes were made by the same person ... you can see the answer by clicking and dragging your mouse between the arrows at the end of this post ... please don't give the answer if you know the answer so that others can have a chance to guess ... thanks ...

Quote 1:

"Liberation is at hand. Liberation -- the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. Already the scent of victory is in the air. Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph . . . President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt."

Quote 2 (from the same article):

"But the operation in Iraq will also serve as a launching pad for further diplomatic overtures, pressures and even military actions against others in the region who have supported terrorism and garnered weapons of mass destruction. Don't look for stability as a Western goal. Governments in Syria and Iran will be put on notice -- indeed, may have been already -- that they are 'next' if they fail to comply with Washington's concerns."

Both quotes were made by: ==>General Wesley Clark<==

[babylonsister]

1. Wow! I'm surprised! So who do you support, WT2? Any thoughts? nt

[Panda1]

3. I was wrong

OT, what tags did you use for the invisible bit?

edit:Meant to post that to the original. Whoops.

[welshTerrier2]

5. the "magic" stuff is very easy HTML

you just change the font color to white which makes the text the same as DU's white background ... the only way to see it is by clicking and dragging over the text which causes it to be "highlighted" into a different color (i.e. different than white) ...

for example (you need to replace the angle brackets with square brackets on DU):

<font color=white>if i used square brackets, this text would be invisible</white>

[Panda1]

7. Ahhhhhh

Thank you very much!:)

[welshTerrier2]

8. nice ...

you're very welcome !!:hi:

[FrenchieCat]

28. Not so.....

IMO

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=321522

[welshTerrier2]

4. that's a very tough question you're asking

i assume you're referring to 2008 ... in 2006, i will strongly support my progressive Democratic Congressman, Jim McGovern ... I am currently strongly leaning toward Deval Patrick for Governor of Massachusetts ... i was elected as a delegate to the state convention a few weeks ago ... i will also vote for John Bonifaz for Sec. of State in Mass ... John is a PDA Board Member and is very outspoken against the war ...

But the national level and the 2008 elections are not a pretty picture ... i will not vote for a war supporter ... PERIOD!! and i qualify that by saying that if someone currently voting more funds for war will finally wake up and call for immediate withdrawal, i could find plenty of latitude for forgiveness ...

if faced with the likes of most of the current 2008 hopefuls, i'm afraid i will be voting for a third party candidate ... i take this deadly seriously ... i ask myself, would i really not vote for the Democrat just because of the war issue? the answer is a very definitive "YES" ... i've toyed with leaving the party completely ... i would like to believe that the Dem progressive caucus in the House will someday take control of the party ... but i'm getting sick and tired of the same old senatorial faces showing up on all the talk shows week after week and controlling the party's agenda ... if progressives can't make the party listen to them, perhaps elsewhere is better than here ... for now, i'm fighting to bring about change ... i see signs of life locally but maybe not nationally ...

for now, i see no 2008 candidate i'm likely to support ...

[babylonsister]

10. Thanks for the thoughtful response. I don't agree, but totally

agree with your right to consider a 3rd party. I can't see one gaining enough support to do anything other than split Dems and hand the repugs another win, and that's w/o taking hanky-Diebold-panky into consideration.

[welshTerrier2]

11. here's my short answer re: third parties

i completely agree with your assessment that voting for them may very well hand the repugs another win ... as i said, it's not a decision i would make lightly ...

but i don't really agree with your statement about third party voters "splitting the Dems" ... if i vote third party, it will be because the split in the Democratic Party THAT ALREADY EXISTED was not healed ...

my first choice is to vote for progressive Dems ... but, and i suppose you can call this the long-term view, if the Democratic Party can take my vote for granted because i really have nowhere else to go, and they refuse to compromise or even negotiate with the Party's left, "just going along" is crazy ... it does little more than tie the knot for your own hanging ...

i am willing to compromise; i am willing to seek common ground; i am willing to balance pragmatism with my ideals - at some point, however, if the left is pushed out of the party as some would like them to be, then voting for Dems is crazy ... for now, i'm working within the party ... i am sickened, however, by the party's absolute failure to call for an end to the war madness ... the Democratic Party, as a Party, is absolutely playing politics with the lives of innocent American soldiers and with the lives of the Iraqi people; that is just not OK under any circumstances ...

[FrenchieCat]

66. What's your short answer to having that last sentence which is not

until paragraph 13 of Clark's opEd...appearing with sentences from paragraph 1...as though it was all one paragraph, in that first quote?

:wtf: What happened to the 12 paragraphs in between? Do those three dots "..." represent 12 paragraphs?

[FrenchieCat]

25. Did you read the entire article babylonsister, cause if you didn't

Then I'm surprised!

see here....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2482830&mesg_id=2483848

[babylonsister]

52. There was no article posted when I responded to the OP last

night. So what's your point? I was just making an observation on what the OP posted.:shrug:

[FrenchieCat]

67. I was just asking if you had read the article .....

is all! :shrug:

[hwmnbn]

2. I have to guess some RW windbag ....

maybe O'Reilly because of that "put on notice" bullshit.

Yep, that's my final answer.




On edit:

Cool! How did you do that? I didn't read the instructions, I automatically made my assumptions. DOH!!

But that was a cool trick. :toast:

[welshTerrier2]

6. see post #5 above n/t

[hwmnbn]

9. Thanks a lot WT2 .....

Don't know if I'll ever use it but it's good to know. :thumbsup:

[FrenchieCat]

26. Food for thought.....cause propaganda can be visible or invisible!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2482830&mesg_id=2483848

[welshTerrier2]

12. a kick for the morning guessers n/t

[TheBaldyMan]

13. sounds like Chris Hitchens off his meds again.

but to be fair to Gen. Clark he realised that he was wrong and openly admitted his error. Since his change of heart he has done a lot that more than makes up for it IMO.

btw do you have a link to the original article ?

[welshTerrier2]

14. here's where i got the quotes

the following blog posted the quote and cited the following source but didn't provide a direct link:

In an article published in The Times of London, April 10, 2003

the url i used was: http://brickburner.blogs.com (scroll down to the headline: "The General: Another Measure of American Desperation")

the article was incredibly damning of the General ... i chose not to post any of it other than the direct quotes because i have no idea as to the accuracy of the author's opinions ...

[TheBaldyMan]

15. thanks for the link

strangely the Times online site won't accept my application for archive access, must be because it won't accept "murdochsacunt" as a password!

[FrenchieCat]

24. WT2,

you say...."the article was incredibly damning of the General ... "

Please explain how so. and explain why you chose the selections you did, and not any of the others......

[welshTerrier2]

35. as i explained above ...

i chose to stick with what i think are two very clear quotes ...

here's the kind of thing i did NOT post which i think is much more critical of Clark:

source: http://brickburner.blogs.com/my_weblog/2006/02/the_general_ano.html#more

Clark's decision to run as a Democrat was an odd development, and his allegiance to the party was questionable at best. Not only did Clark cast his first presidential vote for Richard Nixon, but he also voted twice for Ronald Reagan and George Bush the Elder. Up until 2002, Clark was delivering speeches at GOP fundraisers in his home state of Arkansas, fuelling speculation he was considering a run for the Oval Office as a Republican. In a speech he delivered at a fundraiser for the Pulaski County Republican party on May 11, 2001, Clark praised Ronald Reagan's Cold War policies which created a huge military build-up, Bush Sr.'s foreign policy that slaughtered Iraqis in the first Gulf War and singled out the current administration's hyper-unilateralist national security team, boasting: "We're going to be active, we're going to be forward-engaged. But if you look around the world, there's a lot of work to be done. And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office: men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Paul O'Neill -- people I know very well -- our president, George W. Bush. We need them there because we've got some tough challenges ahead in Europe."

[Tom Rinaldo]

39. Fine. Out with it.

Can't you catch the whiff of propaganda when you read it? It's a style of writing. We all know it. Frame statements with opinions masked as facts. Make leaps of logic seem moderate and generous even to the party being attacked.

It starts with the very first sentence you quote here. There was nothing odd about it, that is a damning slanted interpretation presented as fact. And "up until 2002 Clark was delivering speeches at GOP fundraisers". Bah! Clark delivered one such speech, One, in his entire life. And in that same month Clark delivered a speech at a Democratic Party fundraiser in Arkansas.

I want to go on but I have to come back to it. Dinner just came out of the oven. I have so much more to say about that one paragraph alone...

[welshTerrier2]

44. yes, i thought the paragraph above was obviously slanted

but the quotes were not the author's opinion ...

i still await your putting them in context if you don't think they stand on their own ...

you're off to dinner; i'm off to read the article you cited ...

[Tom Rinaldo]

73. Odd that he ran as a Democrat my ass

He had just worked very closely with Clinton/Gore for 8 years implementing their strategic military policies. He had been raked over the coals by many Republicans for carrying Clinton's water in the Balkans, because unlike when a Republican is in office, Republicans love to attack the Commander in Chief during a time of war. Clark had always been socially liberal. We know he voted for Clinton Clinton Gore in the three elections before he ran. We know he asked to vote as a Democrat to vote in a Texas, primary years before. Yeah big fucking Odd surprise that Clark chose to run as a Democrat in 2004.

If I sound angry I am, but I'm angry at the type of crap hit pieces at Clark that keep getting circulated through Democratic sites. I can take that piece on paragraph for paragraph but I would rather not give it the time of day and it only makes my blood pressure rise. You know Clark voted against George McGovern in 1972 but McGovern endorsed Clark for President in 2004. Clark voted against Jimmy Carter in 1980 but Jimmy Carter was one of the leading Democrats who personally called Clark unsolicited in the summer of 2003 and encouraged Clark to run for President. Doesn't that say something about the type of Democrat Clark is?

Folks, please read the thread, "The Swiftboating of Clark has started"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=321522

edited to include link

[Tom Rinaldo]

32. Read this too then: "The Swiftboating of Clark has already begun"

This is great thread that I think you need to be made aware of, right here on DU:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=321522

You will notice that this particular use of the Times of London article was clearly talked about on that thread. It didn't take a crystal ball to know it was going to pop up again. So you went ahead and fell right into it also. Really, WT2, you are usually a fair guy, please read the thread I link to here and then come back and reflect on what is going on here now with this thread that you started.

So not only did you accept out of context quotes from a piece that even you saw was written to be incredibly damning of the General, without making a real effort to find the actual source first (I said real effort, I've gone looking for it three times and found it each time with google searches) you left a link to that attack piece here on DU so others can go pick up more smear viruses and spread them even further. It flabbergasts me. So what am I supposed to do now do you think? Point by point refute smears that you only pointed to while washing your hands of them, and thereby bring them onto DU myself? I skimmed if for 15 seconds and found a blatant lie and a several severe intentional distortions.

Any fair minded Democrat who is reading this thread really should check out "The Swiftboating of Clark" thread that I linked to myself. Plus read the entire London Times Op Ed piece that Frenchie puts back in its proper context in her posts here.

[lumpy]

18. Read my post #17

I am following up on subsequent articles by Wesley Clark.

[FrenchieCat]

27. Actually Clark wasn't stating for fact....instead he was raising

questions after Bush's 4/2/03 landing declaring mission Accomplished. Considering that he wrote the article in a newspaper overseas.

Here... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2482830&mesg_id=2483848

[lumpy]

16. Would be interesting to see the

context of these statements. Anyone ?

[lumpy]

17. Found the Wes Clark

article London Times, April 19, 2003:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1058586/posts

after some amount of searching, from Free Republic, oddly enough.
Worth reading to get the sense of timing revealed in the article.
His thoughts on how the aftermath of Iraq invasion should be handled.
Clark is worthy of respect for his inteligent interpretation of events.

[lumpy]

19. Interesting site

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/8/29/94325/12

Article by Clark and dialogue between Clark and posters.

[welshTerrier2]

20. here was my exchange with General Clark at the TPM Cafe

my question is in a blue font and his answer is in green ...

On August 29, 2005 - 1:06pm welshTerrier2 said:

Hello General Clark. I can't thank you enough for participating in this forum. This is exactly the way democracy should work. Those on the national stage have become far too distant from the American people.

In an earlier response, you stated: "I believe that we should be out of Iraq as soon as possible, but to come out, we need to do the work that will promote our interests in the region to the best of our ability. This means setting up an Iraqi state and working with Iraq's neighbors to defuse further conflicts and strife in the region."

The question I have is "What exactly are "our" interests and exactly whose interests are really being served by continued occupation?"

Those who call for a stabilized Iraq presumably do so for several key reasons:

1. it's the right thing to do for the Iraqi people

2. it will promote regional stability

3. it may reduce the risk of terrorism in the US.

All of these are noble objectives. But I don't believe any of these is the genuine objective of Bush and the neo-cons.

The signs have been very clear. First, we saw a veritable parade of justifications for the invasion of Iraq. A leaked memo reported by CBS news the afternoon of 9/11 showed that, after being presented with extensive information about Al Qaeda, Rumsfeld asked whether there was sufficient justification to go after Saddam regardless of whether doing so was "related or not". The Downing Street Minutes also show a propensity to go to war on false premises and "fix the facts around the policy".

So, the question becomes, if we, the American people, support further efforts in Iraq, as you have called for, what assurances are there that the mission is not furthering "inappropriate objectives"?

To be more direct, I want to discuss American imperialism and the foreign policy abuses of America's oil cartel. The oil industry has been realizing record profits since the war in Iraq began. The close ties of the oil industry to the Bush administration are undeniable. Perhaps those on the right might even argue that the acquisition of oil, even through the use of warfare, is in "our interest". But if that is the real reason this war is being prosecuted by this administration, and I believe it is, such issues should be put before the American people for their consent. I, for one, do not approve of such conduct especially where the benefits seem to accrue to commercial interests and not the interests of the American people.

Furthermore, we see disturbing signs of long-term occupation. First, we see the construction of permanent military bases. I don't accept the idea that such structures are needed for the protection of our troops. What evidence is there that our troops need these more permanent installations? Most of those killed or wounded seem to incur their injuries while in transit. The troops should clearly be provided with whatever security is needed but permanent military bases send the wrong signal.

I believe, given the corruption of the Bush administration and their imperialist goals for "big oil", that calling for more occupation does nothing but further their objectives. While the goals you believe in for Iraq could, in the right circumstances, benefit the American people, I don't think they are achievable given the amount of damage already done by this administration to America's image nor are they achievable with an administration that is not committed to "our interest" in the first place.

I would be very interested to hear your comments about American imperialism, big oil, windfall profits taxes, the corrupting of our government by powerful corporate lobbyists, and the whole discussion about who really is being served by our policy in Iraq.

Again, I can't thank you enough for participating with "the little people". I'm confident that these exchanges will result in a more educated populace and more educated leaders for our country.


On August 30, 2005 - 1:00pm wclark said:

Hi welshTerrier2--

Without question, oil is one of many interests that the United States has in the Middle East. Oil is what gives the region much of its significance. But oil is important to America. Until we develop energy independence, we're going to be dependent on imported oil and, increasingly, natural gas.

America's economic strategy with respect to oil is that it is a commodity, and the people that have it want to sell it because they need the money. So our primary approach until developing energy independence should be, if we need it, to buy it - rather than having to fight for it.

Were we to pull out precipitously from Iraq, and destabilize the emerging political efforts there, the consequences would likely be a steep jump in the price of oil and hardship for millions of Americans as a consequence. But the consequences and thus our interests go beyond oil. As I said in my comment to Jai, potential for a civil war in Iraq would be high if we leave before there's an agreement and the militias disarm. But it might not just be civil war, because the Kurds will likely declare independence, which would bring in the Turks and Iranians as well.

So though I was absolutely against going into Iraq, now that we're there it's critically important that we get out in the right way. That means helping Iraq put a new democratic government in place, develop the security forces it needs to defend itself, and ensure that the needs and interests of America and all nations in the Middle East are respected in the process, to minimize future regional conflicts. It's up to the Bush Administration to ensure that happens, and up to the rest of us to hold their feet to the fire until they act.

[FrenchieCat]

23. Clark's answer to you was very interesting......

America's economic strategy with respect to oil is that it is a commodity, and the people that have it want to sell it because they need the money. So our primary approach until developing energy independence should be, if we need it, to buy it - rather than having to fight for it.

and this as well.....

Were we to pull out precipitously from Iraq, and destabilize the emerging political efforts there, the consequences would likely be a steep jump in the price of oil and hardship for millions of Americans as a consequence. But the consequences and thus our interests go beyond oil. As I said in my comment to Jai, potential for a civil war in Iraq would be high if we leave before there's an agreement and the militias disarm. But it might not just be civil war, because the Kurds will likely declare independence, which would bring in the Turks and Iranians as well.


Just remember that...it might not be "CIVIL WAR", but an all out WAR involving Turkey AND Iran. This ain't child's play! This ain't about "We want all our troups out of Iraq and safely back home". This is about the fact that we have destabilized the Middle East and now that Pandora's box is open, slamming back shut may not just "DO IT".

[welshTerrier2]

29. i have totally given up on Clark

he seems like a nice enough fellow ... perhaps he's even sincere in his beliefs ... i have no way of knowing what he really believes ...

but supporting continued military presence in Iraq is totally unacceptable to me ... how much clearer can our failures there be? even if Clark's ideas were good when he proposed them, nothing is now workable in Iraq ...

it's over ... continued military presence is NOT making the situation better; it's making the situation worse ...

and, Clark's "we should 'buy the oil' not fight for it" is no comfort either ... read the "Sorrows of Empire" by Chalmers Johnson ... read John Perkins "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" ... the game of obtaining oil is much more sophisticated than using brute force to steal it ... either Clark doesn't understand this or he's being deceptive ... neither is very appealing ...

the game of "steal the oil" is not a game of military tactics but rather a game of blackmail ... we pressure weakened countries like Iraq by leveraging loans from the World Bank ... their desperation to feed their people makes them vulnerable to very bad oil deals ... yeah, we "buy" the oil but we do so at severely reduced prices ... it's imperialism plain and simple; it's just designed not to look that way ...

for a detailed view of what's going on with the theft of Iraqi oil, check out this link about PSA's: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1203-23.htm

[FrenchieCat]

31. You are being evasive.....my question to you is what was your point

in printing two selected paragraph from Clark's opEd dated 4/10/03? Was it to show off the "MAGIC" thingie?

If you now say "even if Clark's ideas were good when he proposed them, nothing is now workable in Iraq ...

Edited to add.....I posed the question you are evading in a post that I made prior to the one you chose to answer .....That question, which was most important to your OP is still left unanswered.

[welshTerrier2]

33. my point was ...

that i just read an article that included these quotes and i was surprised Clark had made these statements and i hadn't recalled seeing them before although your post above indicated that i had ...

i'm also not clear on the point of your reference to our prior discussion ... frankly, i find the quotes very disturbing ... putting them in the context of "just after the invasion" does NOT make the statements any more comforting ...

[Tom Rinaldo]

36. But you took it here without ever finding the whole story. Here:

A nice nuetral link with clean large bold print for easy reading:

http://www.seanrobins.com/national/other_2004/clark_2003_04_10.htm

Forget about putting the quotes in the context of "just after the invasion". Put them into the context of the complete article, does that sound unreasonable? That is the least you could have done.

[welshTerrier2]

47. the complete article makes Clark's statements even worse

it seems to me that the following paragraphs:
1. see the US as "liberators"
2. threaten Syria and Iran with the same fate and
3. commend bush and Blair on being resolute

I don't like any of these positions ... we did not liberate the Iraqi people; we destroyed their country ... rather than threatening Syria and Iran, where's the emphasis on militarism as a last resort? ... and commending bush and Blair on anything is just not worth discussing ... bush lied us into a war ... he and his clan sit at the steering wheel of
American imperialism ... what commendation has he earned?

i ask you again ... if you want to put the following in a different light, take your best shot ... taking shots at me does nothing to alter my perspective of Clark's comments ...

But the operation in Iraq will also serve as a launching pad for further diplomatic overtures, pressures and even military actions against others in the region who have supported terrorism and garnered weapons of mass destruction. Don’t look for stability as a Western goal. Governments in Syria and Iran will be put on notice — indeed, may have been already — that they are “next” if they fail to comply with Washington’s concerns. (Note: it sounds like Clark is endorsing this to me.)

<skip>

As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt. And especially Mr Blair, who skillfully managed tough internal politics, an incredibly powerful and sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally, and concerns within Europe. Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced. And more tough questions remain to be answered. (Note: does Clark consider himself an opponent? It seems like he's saying he is NOT)

Is this victory? Certainly the soldiers and generals can claim success. And surely, for the Iraqis there is a new-found sense of freedom.

[FrenchieCat]

55. I'm really surprised! I thought you were a better analyst in terms of

your comprehension in reference to complex matters. Instead, it seems like you have chosen to deal with Clark's words in a rather simplistic manner in your understanding of things in this particular case, as you isolate sentences surrounded by other sentences that literally change the meaning that you are attempting to interpret as damning.

Considering your supposed knowledge about such matters.....I just don't know what to say! :shrug:

Don’t look for stability as a Western goal. Governments in Syria and Iran will be put on notice — indeed, may have been already — that they are “next” if they fail to comply with Washington’s concerns.
is a statement of fact....the Bush administration has threatened both Syria and Iran non stop since invading Iraq. That's no myth!

Here's someone else's take on what Wes Clark said and has been saying forever....(didn't realize you were this ignorant of Wes Clark's take on Syria and Iran...which has always been DIPLOMACY, DISCOURSE, DIALOGUE AND COOPERATION!)

Wesley Clark, a retired Army general who served as supreme allied commander in Europe, wants to see the United States engage Syria in a diplomatic dialogue. “The very last thing we need to do is to engage in hot-pursuit raids into Syria,” he says.
http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_01_16/cover.html

Wesley Clark In The Washington Post: Fallujah Is Just The Beginning: What This War Lacks Is Any Real Diplomacy
http://www.onlisareinsradar.com/archives/wesley_clark_archive/

Here's Clark being called a "Kook" for having spelled out the neocon plan....which includes Syria and others....
(so thanks for nothing! Clark gets ridiculed by the Right when speaking what's really up....and gets attacked from the Left who want to isolate his words to mean what they don't mean --

Wesley Clark's Conspiracy Theory
The general tells Wolf Blitzer about the neoconservative master plan.
by Matthew Continetti
12/01/2003 2:00:00 PM

"I do know this," Clark told Wolf Blitzer. "In the gossip circles in Washington, among the neoconservative press, and in some of the statements that Secretary Rumsfeld and Secretary Wolfowitz have made, there is an inclination to extend this into Syria and maybe Lebanon." What's more, Clark added, "the administration's never disavowed this intent."

Wrong. Clark has made his charge a central plank of his presidential campaign. Clark writes his book, "Winning Modern Wars," that in November 2001, during a visit to the Pentagon, he spoke with "a man with three stars who used to work for me," who told him a "five-year plan" existed for military action against not only Afghanistan and Iraq, but also "Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan." Clark has embellished this story on the campaign trail, going so far as to say, "There's a list of countries."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/445cqeal.asp

PS. CLARK WAS TALKING ABOUT THE 5 COUNTRY MIDDLE EAST PNAC PLAN, IF YOU DIDN'T KNOW. SO HIM MENTIONING WHAT THE BUSH ADMIN HAD IN STORE FOR BOTH SYRIA AND IRAN WAS NOT HIM ENCOURAGING IT.

In stating that Blair and Bush should be proud of the resolve under such doubt.....YOU FORGOT THE CLOSING OF THAT SAME PARAGRAPH.....Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced. And more tough questions remain to be answered. MEANING HOWEVER PROUD BLAIR AND BUSH ARE, THERE WILL COME A TIME WHEN THEY WILL HAVE TO ANSWER TOUGH QUESTIONS FROM THEIR CRITICS. This is again a statement of fact. Bush and Blair were "proud" of their accomplishment, aka "Bush's Mission Accomplished statement" (just 8 days prior)....however, they had yet to answer their doubters......

In reference to New-found sense of Freedom....this was just days after the fall of Bagdad, and the Iraqis had a "new sense" of Freedom for a hot minute, prior to things being so mishandled by the Bush Administration that the Iraqis finally concluded that they are no more free....

But further, you cut off the context AGAIN....as Clark goes on to say right after "sense of freedom"....."But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven’t yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed.

[Clark2008]

72. Sounds to me like you don't read interrogative thought well

to me.

[FrenchieCat]

37. I find that I OVERestimated you......

in that I thought you were the type that would research and truly understood what you read.

Obviously not.

PS. Your excuses are "weak", your approach "Sly", your intentions "obvious", but thanks for playing The Invisible posting game.....!

You could have waited until after 2006.....because the more credibility you take away from Wes Clark (based on out of context quotes in an article by a Clark hater), the more credibility you take away from congressional elections 2006.

[welshTerrier2]

42. you say my intentions are obvious

you question my motives? fine ... then we will have no further discourse ... no point in your conversing with someone you don't think is credible ... nice chatting with you ...

[FrenchieCat]

43. When one can't debate or truly answer....one normally walks away....

most times in a self-righteous "Huff"!

No suprise there!

[Tom Rinaldo]

34. His stand on what the U.S. should do in Iraq now is no excuse for this

Clark's stand about what we are faced with now is not very different than Feingold's, Dean's, Kerry's, or Edward's, to name but a few. So are you going to drag up all the hit pieces that were written about some of those men that date back to the 2004 campaign also? Why not go for the original swiftboating against Kerry while you are at it? Kerry doesn't support Murtha either, so he deserves anything you can dig up on him by this logic.

I really am almost speechless about how you are behaving here WT2. We've always had a pretty respectful relationship and you know that. I don't take cheap shots at you, never have and never will, so what I feel like I am having to say to you now comes as a real shock to me.

Clark's we should buy Oil not fight for it is no comfort? Do you prefer Bush's we should fight for Oil not buy it position? I admit, thinking that the United States should pay fair market prices for the oil we currently consume while stating that we need to develop true energy independence from oil is not a radical position. Probably 90% of leading Democratic Party figures would say exactly the same thing. I will grant you that perhaps, just perhaps, 10% might take a more radical stand than that. So is that a reason to single Clark out from the 90% of Democrats who disappoint you on this and subject him alone to a renewed smear campaign?

[welshTerrier2]

38. "single Clark out"

you've listed other Democrats ... perhaps you haven't seen my criticisms of their Iraq policies ... their supporters certainly get animated about my views, however ...

what i see here is Clark's attack machine launching into action ...

you ascribe more motive to my post than I intended in posting it ... this is not a "smear campaign" ... i was reading a post on a blog that included the quotes above and i found them both surprising and disturbing ... that's it ... and i don't intend to be silenced by being attacked by the Clark squad ...

if you want to add context to the quotes and show them to be not at all as they appear to be, have at it ... then you can judge from my response whether i have learned and accepted from what you've written or not ...

your "singling Clark out" comments are way off the mark ... go read my post about third parties (above) and let me know which 2008 hopeful i seem to be supporting at Clark's expense ...

[FrenchieCat]

40. so why the guessing game? Why didn't you just post the quotes

and provide your thoughts and ask for clarification......

and why didn't you leave a link to the original OP-Ed that you were quoting (not the hit piece, but Clark's actual Op-ed) so that others could read it in full?

edited to add...Amazing that you would post a GUESS WHO SAID IT? op....leaving 2 quotes, a "cute" gimmicky invisible "General Wesley Clark" name, no link, and call those who provide links and additional paragraphs "the Clark Attack Machine".

Now that's bold!

[Tom Rinaldo]

41. I have to run now but first this

It's not your opinion that bothers me WT2, it is your use of smears against Clark without an effort to be fair about the content, or challange it in any way to the most basic of fact checks. It is the back handed way that you started this thread. More later...

[Tom Rinaldo]

49. I know we can reason together, we always have

As you can tell I honestly was taken very off guard with how you handled this one, that explains my tone to you, that plus I think it was essentially unfair how this discussion was framed to begin with, and I get emotional when I think something is unfair, especially when it comes from someone I think of as a trust worthy person. That's just how I am wired. So I will forgive you the line about a Clark attack machine, but know that I am cutting you slack on that one. The complaints you have gotten here are valid points for debate. You really opened yourself up to it by taking Clark's quotes out of context and posting them, and providing a link only to an attack piece written about Clark that still fails to give Clark's full statement while it spins other smears against him, along with more garden variety negative opinions about Clark.

I hope you don't simply view me as a cog in an attack machine, do you WT2?

So if I am not upset with you for having a negative motive than I am upset with you for taking this issue onto a blog in such a poorly researched way, because I always have held you to a higher standard than that. OK, enough from me on that. I'll take a deep breath and reboot.

I will probably pick up the thread of discussion off of one of the other posts I wrote you before I gulped down my dinner. After you have read Clark's whole piece tell me how you read it then and we can talk about that one then more specifically. But you managed to drag up a slew of hard core and often debunked anti Clark talking points by doing this the way that you did, that's why I urge you and others reading this thread to please also check out "The Swiftboating of Clark" thread linked to above in an earlier post. Your disaffection with many Democrats, Clark included, for what you perceive to be failings as judged from your own progressive perspective is absolutely a fair topic for discussion, and if you someday feel forced to go third party as a result I'm sure that will be a principled decision on your part. Again, I don't doubt that you don't have issues with other Democrats or with their positions, it was the way in which you did NOT directly address your differences with Clark with this thread that bothered me, not the fact that you have them. You let a hit piece do your work for you this time, in my opinion, and you weren't adequately up front about even that initially.

[welshTerrier2]

51. "up front"

yes, let's get back to a single line above ... i responded to the link to the full speech you posted ...

as for being "up front", and those who saw my motive as intentional deception can go to hell, please note, and i said this somewhere upthread, that i dismissed most of the piece (and intentionally did not provide a link to it) because i did not know whether it was fair or not (although it obviously was highly critical of Clark) ...

but the quotes, if we pickup above, i still see as fair regardless of the blogger's intent ... it boils down to this: either the quotes stand on their own or they don't ... there's a difference, an important difference, between an excerpt and something that is taken out of context ... the two are not necessarily synonomous ... if the case to made in this instance is that what i posted distorted Clark's intent, make your case ... the quotes seem to stand up fine on their own ...

see you upthread ...

[Tinksrival]

46. I'm surprised wT2.......

I'm mainly a reader and not a poster on DU. In the past I have enjoyed your debates with other people in this forum. But....I have to say this type of post from you surprises me.
Misrepresenting cherry picked quotes is not a very good way to debate.
:spank:

[welshTerrier2]

48. read the whole article then ...

and make a case that the quotes are not indicative of Clark's views ...

you make an ad hominem attack but you present no evidence of distortion ... quotes either stand on their own or they don't ... not every quote posted needs to have its surrounding paragraphs attached to provide a clear meaning ...

Tom posted a link to the full article: http://www.seanrobins.com/national/other_2004/clark_2003_04_10.htm

before you go making statements about misrepresentations and cherry-picking, show how, when in context, the quotes are deceptive ... i just read the article in full and i don't believe they are deceptive at all ...

[Tom Rinaldo]

50. OK, let's go then

Here is what I get from the article as a whole, written as it was on April 10th 2003, in a mass circulation newspaper published in a nation that was then in the throes of celebrating a perceived great victory in Iraq. The entire piece was a set up to this concluding summation:

"Is this victory? Certainly the soldiers and generals can claim success. And surely, for the Iraqis there is a new-found sense of freedom. But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven’t yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed."

In other words Clark directly challenged the basic foundation of the presumption that a real victory had been achieved in Iraq, at a time when George Bush was saying the week before "Mission Accomplished" and most leading Democrats were crawling over themselves to say good things about what the United States had accomplished. Not only did he remind readers that no WMD had been found, which he reminded readers directly was the supposed reason for the war, Clark pointed out that the new alternative reasons why the war was promoted, "defeat terror", "bring democracy to Iraq", "bring positive change to the Middle East" not only hadn't been successfully completed, it had not even been begun.

WT2 you have been one to quote from Iraq polls about how they feel about the American occupation, and you have noted a steady decrease in support inside Iraq for an American presence there to the point where this year you have cited polls that showed most Iraqis wanted the Americans out and so forth. All well and good, but back it up all the way to April 2003. There were still many in Iraq unhappy with Americans being there, but most then did feel a new found sense of freedom. Clark wasn't making that up. Our invasion of Iraq was wrong and unjustified, a position Clark took at the time, but Hussein was not a well loved guy in Iraq at the time. He was hated by many more inside Iraq than loved him, and early polls inside of Iraq, actually polls conducted for well over a year I believe, showed Iraq citizens hopeful that their future would be better than their past. I don't think Clark was out of line with that mention at all.

I'm going to break my reply down into pieces, so I will stop and post this part now.

[welshTerrier2]

53. copied from above to unify the threads ...

i'll make a separate post to respond to you ...

it seems to me that the following paragraphs:
1. see the US as "liberators"
2. threaten Syria and Iran with the same fate and
3. commend bush and Blair on being resolute

I don't like any of these positions ... we did not liberate the Iraqi people; we destroyed their country ... rather than threatening Syria and Iran, where's the emphasis on militarism as a last resort? ... and commending bush and Blair on anything is just not worth discussing ... bush lied us into a war ... he and his clan sit at the steering wheel of
American imperialism ... what commendation has he earned?

i ask you again ... if you want to put the following in a different light, take your best shot ... taking shots at me does nothing to alter my perspective of Clark's comments ...

But the operation in Iraq will also serve as a launching pad for further diplomatic overtures, pressures and even military actions against others in the region who have supported terrorism and garnered weapons of mass destruction. Don’t look for stability as a Western goal. Governments in Syria and Iran will be put on notice — indeed, may have been already — that they are “next” if they fail to comply with Washington’s concerns. (Note: it sounds like Clark is endorsing this to me.)

<skip>

As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt. And especially Mr Blair, who skillfully managed tough internal politics, an incredibly powerful and sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally, and concerns within Europe. Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced. And more tough questions remain to be answered. (Note: does Clark consider himself an opponent? It seems like he's saying he is NOT)

Is this victory? Certainly the soldiers and generals can claim success. And surely, for the Iraqis there is a new-found sense of freedom.

[FrenchieCat]

57. Here's a repost of my answer to this upthread....for clarity sake

your comprehension in reference to complex matters. Instead, it seems like you have chosen to deal with Clark's words in a rather simplistic manner in your understanding of things in this particular case, as you isolate sentences surrounded by other sentences that literally change the meaning that you are attempting to interpret as damning.

Considering your supposed knowledge about such matters.....I just don't know what to say! :shrug:

Don’t look for stability as a Western goal. Governments in Syria and Iran will be put on notice — indeed, may have been already — that they are “next” if they fail to comply with Washington’s concerns.
is a statement of fact....the Bush administration has threatened both Syria and Iran non stop since invading Iraq. That's no myth!

Here's someone else's take on what Wes Clark said and has been saying forever....(didn't realize you were this ignorant of Wes Clark's take on Syria and Iran...which has always been DIPLOMACY, DISCOURSE, DIALOGUE AND COOPERATION!)

Wesley Clark, a retired Army general who served as supreme allied commander in Europe, wants to see the United States engage Syria in a diplomatic dialogue. “The very last thing we need to do is to engage in hot-pursuit raids into Syria,” he says.
http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_01_16/cover.html

Wesley Clark In The Washington Post: Fallujah Is Just The Beginning: What This War Lacks Is Any Real Diplomacy
http://www.onlisareinsradar.com/archives/wesley_clark_archive/

Here's Clark being called a "Kook" for having spelled out the neocon plan....which includes Syria and others....
(so thanks for nothing! Clark gets ridiculed by the Right when speaking what's really up....and gets attacked from the Left who want to isolate his words to mean what they don't mean --

Wesley Clark's Conspiracy Theory
The general tells Wolf Blitzer about the neoconservative master plan.
by Matthew Continetti
12/01/2003 2:00:00 PM

"I do know this," Clark told Wolf Blitzer. "In the gossip circles in Washington, among the neoconservative press, and in some of the statements that Secretary Rumsfeld and Secretary Wolfowitz have made, there is an inclination to extend this into Syria and maybe Lebanon." What's more, Clark added, "the administration's never disavowed this intent."

Wrong. Clark has made his charge a central plank of his presidential campaign. Clark writes his book, "Winning Modern Wars," that in November 2001, during a visit to the Pentagon, he spoke with "a man with three stars who used to work for me," who told him a "five-year plan" existed for military action against not only Afghanistan and Iraq, but also "Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan." Clark has embellished this story on the campaign trail, going so far as to say, "There's a list of countries."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/445cqeal.asp

PS. CLARK WAS TALKING ABOUT THE 5 COUNTRY MIDDLE EAST PNAC PLAN, IF YOU DIDN'T KNOW. SO HIM MENTIONING WHAT THE BUSH ADMIN HAD IN STORE FOR BOTH SYRIA AND IRAN WAS NOT HIM ENCOURAGING IT.

In stating that Blair and Bush should be proud of the resolve under such doubt.....YOU FORGOT THE CLOSING OF THAT SAME PARAGRAPH.....Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced. And more tough questions remain to be answered. MEANING HOWEVER PROUD BLAIR AND BUSH ARE, THERE WILL COME A TIME WHEN THEY WILL HAVE TO ANSWER TOUGH QUESTIONS FROM THEIR CRITICS. This is again a statement of fact. Bush and Blair were "proud" of their accomplishment, aka "Bush's Mission Accomplished statement" (just 8 days prior)....however, they had yet to answer their doubters......

In reference to New-found sense of Freedom....this was just days after the fall of Bagdad, and the Iraqis had a "new sense" of Freedom for a hot minute, prior to things being so mishandled by the Bush Administration that the Iraqis finally concluded that they are no more free....

But further, you cut off the context AGAIN....as Clark goes on to say right after "sense of freedom"....."But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven’t yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed.

[Tom Rinaldo]

60. OK, Part Two

We have a very basic different read on this part taken from your post with your comment retained:

"Don’t look for stability as a Western goal. Governments in Syria and Iran will be put on notice — indeed, may have been already — that they are “next” if they fail to comply with Washington’s concerns." (Note: it sounds like Clark is endorsing this to me.)

It does not sound like Clark is endorsing this to me at all. I see him warning people that the path their leaders have set them on is now taking them in this direction. That is what Clark always does, he always tells people where we are headed and where we will end up if we keep going the way we are going. In fact in this case I don't even think it is a matter of subjective interpretation what Clark is doing here. If you go back further, when Clark was warning against invading Iraq, going back at least as far ago as the Summer of 2002, Clark was also warning that the Bush Administration, AND PNAC SPECIFICALLY BY NAME, were planning follow up invasions of Syria and Iran and other states. Clark was speaking the god damn truth again. He said "Don't look for stability as a Washington goal". That was not Washington's goal under Bush.

Further you have to look at Clark's testimony in front of Congress in 2005, when he warned Congressional committees that a continuation of Bush Administration policies was leading to war with Syria, Iran , or both, and Clark then clearly stated that the policies that were leading us there were mistaken. More recently Clark has practically been begging Congress and this Administration to back a policy of direct negotiations with Iran before we drift to war, and he has been ridiculed from the right for taking a position that we should talk to a terrorist sponsoring Israel hating government. Clark has also repeatedly said that there is an opportunity now for an opening with Syria, that we can engage them now in a regional frame work and improve our relations with that government in the process.

So you have Clark saying Bush was seeking Middle Eastern regime changes and further wars before the Iraq invasion which he opposed. He was saying it while the U.S. and England were busy celebrating mission accomplished and thinking that our men and women would be coming home soon. Clark was saying it to Congress in 2005 and arguing against it, and he's been saying it to the world in 2006 and arguing against it.

Again, I think your hatred of the American occupation and the repercussions it has brought the way it was conducted, not to mention your disdain for the invasion in the first place, distorts your vision on one point, about whether Most people in Iraq felt a new found sense of freedom. There were a hell of a lot of Iraqi's who immediately basically said "Thank you for liberating us from Saddam, now leave our country". And then every 6 months more of them felt the U.S. had outlived it's usefulness in Iraq, to go along with those who wanted us to leave withing 6 weeks of deposing Saddam. But for a long time most people were glad Saddam was gone and thought Iraq would be better for their children then it had been for them. And people there weren't stupid, they know it took Americans to knock over Hussein. That part they liked. The Baath Party alligned Army initially mostly refused to fight the American invasion because they mostly weren't hussein lovers (outside of the Republican Guard) and they thought they would get to keep their positions after Hussein was gone. The insurgency got a huge boost AFTER Chalabi got to launch his de-baathification drive, and after the U.S. failed to restore any semblance of civil order to Iraq, and after the power wasn't restored, etc.

End Part Two...

[welshTerrier2]

63. when the former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO speaks

and uses hawkish, war-drum pounding statements like "you're next if you don't succumb to US pressure", i suppose one might somehow interpret his position as opposing this sort of militarism ... as you've stated, it's certainly the case that Clark was conveying what he thought was likely to occur if the current course was not altered ...

but his statement does not talk about a path to peace ... it does not talk about the excesses of American militarism ... it does not talk about war as a last resort ... it does not talk about involving the UN ... it does not talk about a regional summit ...

when Clark issued his "straighten up or else" warning, perhaps he did not endorse the policy ... absent any accompanying language in this article, however, i have trouble concluding otherwise ...

[FrenchieCat]

65. Clark never said.....

"you're next if you don't succumb to US pressure"?
"straighten up or else" warning...

you did.

Clark didn't write just one OP-Ed...he wrote quite a few during this same time period.

http://wesleyclark.h1.ru/clark_about_iraq.htm

Maybe you don't understand his style. He lays out the facts (not his view of the facts) and makes his critique via the entire piece he writes....

[Tom Rinaldo]

69. This really is why your position upsets me so much

Clark has on numerous occasions, both before and after that one article, talked about the excesses of militarism, about the path to peace, about war only only only as a last resort, about the need to involve the UN, about the need for a regional council, all of that, and I have a hard time believing you don't know that. Does your concern then revolve around the fact that he didn't to your satisfaction make those points or make them sufficiently well in this one approximately 1600 word Op-ed piece? Even though he used it extremely effectively instead to point out "Mission Not Accomplished" a week after Bush said it was? Does that then justify you discarding all the many places where Clark made all of those points strongly as if they don't matter? Are you saying that Clark was lying dozens of times about those viewpoints of his because, by omission, he didn't sufficiently make those points for you in this one Op-Ed when he was about the only voice I know of outside the Left who was making the case that the Mission is not accomplished and dire repercussions could still lay in front of the world?

[BootinUp]

71. nicely put Tom, but I think I know

whats botherin WT2.

I've been runnin around here all day with my DLC slanted view "Jim4Wes" and I just riled him up apparently. You see he has to take Clark and Clarkies down a notch, doesn't matter how. So he reaches for the lowest blow in the left wing bag. Sorry thats how I see it.

[welshTerrier2]

76. excellent insight here ...

the only problem with your post and your analysis is that i haven't read any of the other posts your referred to ...

it's 3 for quarter if you want a couple of more guesses ...

[BootinUp]

77. I'd give you my top guess

but it would be deleted too quick so I'll let you use your imagination.

[welshTerrier2]

58. let's go back to square one ...

you posted about polls of Iraqis and how they felt about the American invasion of their country ...

what's at issue, if i've understood your harsh criticisms, is whether the quotes i posted were out of context ...

let's take the first quote ... Clark said: "Liberation is at hand. Liberation -- the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. Already the scent of victory is in the air. Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph . . . President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt."

now if you see what i posted as out of context, please show me why ... i think the quote is horrible ... here's why ... take the first sentence ... what i'm reading is that Clark is saying that the ends justify the means ... he's saying that liberation "justifies" sacrifice and "erases" lingering doubt ... IT DID NOT ERASE MY DOUBTS ... first, i never believed we were "liberating" the Iraqis ... can you say "puppet government"????? can you say exploitation??? can you say "the whole world hates us"???? suggesting that "liberation" erased doubt or reinforced the "bold act" of the world's biggest exporter of militarism against a pathetic, weakened state is a whole lot of praise for a whole lot of stuff i abhor ...

yes, as you point out, Clark makes the case that there's much more work to be done ... fine ... but that doesn't change what he said about the "powerful balm" (maybe he meant "bomb") of "liberation" ... he said that the sacrifice was justified because of the result it achieved ... and he described an illegal invasion as a "bold action" ...

and then General Clark offered this: President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt.

so let's talk about their resolve ... no doubt about it; they sure were "resolute" ... they were unyielding ... they were going to war before the case for war had even been made ... they were hellbent on going to war ... they were going to war before bush even took office ... but they American people didn't want this war ... the people around the world did not want this war ... why in the hell would anyone compliment bush and Blair for being "resolute"; hawkish, undemocratic, war criminals, and imperialists are words that come to mind; "resolute"? - not so much ...

but then, all these arguments aside, your point was that posting the quotes i did distorted General Clark's position ... even absent questioning my motives for doing so, your point was that the quotes, let just take the first one at this point, presented an unfair and distorted intent about what Clark said ... i trust you'll accept the idea of posting an excerpt if it does not distort the meaning? have i misunderstood the intent of Clark's words from the first quote? if we nestle them back into their original womb would they be understood very differently? i just don't see how ...

i too will stop here for the sake of what's left of brevity ...

[FrenchieCat]

59. Here is square 1A....

This sentence is in paragraph 1

Clark said: "Liberation is at hand. Liberation -- the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. Already the scent of victory is in the air.

includes this part which I guess you don't think means anything at all, just because it is couched very graftfully to draw the reader in?....Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph . . .

MMMM.....let see...."Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph . . .

Could it be that since this is paragraph 1, Clark is going to elaborate into the More work and careful reckoning needed to be done BEFORE we take triumph part in the body of the fucking op-Ed?

Would that be a fair possibility?....or do most op-ed ramble and it is impossible that Wes Clark is setting up the opED...as called in Journalism, "lead paragraph"? :eyes:



This part that you include as though it is part of that paragraph is not....

President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt."

appears in paragraph 13!!!!

[FrenchieCat]

61. square 1B

WT2 says...."then General Clark offered this: President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt.


Of course as mentioned above that sentence appears in paragraph 13 while the upper part of the quote appear in paragraph 1. So there are 12 paragraphs missing from your analysis as to what Clark really meant to say....(and I don't in anyway accept your interpretation that he was justifying the means to the end--as he never said this, you did).

So what part were left out between paragraphs 1 and 13 in where he talked of proud resolve on Bush and Blair's part?

well he said this (paragraphs 2 & 3)
In the first place, the final military success needs to be assured. Whatever caused the sudden collapse in Iraq, there are still reports of resistance in Baghdad. The regime’s last defenders may fade away, but likely not without a fight. And to the north, the cities of Tikrit, Kirkuk and Mosul are still occupied by forces that once were loyal to the regime. It may take some armed persuasion for them to lay down their arms. And finally, the Baath party and other security services remain to be identified and disarmed.

Then there’s the matter of returning order and security. The looting has to be stopped. The institutions of order have been shattered. And there are scant few American and British forces to maintain order, resolve disputes and prevent the kind of revenge killings that always mark the fall of autocratic regimes. The interim US commander must quickly deliver humanitarian relief and re-establish government for a country of 24 million people the size of California. Already, the acrimony has begun between the Iraqi exile groups, the US and Britain, and local people.

Paragraphs 2 & 3 are all statements of facts that came to pass....

Paragraphs 4-7 praise the military....not the policy in executing the military plan

Paragraph 8 WHICH COMES BEFORE Paragraph 13 states this about the policy....

As for the diplomacy, the best that can be said is that strong convictions often carry a high price. Despite the virtually tireless energy of their Foreign Offices, Britain and the US have probably never been so isolated in recent times. Diplomacy got us into this campaign but didn’t pull together the kind of unity of purpose that marked the first Gulf War. Relationships, institutions and issues have virtually all been mortgaged to success in changing the regime in Baghdad. And in the Islamic world the war has been seen in a far different light than in the US and Britain. Much of the world saw this as a war of aggression. They were stunned by the implacable determination to use force, as well as by the sudden and lopsided outcome.

THIS IS THE RESOLVE THAT CLARK STATES THAT BLAIR AND BUSH SHOULD BE PROUD OF..
(Repeated for clarity):

Relationships, institutions and issues have virtually all been mortgaged to success in changing the regime in Baghdad. And in the Islamic world the war has been seen in a far different light than in the US and Britain. Much of the world saw this as a war of aggression. They were stunned by the implacable determination to use force, as well as by the sudden and lopsided outcome.

Again keep in mind that paragraph 9 comes BEFORE paragraph 13!

[BootinUp]

62. WT! you can't pull the wool over FCat's eyes lol!

[FrenchieCat]

64. LOL...but I may have been put on ignore......by person who seemed

to have walked away....as I "insulted" his/her sensibilities.....

You know me......the Clark attack CAT!

It's not my fault. Someone handed me a can of .....

[Tom Rinaldo]

68. OK, some more than

I see the irony is the first comment plain as day, and I am surprised that you don't. The victory parades were going on around all of us when that was written, confetti in the air and all of that.

OK, Here is one of the Dictionary definitions of "balm":

"A soothing, healing, or comforting agent or quality."

Deposing Hussein without great loss of British or American lives - which is how the British readers picking up that newspaper that morning were defining victory in their world reality, soothed the prior fears, the prior anger, the prior doubts, over whether or not Iraq should be invaded. That is exactly how most readers were feeling at that moment. Sure, had Clark published in some very left of center publication his readers likely would have started out from a different emotional standing point, but those readers taking a skeptical or negative stand toward the Iraq invasion were a small minority back then. And no one needed to talk sense to THOSE people, they already got it. That's the point here WT2, Clark was speaking directly to all of Bush's and Blair's newly minted fans. Do you remember back when even Bill Maher turned all soft on Bush and said, Gee maybe he was right about this Iraq thing all along, things are going so splendidly? I sure as hell do. The VERY NEXT line Clark starts talking about the need for a careful reckoning. And as has been pointed out above, your three dots skipped about 12 often prophetic paragraphs before you got to Clark noting Bush and Blair's resolve. I never snip between paragraphs without indicating that is what I am in fact doing as in:

"blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah...

...blah blah blah blah"

So in effect you just included Clark's comment about Bush and Blair out of context, it wasn't part of the first quote as you said at all. And in the process you created a false context for the first part of what you did include. Here are the first three paragraphs taken as a whole:

"Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled. Liberation is at hand. Liberation — the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. Already the scent of victory is in the air. Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph.

In the first place, the final military success needs to be assured. Whatever caused the sudden collapse in Iraq, there are still reports of resistance in Baghdad. The regime’s last defenders may fade away, but likely not without a fight. And to the north, the cities of Tikrit, Kirkuk and Mosul are still occupied by forces that once were loyal to the regime. It may take some armed persuasion for them to lay down their arms. And finally, the Baath party and other security services remain to be identified and disarmed.

Then there’s the matter of returning order and security. The looting has to be stopped. The institutions of order have been shattered. And there are scant few American and British forces to maintain order, resolve disputes and prevent the kind of revenge killings that always mark the fall of autocratic regimes. The interim US commander must quickly deliver humanitarian relief and re-establish government for a country of 24 million people the size of California. Already, the acrimony has begun between the Iraqi exile groups, the US and Britain, and local people."

And that is why I said I am surprised you could not see the irony. So how calming, how soothing, how totally victorious a picture does Clark go on to paint when he noted this?:

"Then there’s the matter of returning order and security. The looting has to be stopped. The institutions of order have been shattered. And there are scant few American and British forces to maintain order, resolve disputes and prevent the kind of revenge killings that always mark the fall of autocratic regimes."

That is the context of the balm of victory quote WT2

Now on two the second half of your quote graft, taken from the 14the paragraph:

" . . . President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt."

Fine, let's put that in its real context also, which is:

"As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt. And especially Mr Blair, who skillfully managed tough internal politics, an incredibly powerful and sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally, and concerns within Europe. Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced. And more tough questions remain to be answered."

Essentially it is a true picture of what all the parties mentioned felt at that moment. It's a style of writing WT2, one that seeks to find some aspect that the reader will find truthful, an objective stating of a subjective state of mind. The people who thought "Damn,I bet they're proud of themselves for never wavering even though I doubted them at the time" and the people who thought "But where are the WMD's you promised us, huh, are they really there? And are things really going to settle down and become peaceful over there, looks like there's still a fair amount of trouble to me" will both find themselves addressed.

But you know, we can argue about the best ways to write so that people who do not see the same things as you do will pay attention, but the bottom line is Clark opposed the invasion of Iraq before the invasion of Iraq. Clark kept calling it a strategic error even while Democrats like our later Vice Presidential candidate were still saying it was a justified invasion. Clark pointed out the danger of not establishing a regional diplomatic initiative that gave both Syria and Iraq a positive stake in restoring order and stability to that region. He still does. He says the United States needs to be talking with Iran NOW. Few Democrats have joined Clark is stressing the importance of that.

So it strikes me as absurd to really fixate on how Clark tried to use an Op Ed a week after Mission Accomplished to try to wake up people to the fact that Mission was not Accomplished when we know the entire record of his positions on invading Iraq and PNAC's regional plans.

[welshTerrier2]

74. we're not going to agree on two things here

one, and i'll provide a little evidence to support this point, i don't think the quotes were at all out of context ... i read them the same whether i read them alone or as part of the full article ... i understand you disagree ... as for your point that i omitted some kind of indication that paragraphs from the article were skipped (which i still maintain doesn't change the meaning of the quotes), i disagree again ... the second quote clearly states that it was "from the same article" ... i would not have written that had the two quotes been contiguous ...

so there's one point we will apparently never agree on ...

and secondly, we apparently will never agree on the meaning of Clark's words or on what we seek in a leader ... i see the whole war as rampant US militarism and imperialism ... the leaders i seek will do more than just vote against the war; they'll have the vision and courage to question the motives of those promoting it ... the leaders i seek will never compliment tyrants like bush and Blair; they'll understand that these are evil men and that such compliments are never warranted ... the leaders i seek will never make statements about the likely wars to come without clearly stating that those wars must be avoided because of their catastrophic consequences ... and the leaders i seek will understand that without rallying the American people behind their vision, all the good insights in the world will not change the disastrous course we are on ...

i don't judge Clark by one quote or one speech ... but i don't see in him a willingness to acknowledge the evils and abuses of US militarism ... his ideas for Iraq perhaps would have been the right course ... but it was Murtha's bold stroke that awakened, however briefly, the national dialog ... that was the time to make progress on the war; only then was there hope about regional diplomacy, public pressure on bush and a national focus on the issue ... we've all gone back to sleep now ... and Clark, and Kerry, and Clinton, and Warner, and Biden and Bayh have given their counsel and Americans did not hear them ... they did hear Murtha ... in the end, that was the only pragmatic option ... not because it was the only viable plan but because it was the only viable plan that captured the nation's attention ... having offered a "thanks but no thanks" on Murtha, the Democratic Party took a pass on our last chance for peace ...

yes, to answer your question, i respect you Tom ... and several of your Clark supporting friends ... as for others, it is frequently a struggle to guard against project my dislike for their conduct here on those they support ... that is never appropriate ... it's clear things are going to get very ugly around here when the '08 primaries roll around ... absent a candidate, and present a Party that seems to believe keeping troops in Iraq through 2007 is just fine and dandy, i may well direct my energies elsewhere ...

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

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

[Tom Rinaldo]

78. OK WT2, the first disagreement is inconsequential

I can drop that no problem, people by now have had plenty of chances to find all of the context that exists in the whole piece for themselves. I am willing to say that I did not catch your true intentions on that one.

On to the the second disagreement in a sec. First I just want to say that I think you do really well at making your points, whether I agree with them or not, when you speak with your own voice directly expressing what it is that you believe. I know it would have been possible for you to write a thoughtful piece based on having come across those quotes inside or outside of context by Clark. You could have tracked down the full article and started a discussion about whether we need leaders who are always willing to clearly state the evil we are fighting in the world, and debate whether Clark does so. You could have asked Clark supporters directly whether or not we agreed with the interpretation you took from Clark's comments in that Op-Ed. You could have asked, if you did not know already, whether he has made other statements to clarify aspects of his thinking which were then bothering you based on your first reading of that piece, etc. etc. That is the type of post I usually expect from you and this thread seemed out of character to me when I came upon it, and I always open threads you start.

As to that second disagreement it always comes down to what you are looking for. The person you are describing could not in my opinion be doing the type of effective social political transformation work that I think Clark has excelled at on FOX so far, being able to patiently cut through the Republican spin and reach their normal core voters with truth they are able to hear, the approach you describe would not work with those people (and in case anyone wonders - if your computer connection can handle it, Clark's own web site has almost all of his commentary appearances archived on it so you don't have to watch FOX to find Clark, plus it has transcripts there also). On commenting on the approach of specific wars, it has been my experience that Clark's early warning siren tends to sounds earlier than any other mainstream politician I know. The first time he mentions it he may not passionately argue against a rush to war without exhausting all sane means to prevent it, but he takes people to that point in fairly short order after he has introduced the concept. I've already given you my read on how he strategicly used the London Sunday Times that day in a way that allowed him to reach people who normally would have turned the page without allowing him to make a cogent non celebratory comment.

I've seen Clark frequently speak and write passionately on a better way for peoples of the world to live together and prosper through cooperation. Clark spoke louder than words by personally submitting himself to the jurisdiction of the international war crimes court that looked into crimes committed during the Balkan War, testifying before it in person.

But the leader you seek I believe no doubt would also inspire me with his/her vision, whether or not I believed that person would be the one who could achieve sufficient power in America to implement that vision might be a different story. I wish you luck in finding that person and or persons and then getting them elected.

edited for clarity in one sentance

[dogman]

54. The article must be taken as a whole.

Look at when the article was written. Clark proceeds to give credit to the accomplishments from a military standpoint and then makes it clear that what remains is the more difficult process of actually raising Iraq to independence.
Snip>As for the diplomacy, the best that can be said is that strong convictions often carry a high price. Despite the virtually tireless energy of their Foreign Offices, Britain and the US have probably never been so isolated in recent times. Diplomacy got us into this campaign but didn’t pull together the kind of unity of purpose that marked the first Gulf War. Relationships, institutions and issues have virtually all been mortgaged to success in changing the regime in Baghdad. And in the Islamic world the war has been seen in a far different light than in the US and Britain. Much of the world saw this as a war of aggression. They were stunned by the implacable determination to use force, as well as by the sudden and lopsided outcome.
Snip>The real questions revolve around two issues: the War on Terror and the Arab-Israeli dispute. And these questions are still quite open. Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and others will strive to mobilize their recruiting to offset the Arab defeat in Baghdad. Whether they will succeed depends partly on whether what seems to be an intense surge of joy travels uncontaminated elsewhere in the Arab world. And it also depends on the dexterity of the occupation effort. This could emerge as a lasting humiliation of Iraq or a bridge of understanding between Islam and the West.
Snip>Is this victory? Certainly the soldiers and generals can claim success. And surely, for the Iraqis there is a new-found sense of freedom. But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven’t yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed.<snip

Clark makes it clear and said beforehand, the military outcome was not in doubt. It was the diplomatic outcome and the long term effect on the region that were not planned for. His foresight was quite accurate.

[FrenchieCat]

21. What's your exact point, of this exercise welchterrier2?

Was your point that this article was questioning the future of what was to happen in Iraq now that Bagdad had fallen.

That's what I get in reading the entire article....and including the 2nd paragraph you quoted in where Clark is stating the facts this administration was NOT LOOKING FOR STABILITY....AND THAT SYRIA AND IRAN WOULD BE PUT ON NOTICE (which they have been) THAT THEY WOULD BE NEXT...something he has always warned about.....

Clark articulated skepticism and questioning the future of the Iraq operation while recognizing the success of the actual battle victories to date as of 4/10/03.

based on the fact that this was written 8 days AFTER Bush's landing on the AirCraft Carrier and declaring Mission Accomplished....It was actually pretty daring.....especially as he was writing for an out of country newspaper.... http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/01/bush.carrier.landing/

Could you do me a favor welschterrier2? Could you find spoken or written quotes dating back not more than a couple of weeks after Bush landed on the Aircraft Carrier from other prominent Democrats....just to see what they were saying as well? Thanks!

-----------
ANALYSIS:
In reading the piece in full, Clark states in the paragraph immediately after the first one you quoted....

"there’s the matter of returning order and security. The looting has to be stopped. The institutions of order have been shattered. And there are scant few American and British forces to maintain order, resolve disputes and prevent the kind of revenge killings that always mark the fall of autocratic regimes. The interim US commander must quickly deliver humanitarian relief and re-establish government for a country of 24 million people the size of California. Already, the acrimony has begun between the Iraqi exile groups, the US and Britain, and local people.

and here....same article, he gives credit to the military for the fall of bagdad....
It’s to the men and women who fought it out on the arid highways, teeming city streets and crowded skies that we owe the greatest gratitude. All volunteers, they risked their lives as free men and women, because they believed in their countries and answered their calls. They left families and friends behind for a mission uncertain. They didn’t do it for the glory or the pittance of combat pay. Sadly, some won’t return — and they, most of all, need to be honored and remembered.

Here, he is providing possibilities as to what will occur.....(one happened; the strive by Al-Qaeda to mobilize their recruiting efforts, as well as the lasting humilitation of Iraq....the other options did not).....
The real questions revolve around two issues: the War on Terror and the Arab-Israeli dispute. And these questions are still quite open. Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and others will strive to mobilize their recruiting to offset the Arab defeat in Baghdad. Whether they will succeed depends partly on whether what seems to be an intense surge of joy travels uncontaminated elsewhere in the Arab world. And it also depends on the dexterity of the occupation effort. This could emerge as a lasting humiliation of Iraq or a bridge of understanding between Islam and the West.


and in my opinion, the following passage found at the end of same article as OP summarizes the main point that Clark was articulating in this article written at a time when many thought that Iraq was a "mission accomplished"....

"But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven’t yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed."--Wes Clark (written in same article as the two paragraph in op)

:hi:

[Tom Rinaldo]

22. WT2, It's a cute exercise, but skewed. How come?

The emotional reaction one is likely to have to the first quote (out of context) will tend to also influece how the second quote is read (out of context). In fact the context that is missing to both quotes could fill a virtual library, so I am really surprised to see you dredge this up and use it in this way. So why not just spit it out and say it clearly, what point are you trying to make here and why? In a way an OP like this is harder to respond to directly than when anti Clark "hit men" pull the same quotes, number 1 especially, out of context trying to make Clark sound pro war. Then at least one's guard is up that a hidden agenda could well be in play.

I actually am impressed that Clark had the ability to take his readers on the journey that he did in his complete Op Ed piece, given the climate at the time when he wrote it. Clark spelled out pretty much every disaster that lay in store as a result of Bush's war.

[Adelante]

30. The point seems to me to be to lead in to Joshua Frank's hit piece, Tom

What else could it be?

[FrenchieCat]

45. You mean something like this one here on another Dem....

Maybe Joshua Frank wants us to lose 2006? Cause the "timing" of his trashing most Democrats is rather curious....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2483305

[BootinUp]

56. The timing of that piece

is absurd. (The Joshua Frank piece)

Back to the OP:
Clark is one of the most intellectually honest people to ever want to be a politician. He wrote that op-ed not worried about people pickking his words apart, but telling a tale and drawing in the reader that was not necessarily a democrat and was feeling those emotions fresh from the successful entry into the capital city. Then to raise the specter of exactly what has transpired since. It was a very clever Op-Ed when read as a whole, and fodder for pacifists to take out of context too.

[Clark2008]

70. Hmmm... why not quote the ENTIRE article

and all the backhanded slaps at the BushCo. failed foreign policy? Hmmmmmm?

:eyes:

[AlienGirl]

79. Locking

Flamebait