This GENERAL Opposed the Iraq War Before it Started !!!! Loudly

[autorank]

SEVEN GENERALS IN ONE--OPPOSED IRAQ PERIOD...BEFORE THE WAR

General Clark on CNN
April 2006
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/01/dems.radio.ap/

“This administration has taken us on a path to nowhere -- replete with hyped intelligence, macho slogans and an incredible failure to see the obvious," Clark said in the broadcast.

House Armed Services Committee http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html
General Wesley Clark
September 26, 2002

Force should be used as the last resort; after all diplomatic means have been exhausted, unless information indicates that further delay would present an immediate risk to the assembled forces and organizations. This action should not be categorized as "preemptive."


Never Leave a Soldier Behind
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0505.clark.html
General Wesley K. Clark
December 15, 2003

When you fight a war, there is one rule you always follow: you never, ever leave a soldier behind. For three years now, George W. Bush has been leaving our soldiers in the lurch and leaving our veterans behind. If you want to support the military as President Bush says he does, you don't send troops into a war without an exit strategy, and you always take care of those soldiers who fought in earlier wars. Mr. Bush has failed on both scores.

At the same time, the demonstration effect of those elections has to be weighed against the immense damage our invasion has done in the region. Intensification of anti-Americanism and the ability of regional leaders to point to the chaos in Iraq as a reason to maintain the stability of current regimes are just some of the negative consequences of our invasion and occupation of Iraq.

General Clark on his blog. In TPM Cafe http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/8/31/122436/786

"Don't we owe it to ourselves to be all that we can be as a people of faith? To reach out and offer hope and opportunity to the least among us? To preach peace and prosperity and to live equality and justice?"

From Mark Kleiman's report of Clark on a blog conference.
http://www.samefacts.com/archives/wesley_clark_/2006/02/shooting_for_a_c_in_iraq.ph

The artificiality of Iraq as a nation-state has led me, among many, to wonder whether partition would really be a bad thing, especially since Kurdistan might be both democratic and friendly to the U.S. But Clark pointed out that the intermingling of the populations would force large-scale "ethnic cleansing" as a side-effect of any partition.

Clark made what seemed to me a sensible case against phased withdrawal on a timetable. When we're ready to go, either because we've gotten what we can get or because we've decided that we can't get what we want, we should just pack up and go, quickly. Once we've announced a timetable, we've mostly lost our leverage.

[fooj]

1. Excellent point.

Why doesn't that surprise me?:pals:

Peace.

[autorank]

2. My Raider buddy. We know a winner when we see one...

...Clarks the closest thing to a winner we've seen in two years, though:(

He opposed it before anybody. The man deserves credit. Check out his take
on "phased withdrawal"...terrific mind.

[FrenchieCat]

3. Hey!

Did Y'all know that Wes Clark was the first to say aloud that Bush should FIRE Rumsfeld, back in 2003? He didn't call for Rumsfeld to resign......he felt that Rumsfeld needed to have his lousy ass fired! And he said it when Rumsfeld first started to f*ck up....not three years later!


Monday ::September 29, 2003
WESLEY CLARK: WOULD FIRE RUMSFELD
Gen. Wesley Clark, told a New Hampshire audience Friday night he had only fired one person in his life. On Saturday he said he wanted to fire a second person: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

When asked at a house party on the Seacoast about what he would do in Iraq if elected president today, he was met with applause when he said, "First of all I would change the Secretary of Defense. Then I would go to the commanders of the ground and go to Iraq myself personally and I would develop an exit strategy that gives us a success and lets us downsize our commitment there."

Besides Rumsfeld, Clark also criticized Bush's National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice for her views of the world and then U.S. House Majority Leader Tom Delay, also a Republican, for his vote on a measure involving Kosovo.

In Washington Saturday, Clark said Americans are embarrassed by Bush.
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/003860.html

[autorank]

5. Thanks Frenchie. He's Clark and his muse is Cassandra!

Thank the good lord that these seven generals are speaking out. It's remarkable. i've been around a while and I've never seen anything like it...in a 5-7 day period with 4-5 in 48 hours.

BUT Clark deserves credit and recognition as an extremely bright, capable person with excellent judgement.

There are only three Democrats who get it, really understand what's going on: Clark, Gore, and Feingold. That's it. The rest need to go to school with those three.

[EVDebs]

94. Cassandra was never believed...Clark et al prophesied and were believed

So, not really what you meant, I reason. Besides, Bush wanted the lies and not the truth. His administration is characterized by the unreal world they inhabit. They've truly been hypnotized by rightwing claptrap.

[Jai4WKC08]

101. Clark was not believed enough

Or Bush wouldn't still be in office.

Besides, those of us who have been listening to him for very long know that he was criticized, even by pundits and politicians on the left, as some sort of loony conspiracy nut for some of the things he said that are accepted as truth now.

Clark has been a Cassandra, speaking truth to power where few others dared. We can only hope those days are past.

[EVDebs]

105. Yes. A "SCOTUS appointee" and another election fraud OH/FL

were all Rove & Co needed. Enough. Basta Ya !

[Clarkie1]

35. Thanks. That's another good one to bookmark. n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

4. Yes, but the problem is he also opposed Bush

The media is only interested now in mentioning retired Generals who are critical of Rummy. Bush needs to hold onto the Dump Rummy option as a last resort to keep his sinking ship afloat if all else fails. Then and only then will Bush throw Rumsfeld overboard as the last standing fall guy. Clark was the retired General who had the nerve to call for throwing Bush overboard along with Rumsfeld, back when public opinion polls still backed the President. That's not news, that's subversion of the corporate order.

[autorank]

7. He has the courage of his convictions and he's intellectually honest and

capable...AND you are right, he opposed * which meant he had to go through the media "tear down."

He'll be back and he'll know how to talk to Faux nation (LOL) ... the Republican's worth nightmare.

[Aaaargh]

6. Clark wants to continue and expand the war

From 'The Next Iraqi Offensive,' New York Times Op-Ed, Dec. 2005:

"...We need to keep our troops in Iraq, but we need to modify the strategy far more drastically than anything President Bush called for last week.

On the military side, American and Iraqi forces must take greater control of the country's borders, not only on the Syrian side but also in the east, on the Iranian side. The current strategy of clearing areas near Syria of insurgents and then posting Iraqi troops, backed up by mobile American units, has had success. But it needs to be expanded, especially in the heavily Shiite regions in the southeast, where there has been continuing cross-border traffic from Iran and where the loyalties of the Iraqi troops will be especially tested.

We need to deploy three or four American brigades, some 20,000 troops, with adequate aerial reconnaissance, to provide training, supervision and backup along Iraq's several thousand miles of vulnerable border. And even then, the borders won't be "sealed"; they'll just be more challenging to penetrate."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/06/opinion/06clark.html?ei=5090&en=54d89019ebc70bb2&ex=1291525200&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

[Sparkly]

10. Keeping it from expanding to Syria and Iran by securing borders

makes sense. Meanwhile, he's stressed over and over again that there's not a military solution to this mess -- the only solution is political.

[Donna Zen]

11. Just ask him....

When this op ed came out I was able to get a call-in question to Wes. My Q was about the number of troops involved. He answered that this would not mean additional troops but a re-deployment. Also, during a session of blogging he was asked about the duration of the war. His sense is that if we were to follow his plan, we could actually get out faster, because the necessary security would come faster. It should be noted that in op eds and in person, Wes Clark has called for NO permanent bases. He said that it is important to defusing the situation that this point be made by bush and publicly.

Summation: No troops...fastest way out...no permanent bases. <---I have no problem with that.

[LittleClarkie]

126. Past tense please. That article is from last year

The circumstances change rapidly in Iraq. Find out what he has said most recently.

I guarantee that is not what he wants NOW.

Meanwhile, even what you have said is a distortion. If you asked him, I think he'd say that he wouldn't have gone in there in the first place. He, like Kerry, saw a window of opportunity in Iraq. He laid out a plan a while back, the details of which the true Clarkies can lay out better for you than I can (I'm just a little Clarkie for Kerry). But I would think that, like Kerry, he sees that the window of opportunity is closed now.

There was never much hope that the Bush admin would get things right in Iraq. But at least Clark showed that what the "liberal" press says is untrue. The Dems do have a plan. It's just that we're not in power.

[trillian]

8. Yessir Mr. President

He was also the first to say that Bu$h didn't do enough to protect us before 9/11 AND he was the first to say that Bu$h was determined to go into Iraq right after 9/11....no matter what happened at the UN.

[sybil]

17. Yessir, Mr. President!

The Most Significant Statement Made to the American People in '04 Primary Debates:

"...This administration's preemptive doctrine is causing North Korea and Iran to accelerate their nuclear weapons development. Now there are some of us who aren't in Washington right now, but I'd like to ask all those who are...lets see some leadership in the United States Congress. Let's see you take apart that doctrine of preemption NOW. I don't think we can wait until November 2004 to change the administration on this threat. We're marching into another military campaign in the Middle East. We need to stop it." -- WKC

[autorank]

26. Right on both points....who else has critisized * on 911?

Clark is right there and he took some heat when he brought this up but he held fast.

Thanks for reminding us.

[NoodleBoy]

9. I'm waiting for the draft clark 08 movement to open up

it's a little early, but usually people running for president start talking it up slightly before the midterm elections and then start setting up exploratory campaigns that december.

[trillian]

12. Wes wants to concentrate on '06

In fact he says that pushing 2008 ambitions is a disservice to the people running this year.

Besides which, he feels that taking at least one of the houses is imperative for any Dem running for Prez

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

13. "President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud..."

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.

...

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.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm

[Tom Rinaldo]

18. Nice selective editing

Notice what Clark wrote IMMEDIATELY after the first paragraph you quote:

"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."

Then there is this from the same piece:

"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."

And this:

"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.

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 when Clark wrote this piece, April 10, 2003. Britain and America were both celebrating "Mission Accomplished" back then, remember? Clark was a lonely voice pointing out then to the public that very little of lasting consequence had been "accomplished", and that major problems lay in store. Clark also warned the world not to think Peace had been advanced, that the Bush Administration next had Syria and Iran in it's sights. Clark was right of course.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

68. The link is there for all to view.

I made my points. You can make yours.

You weren't selective at all in your snips. :eyes: Notice how you don't mention the Chimp/Poodle hand job?

Some of us have memories, the OP states that Clark is the 7th General. I beg to differ.

Sure he has some qualifiers in his editorial but the overall tone is one of accomplishment and near glee.


Notice what Clark wrote IMMEDIATELY after the first paragraph you quote

Yeah, I noticed. I posted the fucking thing. I was making my point, not yours.

[FrenchieCat]

23. Just a question, RummyisFrosted.....

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.

...

Do the three faint teeny weeny dots above represent the 12 paragraphs that should be inserted but are missing between the paragraph above and the one below?

:shrug:


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.
-----------------

May I simply recommend that in the future when you post this again, in order to retain any shred of intellectual honesty, at the very least replace the three very small dots with a "Snip - 12 paragraphs go here that if were read, may not allow you to conclude that Wes Clark was truly cheering the war in the way that I would like to portray it"!

This disclaimer will allow you not to appear to have mislead your audience by cherry picking the evidence you want to present.

I would think that you would not want to be accused of operating in the same manner that many accuse Bush and his administration....Right?

[autorank]

51. Frenchie Cat, you are an astute reader and analyst;) n/t

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

70. Just an answer, FrenchieCat...

I hid nothing. I posted a link to his editorial for all to read. You are the misleader having not addressed the point I was making in my post, just questioning my integrity.

Argue the post not the poster. He gave Chimp and Poodle a reach-around and you have no answer to that.

[FrenchieCat]

79. The mislead is in the post, whether you see it or not......because you

determined what you wanted read, and you pulled the paragraph that might cause the most damage, and have readers reach the conclusion you wanted arrived at.....

Any frosted fool with a high school Diploma bothering to read the London Times would not read the article as the "reach-around" that you intimate...

I'm arguing that the post was missing the 13 paragraphs that flesh out the lead paragraph and provides it with a meaning that is different than at glance.

You hid the meat of Clark's article and his message, and likely hoped that most wouldn't go to the link (cause most folks don't....you know).

If your post can be proven disingenious, which I believe I did (as did others)...then, the poster motives can be questioned..... Sorta like Bush showing only certain parts of the intelligence, that without context could be seen as saying what he said it said......but when the missing other parts are added in, waters down the case being made to something quite different.

Bush isn't called the "Misleader" in Chief for nothing!

Truth and context shouldn't be presented in a way that forces others to actively search it out by going to links in order to get it. The truth and context should presented and apparent within the post. period.

From the same article....in it's conclusion.....
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.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

98. I'm sure that it's just an oversight that you forget to address:

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 this:

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.

Again.

[Jai4WKC08]

97. What Frenchie said, and this...

Clark's article in the London Times, when read in its entirety, is plainly an attempt to lead the readers to the conclusion that while Bush and Blair had won a battle, the war was far from over since their stated objectives had not been met. If he had led with that argument, the vast majority who were celebrating a great military victory would have concluded he was being partisan and negative and read no farther. Instead, he acknowledges the obvious, but then uses it to raise the larger issues that presumably voters on both sides of the ocean could still have some say in.

There are only two possible motives for your selective posting of only those parts of what Clark wrote that make it sound like his purpose was to congratulate Bush/Blair.

Either you are purposely trying to mislead people, knowing that most will not bother to follow the link; or
Your reading comprehension skills are lacking and Clark was too subtle for you.

Frenchie is giving you the benefit of the doubt on your intelligence. The question in my mind is whether she correct to do so. Perhaps you can enlighten us.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

99. Only two possible motives?

As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt.

This snippet was near the end(3rd to last graph) of the piece, not the "lead" as you misleadingly suggest. The handjob comes near the end of the piece, where conclusions are drawn. Not the beginning, where the supposed avoidance of partisanship is supposed to have occurred.


While this snippet was at the top:

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.

If I were truly trying to mislead, I would have left out the part in red. Although a "bit more work" is hardly a scathing critique of ChimpCo and clearly understates the task at hand at that point in time.

No, my friend, there is a third possible motive. To whit: I might just be a critical, thinking human being. One not swayed by political idolatry. But I can understand how you might not understand that.

The OP states that Clark is the 7th General. I'm just pointing out that it's open for debate. That's all I'm saying. I'm not attacking your hero, just the conclusion of the OP.

[Jai4WKC08]

109. Sigh... You're doing the same thing now

The so-called "hand job" you cite is obviously a lead-in to the conclusion. And the sentence you high-lite in red only a rhetorical device, contradicted by his words at the end--but that's why you included the former and not the latter, isn't? When will you quit cherry-picking the wrods and phrases that convey the exact opposite of what Clark was saying? You don't really need to answer that--it's pretty obvious you never will.

But let the reader decide for him/herself. Here's the full end of the column. Wouldn't have been so hard for you to cut and paste in its entirety. Of course, the emphasis is mine, but at least I include it all.

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.

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.

Let’s have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue — but don’t demobilize yet. There’s a lot yet to be done, and not only by the diplomats.

How clear does Clark have to be that "Mission Accomplished" was a lie?

As for your third possible motive... Critical you are. Thinking? Probably so, if you are misleading people on purpose. Human being? Not an intellectually honest one.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

113. I quote:

And the sentence you high-lite in red only a rhetorical device, contradicted by his words at the end--

So Clark wrote a contradictory message?

Game. Set. Match.

[Jai4WKC08]

116. Bull. Shit.

Look up rhetorical in the dictionary.

But it's not surprising you see this as one big game. Sad....

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

124. :eyes:

Look up "contradictory" in the dictionary.

It's not surprising that you'd cry "Bull. Shit."

:cry:

[Jai4WKC08]

125. Oh my....

The man contradicted himself by saying "a bit more work" in his lead-in and "a lot yet to be done" in his conclusion. Obviously not someone we can trust! How could anyone consider supporting him?
:sarcasm:

Dry your eyes. You're free to pretend there weren't good reasons for the way WKC set up his arguments in the Times column. You can't post your delusions at DU and expect to go unchallenged, but that's your choice as well. Doesn't bother me one way or the other. Most DUers are smart enough to figure it out for themselves.

But in the meantime, thanks for helping to keep an otherwise great thread kicked to the top! ;)

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

130. You've got one thing right.

Delusions go challenged.

:kick:

[autorank]

28. He didn't want to start in the first place. This is written in the contex

of troops entering Baghdad and so forth. I've seen comments he's made on shows where he's a consultant. The question poses a hypothetical, then he responds. Even when he says, "look, I'm not for this war but..." they don't reference that.

This article was before the Orwellian lies * was telling had become apparent.

What bothers me about a candidate is their prior endorsement of the war. Why? Because I'm quite sure that EVERYBODY on the Hill who wanted to know, KNEW that the intelligence was cooked, EVERYBODY. The votes for the war resolution were purely political.

I think that this type of discussion is helpful and that you citation is helpful. All of this should be discussed and this is a good place to do it.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

72. Before the Orwellian lies?

Tell that to the millions who marched before the war.


I think that this type of discussion is helpful and that you citation is helpful. All of this should be discussed and this is a good place to do it.

Agreed. I greatly appreciate your open-mindedness. :thumbsup:

[LittleClarkie]

128. Oh for fuck's sake -- 2003?!

THREE YEARS AGO?!

Common Dreams is only slightly better than Counterpunch, but both have a habit of distortion.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, how about something a tad more... oh, I don't know... recent?

[Schema Thing]

14. As did Zinni. However, I've wondered why Clark is noticably

absent from the "Generals calling for Rumsfields firing" news?

[Sparkly]

15. They're recent retirees, who served in Iraq.

Edited to add:
"I think it would be very patriotic if Secretary Rumsfeld resigned." -- Clark, 5/9/04
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4938258/

Edited to add again:
"Wesley Clark told a college audience in New Hampshire Friday that he'd relieve Rumsfeld of his command." 9/29/03
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/003860.html

[Jai4WKC08]

25. Not all have served in Iraq

But I think most of 'em have some connection with the war. Lt Gen Newbold was the J3 (in charge of operations on the Joint Staff) when the war plans were being drawn up. He resigned because he didn't approve of the invasion. Zinni, of course, was commander of Central Command, responsible for the region, while Clinton was president. CENTCOM was headquartered in FL at the time, but I'm sure he made plenty of visits to the friendly nations surrounding Iraq, and later he served BushCo as a special envoy to the Middle East but mostly working the Israel/Palestine problem. Riggs was involved in materiel development somehow--he was actually demoted and forced to retire on some bullshit charge about letting contractors do more than the contracts called for (not illegal, but supposedly "created the wrong climate" or some crap). The real reason was because he contradicted Rummy about the status of the deployed forces.

Speaking of Riggs... if you want to see a good example of why some of these guys are speaking out about Rumsfeld, see:
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/37/11476
A whole lot of the military brass, and folks up and down the chain, were pissed as hell about this one.

Sorry for the digression, but it really pisses me off too.

I really don't know why they're ignoring Clark in the recent news. Could just be because they always tend to ignore him. Could be they only consider the recent statements newsworthy. Could be both.

In any case, looks like WKC will get his chance to remind folks today. He's scheduled to be on Faux News at 2pm eastern, and again at 8pm tonite on "Heartland with John Kasich."

One other thing. I want to add the full statement Clark made on 5/9/04, because it shows the point he was making that the real responsibility (talking about torture specifically, but in the context of what he's said before, everything else as well) lies with Bush.

MR. RUSSERT: Secretary Rumsfeld has written throughout his career "Rumsfeld's Rules" and this is one of them: "Be able to resign. It will improve your value to the President and do wonders for your performance."

General Clark, do you think Secretary Rumsfeld should resign?

GEN. CLARK: Well, I think there's really two issues on this. One is his effectiveness and he said he would resign if he felt he couldn't be effective. But I think it's really a question of the credibility of the U.S. mission and how the United States is perceived in the world. I don't think his effectiveness has been compromised. I think he can still give orders; I think people will still take them. There's no issue with that. The real question is: "How is the United States perceived and how seriously are we perceived to be taking this issue?"

I think it would be very patriotic if Secretary Rumsfeld resigned. But I do think that the issue goes beyond the secretary of defense. I don't think we should indict the men and women in the armed forces. I think 99.9 percent of them are doing a great job over there and I hope the American people will support them. I certainly do. But I do think that when something like this happens that the prima facia notion of this is this goes right to the top. What did the president know? What was the atmosphere that the president created? How hard was he pushing?

We know there was a lot of pressure to get intelligence information from these interrogations. And the Pentagon was the action agency on this working with the Central Intelligence Agency in crafting the rules. But the atmosphere in which the Geneva Conventions were more or less set to one side, apparently, would have come from the top.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4938258/

Edited for clarity

[Sparkly]

32. Thanks for the clarification.

Yes, he's consistently brought it back to the rest of the administration, including the Chimp in particular -- which is just what the GOP/RNC is afraid of. They keep trying to distance themselves ("we didn't know about any torture," "the WMD claims show problems of the intel community," "we just listen to the generals on the ground," "you'd have to ask the secretary of defense...") General Clark keeps saying "It goes all the way up to the top."

It's been said that the big statement in support of Rummy may have been a mistake for the very reason that it keeps the WH connected to the problems at the DoD (connected in people's minds; obviously they're connected anyway).

And in some interviews, Clark seems to have shifted from the more limited question about Rumsfeld staying or going, insisting on making the discussion about the administration as a whole, from the White House.

Ed Schultz: So, would you think that Rumsfeld should resign?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think really that the fault lies with the President of the United States and what we’ve seen is a President whose Department of Homeland Security was ineffective in dealing with Katrina, whose Department of Defense has been ineffective in dealing with the array of problems associated with Iraq. We’ve seen a President whose White House staff has been ineffective in dealing with the Dubai ports issue and all of that…it’s what Harry Truman said, “The buck stops here.” It stops with the President.
http://securingamerica.com/node/773

DAN RATHER: Now, here and now, he is the secretary. Back to the question, if you were president would you fire him now?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, I think the issue really is that the buck stops at the desk of the president. A lot of people have said he should be fired, but let's be very clear about this, Dan. Harry Truman said, “The buck stops here.'” He had the sign on his desk. This administration and this president has to accept responsibility and frankly, I cannot hold Don Rumsfeld responsible for the operations in Iraq. They were approved by the president of the United States. It was his strategy, his leadership, his authority, not Don Rumsfeld's, and so you cannot escape the accountability by firing your subordinate. I know you can in politics and that's what politics is all about, and you're asking me a political question. I'm talking truth. I'm saying this president is accountable, and if you wanna fix the problem, you have to change the administration at the top.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/19/60II/main584554.shtml

So it'll be interesting to see what he says today at 2:00!! (I can't wait!) :bounce:

[Texas_Kat]

19. The current crop of Generals who are complaining are blaming everything on

Rumsfeld, I haven't heard one (except for Wes Clark) lay the blame squarely where it belongs. Right on Bush's doorstep. Getting rid of Rumsfeld is something Clark said early and often, but it isn't an excuse to let Bush off the hook.

Have I missed one of the other Generals stating that it's Bush that has the ultimate responsibility?

[Jai4WKC08]

31. If you have, so have I

But then, most of the generals being cited are Republicans. Maybe all, but a couple admitedly so.

Either they really can't see that Bush is the problem (hard to believe, since the military lives and dies by the principle that "a commander is responsible for everything"); or maybe it's just too hard for them to criticize the commander-in-chief; or they want Rummy gone because he has been SO bad for the military, but don't want to go too far and risk damaging the GOP in '06 and '08.

I do think the tipping point for many (not just Newbold) may have been when Condi Rice complained about "thousands of tactical errors." It placed the blame for Iraq on the uniformed military, which is of course pure bullshit.

[autorank]

73. You're right Texax_Kat, Clark IDed the Perp..

"I haven't heard one (except for Wes Clark) lay the blame squarely where it belongs. Right on Bush's doorstep."

And he did it right on time. I'm amazed at the selective quoting and other attempts to make Clark look like a recent convert to his current views. As a leader of the armed forces, he was not in a position to speak his mind, unless compelled to do so by duty, regarding civilian leadership. It's fun to think of how he saw past leaders. Needless to say, I find his views of * both accurate and prescient.

[goclark]

90. The more goclark thinks about it

General Wesley Clark is the one person that would have enough credibility to lead us OUT of this mess.

And, unless some miracle happens, the remains of Iraq will still be in our back yard in 08.

'08 will be here as fast as '04 disappeared.


Go CLARK, go!!!!

[autorank]

29. Zinnin is great. Clark is fully focused on *'s role and his role as an ..

..."unmitigated disaster."

I heard him interviewed. The question was his opinion. You could hear Clark pause in order to come up with the right adjectives and they were clear..."disaster beyond calculation" was one of the phrases or something that carried that meaning.

* is the main problem, * should become the focal point for everyone upset with US policy.

On edit: Zinni should consider a run for office. He's full of energy, he's smart as a whip, and he is really engaging...I'll even watch Russert to see Zinni. If he were on our ticket, that might be very helpful. Like to see them try to swift boad him. His response would be devastating.

[Jai4WKC08]

37. Careful what you wish for...

Zinni is a Republican.

He spoke out against the war, but unlike Clark not publicly before it was launched. And he has spoken out about how badly it was run. But he has ALWAYS put the blame on Rumsfeld alone. The closest he ever came to criticizing Bush was when he said before the '04 election that it would be hard for him to vote for Bush if he didn't dump Rummy. But when Bush didn't fire Rumsfeld, Zinni remained silent.

If Zinni were to change parties, I could see supporting him for some elected office. Maybe... I'm not impressed with his refusal to hold Bush accountable, and really don't know his positions on the whole range of issues that are important to me as a Democrat. He would have a lot to prove. And certainly not for president--Zinni was only commander of Central Command. He hasn't had anywhere near the level or scope of responsibility nor the international experience of someone like Wes Clark.

[young_at_heart]

16. He would have had a better chance than Kerry

For one thing, he speaks so much better; not to mention he is a true leader.

[Auntie Bush]

20. If Clark had been President...we wouldn't be in this mess! Dammit

we need him NOW...not in three years. We need Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld out NOW, before they do more irreparable damage.
Bush and all his cronies need to be impeached and removed from office NOW. This country can't survive without Was Clark.

[Texas_Kat]

21. I really believe that is why Clark is concentrating so hard on 06

Without control of at least one House, we won't control the process and can't get to the truth.

Clark has always been an advocate of transparent government. He wants hearings, dammit.....hearings that are more than window-dressing. Hearings that are truthful and complete. Not 'sanitized' by the Republicans.

[LittleClarkie]

129. I wish Kerry would have picked him for VP at least

I think they share alot of the same positions actually, esp on foreign policy.

But I do disagree with you about his chances. He was politically inexperienced, near as I could tell. The campaign of 2004 gave him that much needed experience, and he's only getting better with time.

But no, I don't think the political newbie was ready in 2004.

[Jai4WKC08]

131. I dunno, LC....

I'll agree Clark was inexperienced. I'll agree with what you said somewhere else, about how much he benefited by working with Kerry and his campaign staff, both what to do and what not to. And I'll agree he's gotten a LOT better: both in his "performance" on the stump, and a lot more savvy about the way our party works. If he can raise enough money, he'll be formidable in '08, should he choose to run. And if he doesn't, he's doing a helluva lot of good for '06, and that's what matters most right now.

But I don't think Clark did that bad in '04, considering he got in too late to compete in Iowa... given the conventional wisdom at the time, anyway. And that because he had so much fanfare and media attention when he declared his candidacy, everyone saw the wobbles that every new campaign goes thru, while most of the other candidates had been able to shake down their staffs in relative privacy many months before. I do think if he'd been a more experienced politician, he could have recognized the problems and recovered more quickly, much as Kerry did when his campaign was foundering in the late fall of 03.

But Clark's campaign was cooking by Jan 04--the man learns at light speed--so with the whole party's resources behind him, I believe he could have given Bush a run for his money.

That Clark was so obviously new to politics when he started out hurt him a lot with Democratic primary voters. We wanted, NEEDED, to beat Bush so badly, many were afraid to trust the election to someone without proven success in winning elections. That same "not a politician" aura would have served him much better in the general.

If four more years of BushCo weren't such a disaster for the country, I'd be almost glad that Clark didn't get the nomination in '04. Because he is so much better prepared now, as you point out, and because I think people are even more ready to have someone who can heal the division between right and left. A number of the folks who will probably run in '08 are great progressive Democrats, but I don't see anyone who can stand up for our values as well without scaring off the people in the middle.

[Pithy Cherub]

22. Clark spoke up loudly and loudly especially when the War started

on CNN. He defended Michael Moore's right to speak up and he was supportive of the troops while questioning the motives behind the bush administration. In 2002, he spoke before Congress and laid out his thoughts. Clark as the last commander in a battlefield who won without loss of American life, should have had more voices speaking out. Zinni spoke out at that time as well since he had been part of the failed Palestinian negotiations and saw the Bushbots for what they were. Clark has been the most vocal on the bush cabal, their incompetence and unpatriotic behavior. May he continue to keep bringing the Truth to the American public and world stage.

[gulliver]

24. Very outrageous that the Dems are not trumpeting this.

Clark deserves credit. He is a Dem!! Someone give the man some damned credit. Rhandi? Mike? Al? Howard? Stop worrying so much whether you are helping Clark's presidential aspirations. Is there some sort of automatic rule in the Dem party that we hide evidence of one of our own being a true leader?

[Jai4WKC08]

27. Excellent point!

I'm gonna write the DNC, and maybe Reid and Pelosi if I can find an address.

It's understandably touchy for any of the leadership to give too much publicity to someone who may run in '08. The other wannabes get upset. But in this case they need to make an exception, for the good of the whole party and winning in November.

[autorank]

30. I agree. Anyone on our team who scores big should get a high five.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

[FrenchieCat]

33. and then....SOME!

In particular, those who speak the truth before it is politically fashionable, i.e., before the polls show that it is "safe" to speak!..... :patriot:

[autorank]

75. Good point. Those who owe him credit, for the most part, supported Iraq.

The story develops "contours" (a Cheney adjective) over time, of course. "We never thought
he'd go around the UN, etc." How about the stories early on that he popped into some room
and said saddle up, we're headed to Iraq. That was out, I heard it as did others. Yet, we're
to believe that it was not well known that * wanted to go to Iraq under any rationale that
worked.

It was known, Clark and the Senators listed below are on the Democratic Honor Roll for saying no, PRIOR to the war, and of showing good judgment and foresight.

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

[Totally Committed]

117. I totally agree...

where are the Democrats? This should be out there BIG right now!

TC

[Jai4WKC08]

119. Bill Richardson was on one of the Sunday news shows

And had the gall to say, "the six generals." So he's not counting Clark either. But of course, no one with 08 aspirations would dare mention the Democratic General's name. 2008 is SO much more important than making the party look stronger on security for 2006. :sarcasm:

I went to the DNC website and sent them a short note. Doubt it'll go to anyone who matters.

[Clarkie1]

34. Glad to see this thread getting the attention it deserves.

Nice post, Autorank.

[autorank]

36. Thank you. The truth is an easy sell...Clark was there "standing tall."

He's confident enought and honest enough and gutsy enough to tell the truth when it's not popular or easy. We would not be there if he was making the decisions.

:hi:

[FrenchieCat]

38. Well, Wes didn't mince words.....on fox just now!

That was a doozy.

Rummy's got to go!
Bush should have been gone!
The Generals are speaking out, and that's what they should be doing. Doing a service to those still in the military who can't speak out, and civilians who don't realize how bad this is.
Iraq was a MISTAKE, A STRATEGIC BLUNDER OF GREAT MAGNITUDE, A TERRIBLE POLICY!
Cheney and Rumsfeld wanted to go into Iraq in 2001.
etc, etc, etc.....

Will post film at 11:00!

[Sparkly]

39. "He should GO."

"It's MORE than an appropriate time."

You tell 'em, General!!! :woohoo:

[capi888]

45. WKC is A LEADER...

This was the most forceful interview I have ever hear him give. He layed it out in no uncertain terms.
Hope this interview gets posted...so you all hear it...GO GENERAL...

[dogman]

40. Wes Clark just said it again.

As Fox News military analyst he said it is appropriate for ex-Generals to criticize Rumsfeld. It is still time for Rumsfeld to go but the CIC is ultimately responsible and that is why he ran for President in '04. The policy has been wrong since 2001. They pulled the switch from Afghanistan to Iraq and they need to be held accountable and these Generals criticizing Rumsfeld know it. We know these things, now we need the Fox audience to hear it.

[Sparkly]

41. Also amazing: "The American people didn't understand"

"or else they wouldn't have re-elected him."

Wasn't there some astonishing percentage of voters who didn't understand -- who believed Saddam had something to do with 9/11 -- who were FOX viewers???

General Clark is unafraid to speak truth to power, no matter what the power.

[dogman]

42. As much as I hate seeing him on Fox, I realize that is the only way

most of that audience will receive the truth. It also shows he has the courage and leadership ability to spread the word.

[Auntie Bush]

46. Yes, more Fox viewers believed Saddam was behind 9/11 than any other group

I thank God/Clark (lol) that he's been on Fox and able to enlighten the fools as to the truth. I just hope his message is finally sinking in their thick heads.

By the way,look who's stinking up for bush...HUGH SHELDEN!!
:puke:

I have to think if these generals are publicly speaking out against Rummy...that shows just how badly he has failed!!! That must mean that the war in Iraq is even worst than everyone's been telling us. Proof that the whole cabal is lying! BASTARDS!

[Jai4WKC08]

54. Shelton is defending Rumsfeld?

Do you have a link for that? Might come in handy at some point. ;)

[Clark2008]

121. Edwards' buddy, Hugh Shelton?

eom

[Donna Zen]

122. The same Shelton

Isn't he a piece of work? Pro-war...pro-bush...pro-MIC. FWIW, when the International court met and called Shelton about his smear of Clark, he testified that it "just politics." Nice huh? Lying about the honor of man who served for 34 years for "just politics." Shelton made huge bucks off this war.

[autorank]

52. ...about 40% Sparkly, most of theim in "Faux nation"

That is their fault too. This idea of "they're all crooks" or "I have politics" is simply
unacceptable from a citizen of the most powerful nation on earth. We have many responsibilities
and one is to use power wisely and be a resource for positive change.

But Clark's right...people, many, actually think CM (corporate media) tells the truth rather
than presents the script (while they sell us soap).

Clark was the original General TruthTeller!

[Sparkly]

55. I thought it was 60% of Bush voters?

Whatever -- it's way too many.

As soon as I heard Clark was going to be on Faux, I thought "BOLD and SMART -- as usual!!"

[autorank]

120. I think your figure is right. Any more that the normal 10% brain dead

would be too much.

[Ice4Clark]

43. A while before Wes came on, they had an image of the 6

Generals saying rummy should go, then a 2 star, I think it was, saying rummy's doing a heck of a job. Now that Wes again has said rummy should go, will Faux now add him to the group asking rummy to resign?

[Donna Zen]

48. Point One and Point Two

As for them including General Clark among the generals opposing Rummy...Will they or won't they. Ahhhhh...."no." General Clark blows their entire cover. Are there any other four stars involved in this?

And to the above mention of Sheldon: Hugh Sheldon is a lobbyist who's made millions on this war (ditto Franks) Sheldon supported this debacle, and then found some time to smear General Clark's reputation, one which include 34 years of brilliant service and four bullets. I don't know if humans get much lower than Sheldon.

[Jai4WKC08]

104. Zinni is a four star, but not the others who are credited

We shouldn't forget the other generals who are also being ignored. Odum, and all the other 11 (12 counting Clark) who endorsed Kerry. Most of the latter were four stars. Shalikashvili comes to mind because he was (is?) not a Democrat and it was very hard for him to speak out when he did. I wouldn't expect too much from him now tho. I guess he has recovered from his aneurysm, but probably not completely so.

[goclark]

91. And what about General Colin Powell ? ROTFL

[Uncle Joe]

44. Excellent post autorank!

Kicked and recommended!

:kick:

[autorank]

47. Thank you. I want my "Undle" happy;) !!!

[stevedeshazer]

49. autorank, nicely done.

Clark doesn't get enough credit for taking on the Bush Crime Family over the war before it started.

[FrenchieCat]

50. Clark will be on Fox again later today......

8:00pm 1:00am
"Heartland w/ John Kasich (cc)

Rumsfeld Under Attack — Why are a number of retired generals speaking out against the secretary of defense? Retired General Wesley Clark and retired Major General Donald Edwards weigh in."


Sounds like it may be a "debate"!

Too bad for the BushBod Major General......cause the 4 star is gonna wipe the floor with him!

[capi888]

53. Great Frenchie...Love the whoop ass Spray!!

I have it set for recording...I feel sorry for the BushBod too...General sounded might perturbed earlier this afternoon!!!

[Totally Committed]

56. YES, HE DID! Thank you, autorank!

He opposition to that war was one of the biggest reasons I initially supported him. I stayed because of his Liberal positions on domestic and social issues, and his dedication to the environment.

"Clark made what seemed to me a sensible case against phased withdrawal on a timetable. When we're ready to go, either because we've gotten what we can get or because we've decided that we can't get what we want, we should just pack up and go, quickly. Once we've announced a timetable, we've mostly lost our leverage."

I agree. We lose our leverage with a timetable. They'll just wait us out. That having been said... we should get out of there ASAP. (Yesterday would have suited me!) But, I bow to a man like Gen. Clark who, because of his years of experience, knows more than I do about foreign policy and national security than I ever will... whose overwhelming honesty and integrity allow me to believe that he always does what's best for the me, the country and the men and women in uniform, so I can trust what he says.

With the representitive form of government we have, a man like Wes Clark, who can be trusted, who knows of the subjects of which he speaks, and who has a wisdom that can only come from a heart/mind connection that few leaders in this country have had up to now, is worth his weight in gold. I value him, and the truth he tells unwaveringly.

TC

[autorank]

76. Totally Committed, you're welcome. The case against a phased

withdrawal is the type of comment we need in the public debate. If he says it, it's probably true and certainly part of accepted doctrine somewhere in the military. Of course, speak out now and you're toast. I bet the WH is just waiting for someone to speak up.

Time for us to tout one of our own who knew the real deal all along.

[Totally Committed]

103. "Time for us to tout one of our own who knew the real deal all along."

That sentiment, stated as it is, in a nutshell, a maine reason I like and respect you so damned much. You say what you mean and mean what you say. I value that in a person, and so, I value you!

Thanks again, autorank... in my book, you are the one of the best!

TC

[Jai4WKC08]

57. Oh this is rich...

Reuters is now reporting that Clark joined the other generals TODAY. :eyes: Anybody got a contact address for these morans?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Calls from a growing number of retired US generals for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to resign over his handling of the Iraq war are inappropriate, former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Richard Myers said on Saturday.

Six former generals, joined on Saturday by former NATO commander Gen. Wesley Clark, have spoken out against Rumsfeld, accusing him of arrogance, ignoring his field commanders and micromanagement. The calls come amid growing fears of a civil war in Iraq and slumping approval ratings for President George W. Bush.

"I don't think it's our place in the military either in uniform or when you retire to make those judgments. That's not the military's role. They certainly can. It's their right to do that, I just think it's inappropriate," Myers told Fox News.

Clark, who ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004, disagreed with Myers.

"It's more than appropriate, it's their responsibility," he told Fox news. "I believe Rumsfeld hasn't done an adequate job. He should go."

(snip)

Clark said Rumsfeld's failure to heed the advice of senior officers was a major complaint and that the disaffection extends beyond the generals who have spoken out.

"Now these officers are saying at least give us somebody in the military chain of command who will listen. That's why Secretary Rumsfeld has lost their confidence. He's made bad policy choices. It's time for new leadership."

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-04-15T193855Z_01_N14306922_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-RUMSFELD.xml

Oh, fwiw, there are now eight generals, counting WKC. Please see my thread at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2571201&mesg_id=2571201

[Jai4WKC08]

58. I found it, if anyone would like to join me in writing Reuters

Go to http://today.reuters.com/HelpAndInfo/ContactUs.aspx and click on "Contact a Reuters Editor" It'll give you a pop-up box in which to reply.

[Sparkly]

59. Thanks Jai -- will do! nt

[Sparkly]

60. Done, and I also mentioned their title...

"Rumsfeld critics off base: ex-military chief"

Why slant it toward Myers' predictable response? Why not "General Clark on Rumsfeld Critics: 'It's their responsibility'"?! That's more newsworthy, seems to me.

[Jai4WKC08]

62. That's an excellent point.

I was so mad about them treating WKC like he was just jumping on the bandwagon, I completely missed that.

D'oh!

I hope you took them to task for their lead-in in your letter. :) <--- oops, nevermind... should have read your subject line.

[Donna Zen]

61. Done

Keeping them on their toes.

[Adelante]

64. Done

The honorable Generals speaking out against Donald Rumsfeld are appreciated, but please know it was a candidate for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States, also a retired General, who promised his first act in office would be to fire Rumsfeld. General Wesley Clark, however, never stopped with Rumsfeld, who is, after all, an appointee. The buck stops at the very top. I wonder what our country would be like today, where our troops would be today, had General Clark's warnings been heeded.

[Tom Rinaldo]

69. I just sent this to Reuters

I'm afraid that General Wesley Clark was so far ahead of the pack in calling for Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's dismissal (not just his resignation) that your reporters clearly forgot he was out there in the first place. General Clark first made his feelings clearly known regarding this in September 2003, and he never stopped speaking out:
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/003860.html

General Clark is the most highly decorated American military commander since General Eisenhower, and he opened himself up to many attacks on his integrity and judgment by speaking out strongly when he did. General Clark has continued to speak up forcibly for sound military judgment, in opposition to the policies imposed by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Secretary Rumsfeld, ever since.

It is clear that General Clark did not use his opposition to the Iraq invasion to further a career in politics, rather he entered into politics because of his strong opposition to the invasion of Iraq, and all of the critical strategic security mistakes it entailed. Many of those who are aware of General Clark's clear positions on this matter have wondered why the media has been strangely silent about him. I am glad to see Clark's strong and important judgment on this matter acknowledged. Is it too much to ask that his leadership on this matter also be acknowledged?

[Sparkly]

71. Excellent as always, Tom. nt

[Totally Committed]

74. Outstanding as usual!

Gotcha, you a**holes!

Go, Tom!

TC

[Clark2008]

123. Here's mine -

Retired Gen. Wesley Clark didn't "join" a growing number of former generals calling for Don Rumsfeld's resignation - Clark STARTED the list.

He called for Rumsfeld's resignation in September 2003: "First of all I would change the Secretary of Defense. Then I would go to the commanders of the ground and go to Iraq myself personally and I would develop an exit strategy that gives us a success and lets us downsize our commitment there," Clark said.

I admit I've been a bit miffed as to why the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander hasn't been included in this list since he came out three years ago and I thank you for finally including him, but the fact is that Clark testified in front of the House Armed Services Committee in September 2002 and warned against going into Iraq, has written articles and given interviews asking that Rumsfeld be replaced and focused on the misuse of the US Armed Forces in this war since well before it began.

He is actually the ringleader - or does that not count, since he's a Democrat?

[Texas_Kat]

78. I'll forever have the sound in my head of WKC calling

Richard Myers, "Dicky Myers", during one interview.

I hate to say it, but it makes me snicker every time I see Myers pontificating on TeeVee.

[Clarkie1]

63. A transcript from earlier today has been posted at CCN.

4/15/06 Fox Transcript - Wes on Rummy
Posted by Melange on April 15, 2006 - 3:10pm.
Jamie Colby: Six retired generals now calling for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to resign. They claim he mismanaged the war in Iraq but do other retired generals agree? Well, joining us on the phone from Little Rock, Arkansas, retired NATO commander and Fox News analyst, General Wesley Clark. General, good afternoon.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Good afternoon.

Jamie Colby: Thanks for being with us. Let me ask you first, is it appropriate for a former general to comment on the Defense Secretary’s performance when we’re at war?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Of course it’s appropriate. In fact, it’s more than appropriate. It’s their responsibility to provide the access to the American public to military information and ideas. Not disclose classified information but to give their honest opinion. If called on or to volunteer it – that’s a democracy and they have some specialized information and it’s a good thing that they share it.

Jamie Colby: Well as a former general as well, what is your take on Secretary Rumsfeld’s leadership?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I ran for president in 2004 because I felt that the administration’s entire direction of policy with regard to the war on terror was a mistake. We should have fought in Afghanistan and finished off Osama bin Laden. The war in Iraq was unnecessary. Secretary Rumsfeld was the officer in charge as the Secretary of Defense. He’s the number 2 in the chain of command to the president and I believe Secretary Rumsfeld hasn’t done an adequate job. He should go.

Jamie Colby: When you look at the position of number 2, can you put into perspective the need to follow the orders of the commander in chief versus the ability to present a different strategy?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well certainly. I mean, I ran to be president of the United States because I thought the commander in chief should be replaced. Ultimately he’s the person responsible. The American people didn’t understand how bad the situation was in the election of 2004. Now these generals are taking it upon themselves to speak out on behalf of people who are still in the army. They’re relating their experiences and they feel like they haven’t…that people in uniform were not listened to. That we didn’t go in with enough troops; we didn’t have the right approach for the inter-agency; we don’t have a policy process to reinforce the military efforts with diplomatic efforts in the regions. All of these things ultimately come back to the president but his right hand man is Don Rumsfeld.

Jamie Colby: Would you, if you would General, listen to what Secretary Rumsfeld has to say? I have some sound that I want to play.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Sure.

<Audio of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld>: There are people on the outside who are retired who look back and say ‘oh this or that’ and that’s fine, they can do that but it doesn’t make them right.

Jamie Colby: So point blank General, should Secretary Rumsfeld go?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Yes. <crosstalk>

Jamie Colby: And is this an appropriate time for that with our soldiers in combat?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think that it’s more than an appropriate time. This country needed a better policy from the 2001 period on. We should have stayed in Afghanistan and finished it. Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney wanted us to go to Iraq. It had no connection to the war on terror. They pressed for this, they pressed for open warfare before the diplomacy was finished. It was a tragic mistake. It’s a strategic blunder. It was wrong and the American people just didn’t understand it or they wouldn’t have reelected George Bush. They did…reelect him. Now these officers are saying ‘at least give us somebody in the military chain of command who will listen.’ That’s why Secretary Rumsfeld has lost their confidence. He’s made bad policy choices. It’s time for new leadership.

Jamie Colby: Alright, General Wesley Clark on the phone from Arkansas. Thanks for being with us and for weighing in on something that was the talk of…not only on the air but certainly in Washington this week. Thank you so much.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Thank you.

Thanks Melange!

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/5544

[Sparkly]

65. So good, SO good!!

Concise, straight to the point, no nonsense, no hyperbole, no couching in uncertain terms.

He's GONNA be replaced, General -- pleeeeeease run again!!! :loveya:

[Totally Committed]

67. Nobody does it better!

Go, Wes!

TC

[autorank]

77. Sweet! What a contribution he has made and willl make.

Imagine that, an intellectual, a leader, a liberal...a Democrat. Very nicely done.

[Donna Zen]

81. Soldier, Scholar, Statesman

An ideal from another era.

I'm just happy that there are still a few people who know how to tell the truth. Oh how we have fallen. It's time to do some lifting-up.

[autorank]

86. ...with a crew of leaders who can do the heavy lifting!!! n/t

[Thirtieschild]

118. an intellectual, a leader, a liberal...a Democrat

and a straight-talker, honest, visionary, charasmatic. He has it all.

[AX10]

66. K/R

[FrenchieCat]

80. Clark on fox now.....

debating the issue....with some Bush kiss ass major General....

[FrenchieCat]

82. The video of his first FOX appearance available....

He was on the phone...

http://securingamerica.com/

[SeaBob]

83. General

What do you think his odds are of becoming president? has he developed a platform?

[Tom Rinaldo]

84. Clark had a well developed platform last time:

It's still archived here: http://www.clark04.com/issues/

Clark is a very well rounded thinker, with advanced degrees in Economics, Political Science, and Philosophy. When he speaks in public it is on a wide range of issues, but the media now mostly only covers him regarding national security matters.

You can read or watch Clark's 2006 Real State of the Union Speach here to get a sense of what he believes in:
http://securingamerica.com/node/560

Clark is lately talking about the need for the United States to move toward a Single Payer Health Insurance system, among other things. But Clark is only advancing the meme of running in 2008 hard enough to keep that possibility open for him (he's been to New Hampshire and Iowa for example), Clark's primary focus now is to help Democrats regain at least one House of Congress, so he is pushing other Democrats for 2006 much more than he is advancing himself for 2008. Clark's official position is that he has not decided on a 2008 run yet.

I think Clark has what it takes to win.

[autorank]

85. Clark had a very good platform and his tax plan was excellent.

He even had a tax calculator on his web page that let you put in your taxable income and see how his plan impacted you. Sweet...great use of technology.

Whether Clark is the nominee or not in 2008, he has what it takes to make a huge contribution to the national governance. We will have huge problems by then -- the environment (total neglect of the climate change melt down), Iraq's aftermath, health care, an economy with lots of tinsel but not much substance, etc. etc. We need the best, brightest, and most honest leaders to get us out of the tragedy * has created by neglecting to act at a critical time.

Clark deserves credit as an analyst and patriot. He knew this would be a mess. Unlike others, he stood up and said what he knew.

Thank you General Clark.

[imlost]

87. Clark kicks ASS! He is a true leader

that says things because he means them, not because he's looking for a vote.
He believes in his statements. One of the few that I can trust right now. It's too
bad he isn't our Prez. Maybe next time!

[Notoverit]

88. Much needed reminder. real courage - not opportunistic turncoat.

Perle on Clark - October 2002:

"So I think General Clark simply doesn't want to see us use military force and he has thrown out as many reasons as he can develop to that but the bottom line is he just doesn't want to take action. He wants to wait."
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/HearingsPrepared...

and Wellstone:

But as General Wes Clark, former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe has recently noted, a premature go-it-alone invasion of Iraq "would super-charge recruiting for Al Qaida."
Paul Wellstone- antiwar speech in senate 2002
www.wellstoneaction.org

[Sparkly]

89. Nice reminders -- thanks!!

And welcome to DU! :hi:

[autorank]

95. When you're good, you're good...Clark is very, very good!

:hi:

[Totally Committed]

102. Welcome to DU!

Nice post!

TC

[understandinglife]

92. Yes. K&R.

Never Forget: George W. Bush willfully violated National Security to cover-up his willful launch of a war of aggression and illegal occupation of Iraq.

[NativeTexan]

93. Damn straight he did!!!

And there is a great chance that he will be rewarded for it before long!!!

[Totally Committed]

96. From your fingertips,

to God's ears, my friend! Wes Clark WILL BE an extraordinary President for ALL the people.

TC

[NativeTexan]

100. He was my top choice in 2004......

...I was a very early supporter. He would be a GREAT President, and NOT just because ANYTHING would look good after the Village Idiot. But because General Clark has the right frame of mind on all of the important issues of this era in history, and the courage of his convictions.

[Post]

106. What does he have to say on IRAN?

The NeoConArtists are bullying Congress again...somebody stop them! Maybe this is our guy! Check it out: http://postanapology.blogspot.com/2006/04/tony-blair-says-no-to-us-on-iran.html#links

[Donna Zen]

107. His words:

"We need to talk to Iran, that is all we've ever needed to do."

[Tom Rinaldo]

108. Here is the longer version than Donna's summary, lol

Clark has repeatedly been calling for direct diplomacy with Iran. And he has been warning about the consequences of military action even while he describes likely possible military options available to Bush. Here are a few of his comments on Iran, taken from various speechs and commentary appearances.

On FOX:

General Wesley Clark on Big Story Weekend Edition
January 1, 2006

Jamie Colby: Let me ask you, General Clark, about public sentiment. Uh, the Iraq war, the American public has at times supported it and felt that it was the right thing to do, that we needed to stay until we left democracy in place. What about gaining public support for the potential for an invasion in Iran? How difficult a challenge is that, politically, for the president?


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, a couple of points. First, there's going to be a lot of skepticism about the exact nature of the Iranian program because the record of our intelligence agencies on the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction program wasn't very good. Secondly, of course, when the president calls for strikes, he's going to strengthen his hand at home once these strikes are underway because his critics are going to be faced with the dilemma of going against a threat to the United States and our allies abroad if they challenge the president. So he's going to pick up support. At least that's the way I believe the White House will read this. So I would guess there would be a program of consultation with allies. There would probably be the appearance of some last minute diplomatic measures and then there would be, um, the buildup here at home, politically, and then the strikes. And…<crosstalk> I think the administration would calculate that this would be the end of it.



General Wesley Clark on Fox News Live
January 2, 2006

You know, the United States still hasn't talked to Iran and, on the other hand, I mean, we don't like the Iranian president, but on the other hand, before we bomb him, we could at least try to have a dialogue. We've gone through the Europeans, why can't we talk to him before we bomb him?


General Wesley Clark on Fox News
January 16, 2006

"GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think it's possible to construct a military option that could be, could approach adding five to eight years to the development cycle of the Iranian nuclear weapon. In other words, you could set them back.


Brigitte Quinn. Mmm Hmm.


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I don't think that you can totally eliminate the possibility, and remember after such a strike, it's very possible that A.Q. Kahn and Pakistan or some other country would come rushing to the aid of Iran."



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neil Cavuto: I see.

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

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

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


Neil Cavuto: Yeah.

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



General Wesley Clark on Fox News Live
February 5, 2006

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well that's the problem with the military option. It's that once we take action, Ahmedinejad probably becomes stronger domestically. There's no assurance that you can get regime change and the historical record of countries that have been bombed suggests that when you bomb a country, normally people rally around the leader. In this case, it would be most unfortunate, but it could happen.

And after we had set back their nuclear program by taking out a number of sites, there's no reason to think that AQ Khan in Pakistan and his cohort couldn't provide them the additional information, that some other nation might not have an incentive to smuggle in highly enriched uranium.

They could be back where we started much sooner than if they rebuilt the program entirely on their own. So that's the risk of the military option - leaving an embittered, angered Iran which is determined to seek revenge and get it.



General Wesley Clark on Fox News Sunday
March 5, 2006

Page Hopkins: The IAEA meeting tomorrow morning, Iran's already being defiant saying that if it were referred to the Security Council, that's it - all bets are off we're going to resume enriching uranium on a large scale. What can be done to diffuse this?


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well I think the first thing that needs to be done, really, is the United States needs to talk directly to the leadership in Iran. That's the essential first step. The United States leadership hasn't done this. We've got a lot of different things we can do. There's still a military option - I don't know how effective it's going to be in the long-term, but it's there. There are sanctions. There's the embarrassment of going forward. But, when we push Iran, they're going to push back on us and Iran has positioned itself to be the sort of leader of the Islamic world. It's an historic opportunity for Shia Islam to lead the whole Islamic world in standing up for their right to have nuclear energy and maybe a nuclear weapon. So this is a huge, difficult, political issue for us to face. It's a political issue first; it needs to start with dialogue.


Page Hopkins: How do you have that dialogue, though, since 1979 Iran's been responsible for more killing more Americans in terror attacks than any other country; it's a theocracy; how in the heck do we neutralize or deal with these people?


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, the first thing to do is you've got to find someone to talk with. There are low-level conversations going on. They're not sanctioned or they're not supported by the US Government. They could be - the United States government could deal with the low level and raise the level of discussions. It could get to the critical issues that are on the table but <crosstalk>


Page Hopkins: But sir ...


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: There are going to be disagreements between the United States and Iran. That can't be papered over <crosstalk>


Page Hopkins: But General Clark...


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: but before we use force, shouldn't we at least talk to them?


Page Hopkins: How do we talk, though, with a president who is alm…crazy? This is a guy who says 'Israel should be wiped off the planet.' How do you reason or talk to somebody like that?


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Maybe you don't have to talk to him directly, maybe you talk to other people in the government first. Maybe you build this thing up over a period of time but this has been an opportunity that we've passed by for years. We spoke strongly about the need to put the right government in place in Iran. We basically, our government, tried to interfere in their election. We probably are responsible to giving Ahmedinejad some measure of support because voters don't like it, in whatever country they are, when foreigners try to interfere in their election. We may not think they had a real election. We may not approve of their democracy but people in Iran believe that they voted for Ahmedinejad so what we have to do is we have to decide what we as Americans want to do to pursue what we believe is in our interests. If we only use the stick on Iran, then it's going to be difficult to move the issue, in a constructive way, in the near term. So we need a combination of dialogue and pressure.



Clark on Main Stream Media:

General Wesley Clark on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos"
March 5, 2006

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

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

George Stephanopoulos: Directly.

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

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

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

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

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


LINKS FOR ALL OF THE ABOVE INTERVIEWS ARE FOUND HERE:
http://securingamerica.com/taxonomy/term/23




From Clark's Real State Of The Union Address January 30th 2006
THE NEW AMERICA FOUNDATION on Capitol Hill: "The Real State of the Union 2006"

We should join now — right now - in opening new talks with Iran, in which we ourselves participate, before pressing for UN action or moving toward the military option. No one should be mistaken: there is a military option.

We can strike hard enough to set back Iran's nuclear quest by many years, and take out much of their military capacity in the process. And we can at the same time protect most of the oil flow from Iran and deny their capacity to block transit through the Straits of Hormuz. But we also must recognize the possible consequences of this action: an embittered, vengeful Iran, seeking further destabilization of the region. Far better to pursue dialogue now, whatever the precedents, and save the military option for truly last resort. Understand: unlike others you may hear, I know when and how to determine our course with Iran.
http://securingamerica.com/node/560




Iraq: The Way Forward—A Conversation with General Wesley Clark

Council on Foreign Relations
Washington, DC
February 14, 2006


QUESTIONER: Reuben Brigety from George Mason University. General, thank you for coming.

Senator McCain has said that the only thing worse than a military strike on Iran is a nuclear-armed Iran. I wonder if you agree with that statement, and if you could offer your thoughts on viable options to prevent Iran from being nuclear armed.

CLARK: Well, the official policy of the United States for a long time has been that Iran can't have a nuclear weapon. And if you just connect the dots and you say, well, they have an implacable determination to get an nuclear weapon, and you say but under no circumstances can they have one, then there's only one possible outcome -- (chuckles) -- and it's a very unpleasant outcome.

I think that, first of all, we've had a lot of mistakes in dealing with Iran. What the administration's grand strategy actually resulted in was that if you believed in late 2001 that there was a significant proliferation problem -- risk -- and that your three greatest risks for proliferation were Iraq, Iran and North Korea, then the administration put all of its effort into the least significant problem, which has then caused us to defer and be distracted from necessary attention to the two greater problems of North Korea and Iran.

When I testified in front of Congress in 2002 and wrote articles -- I kept talking about Iran being a greater long-term threat because they clearly were embarked on a program then. And in 2001-2002, we were saying five to eight years for their nuclear weapons to come to -- now we -- I don't know what the intelligence says. And they're probably -- if we're honest, there's probably a lot of disputes in the intelligence community, whether it's now another five to eight years or till 2010 or maybe it's only a year. We don't know. But we've lost critical time in dealing with Iran.

I would encourage the United States leadership right now, this week, before March, before it goes to the United Nations Security Council, immediately to talk to the Iranian government. Iran has been a -- it's a great nation. It's 60, 70 million people with a tremendous heritage, and we've got a wonderful Iranian-American community. And the policy that we've pursued toward Iran for the last five to 10 years, no matter what the historical antecedents were or our anger at 1979 and the hostages, still, it's a policy that hasn't served American interests.

We should be doing business -- we should have been a long time ago doing business with the Iranian business community. We should have worked with them. We worked with East Europe when it was under communist domination, and it was one of the key factors that helped East Europe throw off an outmoded set of ideas. We need to be working in the Middle East to help their business communities move past old ideas.

So right now what we need to be doing is talking to Iran -- right now, this week.

http://securingamerica.com/node/607

[Donna Zen]

112. Tom...those are his words, not mine.

One day Josh L set up a chat for us with the General. It must have early in the summer of 04. Anyway, one of the questions was "what should we do about Iran." He answered: "We need to talk to Iran, that's all we've ever needed to do."

For me, everything that he's said since has been very eloquent, but not different.

[Tom Rinaldo]

115. Yes, they are. And it says it all.

I wasn't clear enough in my lead in. I was laughing because I had collected so many Clark quotes on the matter, but the simple one you posted sums it all up, doesn't it?

[saltpoint]

110. I would absolutely love to hear a debate between General Clark and

one Donald Rumsfeld on the Middle East.

I would give a lot and go far to hear that one.

[Tom Rinaldo]

114. It would almost be priceless. n/t

[Totally Committed]

111. Kick!

:kick:

TC

[xultar]

127. Kick for GWC!