General Clark Backs Israeli Actions in Middle East "Conflict"

[AtomicKitten]

Jul 19, 2006 12:09 pm US/Mountain
Clark Backs Israeli Actions In Mideast Conflict
http://cbs4denver.com/topstories/local_story_200141132.html

hear it here: http://cbs4denver.com/topstories/local_story_200141132.html

Jennifer Cabala
Reporting

(CBS4) BOULDER, Colo. Former NATO commander, retired Gen. Wesley Clark, said during a visit to the Denver area Wednesday that he believes the United States should help shape any United Nation's force that's sent to the Middle East to separate Israel and Lebanon.

Clark added that he supported Israel's military action after the kidnapping of two soldiers by Hezbollah militants.

"I've talked to people from Lebanon," Clark said. "Hezbollah is like a cancer on the body politic of Lebanon. But they're so strong and so powerful Lebanon itself can't get rid of them."

He added that is was important for the U.S. and other countries to help Lebanon rid itself of Hezbollah.

Clark was in Colorado to speak at a fundraiser for democrat Jay Fawcett who is running for Congress from the state's 5th Congressional District.

[ShortnFiery]

1. There goes my vote for Clark into the Crapper ...

I don't vote for Warmongers.

Now it's Israel, but warmongering is warmongering.

Needless to say, I couldn't be more disappointed with The Good General. :thumbsdown:

[mzteris]

3. hubby always said

never trust a career military man. Maybe he was right. :(

[ShortnFiery]

5. Your Hubby has it, IMO, half right ...

Don't trust career General Officers, i.e., LTCs on down are not usually money and power hungry.

There are rare exceptions, but they're very rare.

But I put my trust in the words of the Late Major General Smedley Butler:

War is a Racket http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

[TacticalPeek]

109. ?

"Don't trust career General Officers"

"I put my trust in the words of the Late Major General Smedley Butler"


You make a great case that some generals are different.

[jonnyblitz]

13. I agree with your husband and I am a 10 year navy vet.

as a matter of fact it is a HUGE negative for me. nt

[ShortnFiery]

15. Oh, you were on the cusp but decided not to be a lifer?

IMO, you're a better person for it. I served for four years active duty and then Resigned my Commission. The military is way too Authoritarian for my taste. :hi:

[jonnyblitz]

17. oh yes. 10 years of being "undercover gay' was getting sketchy

plus after Desert Storm i became politically aware and discovered I was a lefty. long story. :D

[ShortnFiery]

21. I'm glad you're free ... I felt so good when my time was served.

Best to you fellow Vet. :-)

[jonnyblitz]

24. and same to you.

:hi:

[Donna Zen]

55. General Clark supports openly gay people in the military

n/t

[jonnyblitz]

69. I know that. I saw his picture on the Advocate!

:thumbsup: kudos for that support!

[Donna Zen]

80. He said that all NATO countries

...support openly gay people in the military except us. That's what he said on Meet The Press.

Since you normally are very negative toward him, I just wanted to get that corrected.

[jonnyblitz]

87. i don't feel like getting shredded by Clark supporters tonight

I can sense a subtle hostility like you are ready to jump my shit at the slightist so I am seriously walking on glass here. Clark is the least of my worries at this point.

[Donna Zen]

92. This is not about you

There were a couple of comments left hanging that shouldn't have been.

This entire thread has so many ridiculous comments, it is hard to know where to begin. The ME and Gulf region are locked in a battle between the Sunnis and Shi'ites, with Hamas and Hizbollah as their proxiy armies. In 2002, Clark told all of the people that voted for this, that a war would open a Pandora's Box, that might never be closed. So here we are with thousands dying, and this thread is the response. Jeezus. Our country would have a better foreign policy from Donald Duck.

[xultar]

40. Has nothing to do with Military.

[Phrogman]

104. Clarke would NEVER get the Dem nomination anyway, Hillary already has it.

Her Husband promised it to her for not leaving him.

[Cascadian]

129. Hillary won't get the nomination.

Her pro-war stance and the fact she is the Republicans favorite target is enough that the Democrats will be wise to choose somebody else.



John

[Phrogman]

167. Just you watch!

She's already got it.

[Cascadian]

183. Hillary nomination = Republican victory in 2008.

Watch her get swiftboated by the Republicans and watch her play the "me too" crap and not get tough against her Republican opponent whoever it will be. Obviouly she will inch further to the right as well.


When are some Democrats going to just get it? We keep doing the same stuff over and over again during the elections and we get the same lousy results. :eyes:



John

[Eurobabe]

182. Drop the 'e' if you're going to post about Wes Clark

You got your Richard Clarke & Gen. Clark mixed up...

[PatGund]

221. Hillary = Defeat in '08

No other way to say it. There's no way in hell Sen. Clinton could win if she was stupid enough to run and people were dumb enough to give her the nomination.

It really only seems to be the Faux news and other NeoCon talking heads that want her. Gee, I wonder why?

[Totally Committed]

223. I totally agree with you on this.

Very astute post!

TC

[Donna Zen]

156. Yeah...trust

...let's see, people like Dick Cheney. Why listen to Zinni or Clark when they came out against the Iraq war, when you could trust some poll-driven plastic pandering politician.

This war that you are seeing is a direct result of the war in Iraq.

[Hardrada]

4. All this stuff turned me into a complete pacifist and anarchist

so I wasn't going to vote for him anyway but, my God, does everyone swear and Oath of Loyalty to Israel when they are anywhere remotely near US high office??

[femrap]

77. AIPAC is the strongest and richest lobbying group

there is.

[Name removed]

113. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[snowbear]

7. What do you mean "There goes your vote?"

You were bashing him yesterday on another thread..
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2731274&mesg_id=2731274

So sometime between that thread and this one, you decided you were going to vote for him and now you've changed your mind?

[ShortnFiery]

10. To go into detail, I was willing to vote on a ticket with him as VP

Such as Gore/Clark.

No, no way would I ever consider voting a military man for President. There's only one IKE.

But I was willing to stay open minded enough. The more I see of him, the more I'm even more TRASHING him as you say.

We need to downgrade our WAR MACHINE. Just think about how many good works could be done for "The People" instead of pouring all that money into bombs? Clark is a disappointment all the way around.

*On edit: Thanks for tracking on my behavior - that's just f'ing creepy. But no, you didn't catch me in a lie. Sorry to disappoint you. :hi: :P

[snowbear]

26. ShortNFeiry.. no behavior monitoring!

I haven't been on here lately and was catching up on reading the last 2 pages of posts.

We don't see a lot of Clark bashing in this neck of the woods, and your comment on that poll someone shared here kinda stood out like a sore thumb. That's all.

[ShortnFiery]

28. Thanks for the Confession ...

Clark is not universally loved, even in this lauded Democratic Forum.

Sorry that you were under that impression. :hi:

[Dinger]

74. What Is It With People - Are They AFRAID Of Winning With Clark???

I'm with you larissa. Sheesh, some people!
To automatically reject a military person as a potentially GREAT president, stupid, just stupid. What's the next group of people that can't be Democratic Presidents? I can just imagine:

any military
any person who considers themselves a person of faith
atheists
ex-repuglicans who have seen the light, really (ex: David Brock)
any racial group
anybody, name your group ...

[Donna Zen]

59. So who do you think can/will go to the Pentagon?

Hillary? Edwards? Gore?

Wes Clark has said he would cut the Pentagon budget, or as he calls it ''the make-want" budget. And I've got news for you, Clinton stayed far away from the Pentagon, and everyone one of the others votes for them everytime. If you really meant what you said, then you would know that only Ike could raise the issue of the MIC, and only Clark knows where the bodies are buried.

[krkaufman]

132. An excellent point.

The Dept of Defense/Pentagon are most in need of reform, and only a well-respected military guy will be able to do it. (Like the "Only Nixon could go to China" bs) Not sure how high-ranking said military guy would need to be to effectively manage and provide cover for the effort, though.

[Jai4WKC08]

131. I'm not buying your explanation

Up above, you say Clark lost your vote. NOW you're saying you just meant your vote for VP. But no one gets to vote for who gets the VP nomination, so did you mean he lost your vote if he were VP on the ballot? That means whoever put him there (eg Gore) would lose your vote too. Is that what you meant?

Didn't think so.

Red-handed indeed.

[Clark2008]

181. Well, you can't vote for Gore or Kerry.

And the one guy who even brought up the military industrial complex in the primary was Clark.

So, I guess you're going to vote "poofy" and we'll lose again.

I disagree with Clark on this one issue, but I still think he's the smartest man, the most adept person, the least-beholden to special interest candidate, we have running (if he runs).

[CJCRANE]

184. I haven't listened

to the interview but I'm sure Clark's response was more nuanced than is shown in ths snippet. I bet Clark would support Israel's right to defend itself but not the disproportionate bombing of civilian targets.

[xkenx]

201. You clearly don't know much about Clark, so here's THE DUCK PRINCIPLE

Ducks don't wear signs labeling them ducks, but you always know a duck when you see one. If it has a ducksbill, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, then you know it's a duck.

Wes Clark is one of the Democratic Party's foremost progressives by virtue of his actions over the years, not by any labels that people want to throw at him simply because he had a career in the military.
It is time to appreciate just how lucky we are to have this national treasure. Just a few items:

--Clark was always butting heads with the stereotypical authoritarian "macho" military Neanderthals because he saw the horrors of war firsthand in Vietnam and always espoused
"diplomacy first."
--Clark was one of the leaders of the all-volunteer Army created after the Vietnam debacle. To keep personnel in you had to do a good job of providing for their family needs, health, education, equal opportunity.
--Clark actually won environmental awards at bases under his command.
--When Clark was working at the Pentagon in the mid-90s, he was virtually the only voice crying out to intervene in Rwanda.
--It was Clark's voice, along with Madeline Albright, who persuaded the Clinton Admin., over the objections of the Pentagon, to stop the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. Tell the Kosovar Albanians that Wes Clark isn't a liberal, progressive, humanitarian.
--It was Wes Clark's voice prior to the Iraq invasion who urged that we exhaust all possible diplomatic means before any military action, including in testimony to Congress.
--It was Wes Clark who filed an Amicus Curiae brief in the University
of Michigan affirmative action case.
--It was Wes Clark who allowed his picture on the cover of The Advocate to show his support for gay rights.
--It is Wes Clark who confronts the Chickenhawks in the administration and on FAUX News for their
misguided macho posturing.

Since when is it some kind of a black mark for someone to give to his country by serving in the military if he does so in a principled manner? Wes Clark felt that he could make the most impact by providing a progressive voice to that institution.

So I'd have to say Wes Clark is my Democrat, liberal, progressive "DUCK" because he has proved it.

[fuzzyball]

18. Oops....got caught red handed!!!

[ShortnFiery]

22. Huh?

:wtf: Over!

You slay me. ;)

[mtnsnake]

42. So now Clark is a "warmonger", too? Gimme a break

It's amazing how little it takes for someone to be branded a warmonger around here. lol

[Donna Zen]

57. General Clark hates war

With exception of Gore and Feingold, General Clark is the only other name mentioned who came out against the war in Iraq. And everyone one of the "oopers" knew that bush was going to war.

So are you also disappointed with Feingold, Kerry, Bayh, Clinton and Edwards. Because they also have said that Israel has a right to defend herself?

BTW, Wes has been on tv 5 times since this started, and in each appearance he blamed all of this on bush.

So you blame Clark.

Clark will blame bush.

I'm not disappointed with Clark. My disappointment is with the disingenuous voices on this thread.

[lebkuchen]

94. Same here.

Clark is off my list of options.

[Tom Rinaldo]

111. Who is still on your list of options then?

What position have they taken regarding the crisis in the Middle East that you prefer? Or do you just prefer candidates who simply stay quiet so as not to interfere with their fund raising or risk losing a vote?

I honestly am interested in an answer, because it seems to me many DUers are just like most voters, they reward with support mealy mouthed politicians who try to slide by without commenting directly on anything controversial. Tell what the Democrats who remain on your list have said about the situation with Israel that you prefer. Because if some candidates past appearances before the Israel lobby are any indicator, I am really curious who you know of that doesn't say worse than what Clark is saying. Even Kucinich refused to vote no on the House Resolution offering full support to Israel. Kucinich voted "Present" instead. Eight Representatives voted No in the whole House. Are those the people who remain on your list?

I hope you read the fuller text of Clark's interview below on this thread. He is also calling on support for the people of Lebanon among other things.

[mzteris]

2. I usually like Clark

BUT - well - if "Hezbollah is like a cancer on the body politic of Lebanon. But they're so strong and so powerful Lebanon itself can't get rid of them."

all I can say is, since when is KILLING THE PATIENT the best cure for the 'cancer'?

[ShortnFiery]

6. That was a dumb ass comment from Clark, Hezbollah is weaved into

the fabric of Southern Lebanon. They fill services that the Government leaves gaps. Such as water supplies, Schools, Hospitals.

A cancer? You're talking B.S. good General. We have to disarm them but the good public works can continue. If like the IRA we can turn Hezbollah political and to willingly disarm. Everybody wins.

But to disparage an multifaceted organization that is loved by most of the populace in southern Lebanon is well, a non-starter. The demonetization is really getting putrid - you'd think they were the devil incarnate. :(

[Donna Zen]

61. So now fundamentalist are the "good guys"

There are the aging members of Hizbullah who have gotten fat, happy and rich under the Syrian occupation; however, there are also the young turks...you know, the guys who kidnap American out of embassies.

General Clark does want them disarmed. That is what he's talking about. Although he believes that government functions in Southern Lebanon should be run not by a armed group affiliated with Iran, but by the Lebanese government.

[MrSlayer]

8. Clark is right as usual.

Lebanon is too weak on their own to take out the trash living among them. Calling Clark a warmonger is simply ridiculous. He would be a tremendous President.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[nickshepDEM]

19. Yeah, great schooling...

http://www.break.com/index/startswiththekids.html

:eyes:

[ShortnFiery]

25. Your source is more than lame, check out the specifics on

any reputable source such as BBC or even the lame CNN. See how the people honestly love them for helping with finances for schools and utilities. You really do need to read in more depth because some Hezbollah do evil things, yes. However, no one organization is pure evil. There are very productive public works, political and financial support within the multi-faceted section of Hezbollah.

[nickshepDEM]

29. The video is real, if you want to deny it

fine, but just say so. Dont hide behind the hosting site.

[wiley]

170. "However, no one organization is pure evil"

What does that mean? An 80% evil organization is okay if they have a nasty little habit of killing people and blowing themselves up if there are no potholes in the roads? So, you're down with the mafioso too?

[fuzzyball]

23. Hitler, Stalin & Mussolini all built hospitals and ran schools...so what

difference does that make? Were they better men for supporting
social support network for people?

[ShortnFiery]

27. Ok, ask your self WHO is conducting Collective Punishment on an

entire nation? You know like Hitler and the Nazis LOVED to label entire groups, not just Jews, but Gypsies, Gays, Poles, etc. as EVIL and eradicate them.

Yes, it truly Israeli's military that's unleashing their killing machine on the Lebanese people, i.e., just like Hitler rationalized. -=> They're all evil - Give them an inch, they'll take a mile - You can't talk with these people.

Hum?

[fuzzyball]

30. You would not be at the end of your patience if rockets were being fired

on your town/village/schools/hospitals on a regular basis?
What is your solution for suicide bombers on regular basis?
Israel & Hezballah went through a cease-fire a few years back
and where did that get them? I am no fan of Israel, but I can
empathize with the situation they are in.

[lastknowngood]

34. Attack the source not the symptom. The bottle rockets that

hezbulla fires are in no way comparable to the massive firepower that the Israelis are using. Collective punishment is illegal under international law, of course Israel has never signed the geneva conventions or the nuclear non proliferation treaty.

[ShortnFiery]

39. Oh heaven forbid I try for peace again, because MY patience has

run out. Sure, I've lost my patience, let the genocide begin from land, sea and air!

Here's a clue: The rest of the world, hates us! Because the USA and Israel are the biggest terrorists on this planet. :( :thumbsdown:

[jonnyblitz]

49. I think some people seriously need to be plunked down in

the middle of a war zone so they can get a taste of what they so easily wish on others without a second thought. people are fucking stupid. I have no hope sometimes.

[ShortnFiery]

50. I saw my brother come back from Vietnam a shell of the man he

once was. I wouldn't wish war on my worst enemy.

It's so sick that people would allow Israel to bombard an entire nation for one segment of the political government they completely destroy Lebanon's infrastructure.

The operation was a success but the patient died. :cry:

[theanarch]

78. no, the operation was a failure...

...and the patient still died

[Donna Zen]

83. Blame bush

n/t

[fuzzyball]

179. How did USA exercise patience after 911?

Heck we went into Afghanistan and wiped out the regime there
in 3 weeks, along with Bin Laden's training camps and infrastructure.
Israel has been the subject of civilian casualties via suicide bombings,
bottle rockets, soldier kidnappings by digging tunnels into Israel, for
MANY MANY years. No one can exercise that much patience with the exception
of mahatma Gandhi.

Like I said, I am no fan of Israel. We have been financing that country for
65 years with Billions of dollars each year. I would rather see that money
spent right here in US. May be if we stop financing them, they might not
act so belligerant.

[Donna Zen]

63. This is all bush's fault

Period. A foreign policy meltdown. No help for Lebanon. No ME peace talks. No diplomacy with Syria and Iran.

bush. period. failure.

[BillZBubb]

11. All else being equal, this would lead me to vote against Clark.

He should be calling for a ceasefire, not more Israeli aggression.

[formactv]

16. No political future

for anyone who fails to cheer for Israel.

[jonnyblitz]

20. exactly. he really has no choice no matter what one thinks of him.

he would be ostracized.

[Jim Sagle]

106. Fuckin' A.

[karynnj]

12. In fairness to Clark - these comments are choppy

suggesting they were edited.

I would agree with these comments - and think most here would:
"I've talked to people from Lebanon," Clark said. "Hezbollah is like a cancer on the body politic of Lebanon. But they're so strong and so powerful Lebanon itself can't get rid of them."

He added that is was important for the U.S. and other countries to help Lebanon rid itself of Hezbollah."

The comment that is problematical is:
Clark added that he supported Israel's military action after the kidnapping of two soldiers by Hezbollah militants.

The problem is it doesn't define what "action" specificly he is referring to. He also spoke on Fox with O'Reilly and he clearly is in favor of targeted bombing of Hezbollah - I don't know if he's commented since these Wednesday comments. Israel's attacks have intensified so he might not be backing the current actions. (Note: I am not a Clarkie - but thought people were ignoring the international piece)

[joemurphy]

14. Well, so much for my prior opinion of Clark as a grounded

pragmatist. I'm looking elsewhere for a Democratic candidate worth of my support.

[xultar]

44. Well let me tell you it is slim-fuckin-pickins.

[DoYouEverWonder]

117. If Wes keeps supporting Israel

no matter what they do, then Gore is looking even better by the minute.

[xultar]

119. Ding! And I'm not a Gore fan and I'm a huge Clark fan. 'Splain to me

why is it that all US politicians must come out and say Israel must defend herself? Is that the new new patriotism?

[DoYouEverWonder]

120. They would be swiftboated

faster then you could blink if they did.

[Adelante]

177. Does Gore not support Israel?

What is it about Gore's stand on Israel that makes him look better by the minute?

[Donna Zen]

76. Heh?

They have all said that Israel can defend herself, or they've said much worse.

From that Colorado:

Clark: You’re seeing the evidence of the failure of the Bush Administration’s approach to foreign policy. In North Korea, we should have been talking to them long ago — and not painting them as part of the axis of evil. In Lebanon, we should have been part of the peace process and implementation … instead of sitting back and taking a detached view. We are a preeminent power, and people look to us. We need responsible and farsighted foreign policy that lets us shape for outcomes — not just for our interest, but for our friends and allies around the world.

He's blaming, and your blaming Clark. What can I say

[FrenchieCat]

31. What is Wes talking about? Isn't Israel our enemy since 1949

and Hezbollah our newfound friend? :crazy:

Isn't kidnapping soldiers and holding them for ransom a great thing? Shouldn't Hezbollah be respected for that? Took a lot of guts!

Wes must have gotten things backwards or something?

I mean, aren't all of the other potential contenders comdemming Israel? Fiengold? Edwards? Warner? Kerry? :shrug:

:wtf:

http://www.coloradoconfidential.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=114
July 21st
CC: Finally, I have to ask, what are your thoughts on what is happening between Lebanon and Israel, as well as in North Korea?

Clark: You’re seeing the evidence of the failure of the Bush Administration’s approach to foreign policy. In North Korea, we should have been talking to them long ago — and not painting them as part of the axis of evil. In Lebanon, we should have been part of the peace process and implementation … instead of sitting back and taking a detached view. We are a preeminent power, and people look to us. We need responsible and farsighted foreign policy that lets us shape for outcomes — not just for our interest, but for our friends and allies around the world.

July 19, 2006
KKZN-AM Radio
Transcript by Reg NYC

Jay Marvin: Give us three things you would do immediately. If I, if you were, if you were sitting at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue right now, what would you do?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, with respect to the specific crises at hand, I'd tell ambassador Chris Hill to have a one-on-one talk with North Korea. That's the first thing I'd do there. Secondly, I'd, I'd send a high level emissary to talk to the Iranian leadership and have direct dialog with Iran. And third, I'd be working with the President of Lebanon to strengthen his government and bring together an international coalition of support to, to help him deal with the needs of his people, at the same time, helping him build up the strength he needs to force Hizbullah out. So, those, those are three quick things that, that I would do.
http://www.securingamerica.com/taxonomy/term/8

The whole interview
http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/DENVER-CO/KKZN-AM/7-19%20Wesley%20Clark_1.mp3

[imlost]

47. Nice post. The main post is about bashing on Clark not about

finding solutions. The General clearly puts forth plans, but the Clark haters don't care.
There is no grey area for them.

[AtomicKitten]

51. Having posted the OP I think I am the only one qualified to

say what it's about. Right? I have anxiously researched all Democratic responses to find anyone that dares stray from the pack, the safe statement, the unequivocal support of Israel.

I posted a news report without comment. Tough to summarily say what my "intentions" were under those circumstances, right? Perhaps you consider yourself clairvoyant.

To further prove your statement about my intentions wrong, I supported Wesley Clark in the Democratic primary in 2004.

So, would you care to retract your snarky crack about my intentions? Or are you one of those types that just likes to make shit up about people without regard to tiny details like actual information and the truth?

[lyonn]

140. Thanks for the 2 Clark conversations

He makes sense, diplomacy has been lacking with our present administration which has caused this chaos (Lebanon, N. Korea, etc.). We are trying to explain on this site why we should do what when the truth is our leaders have totally screwed up. So, Clark appears to have it right so far.

But, blowing up Beirut is insane. What happen to strategic bombing?

[whistle]

32. Well making more than 700,000 Lebanese displaced persons

...with no protection from starvation and ethnic cleansing is hardly an alternative to the cancer of Hezbollah. I respectfully disagree with Gen Clark on that position.

[FrenchieCat]

33. Here are other's position on Israel....

Kerry's....
Israel’s Right to Respond to Terrorism: Kerry supports Israel’s right of self defense to eliminate threats to its citizens, including actions taken by Israel against Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other terrorist groups in Gaza.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/kerryisrael.html

Edwards....
On Israel issues, Edwards was among the stronger candidates on what was a strongly pro-Israel short list of Kerry's No. 2 choices. Edwards' single term in the Senate has been marked by a good voting record, pro-Israel lobbyists say, and he has made much of his presence in Israel in 2001 when a suicide bomber attacked a Jerusalem pizzeria.

In its first posting on the announcement, the Kerry campaign alluded to Edward's pro-Israel credentials, noting his meetings with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy.

Outlining his policies in a statement to JTA in January - a time that the Bush administration was saying Israel's policy of assassinating terrorist leaders was unhelpful to peace - Edwards emphasized Israel's right to defend itself against terrorist groups.
http://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/articles/2004/07/14/news/world/dkerry0709.txt


Fiengold....
July 14, 2006
“I stand firmly with the people of Israel and their government as they defend themselves against these outrageous attacks. The kidnapping of Israeli soldiers and missile attacks against Israeli citizens are unacceptable and cannot be tolerated. The first steps toward establishing peace must begin with the unconditional and immediate return of the kidnapped Israeli soldiers. Lebanon, Syria, Iran and countries throughout the region must also condemn the actions of Hezbollah, Hamas, and other groups committed to blocking the peace process and must take strong actions to return stability to the region immediately.”
http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/06/07/20060714.htm

[AtomicKitten]

35. I have a challenge.

Try to find one single Democrat that is calling for a ceasefire and a stop to this slaughter of innocent life.

Just one.

[NativeTexan]

37. AK, you won't find one..............

........when discussing ISRAEL for sure!! But if we start sending in troops without the UN....THEN you'll see them ALL do it....well, maybe not ole JOE, but all the rest of 'em!

[AtomicKitten]

38. it would be nice to hear someone talking about a ceasefire

(in addition to Kofi Annan) and concern over the innocent lives being lost.

[NativeTexan]

82. I agree.....I am the same way.

The problem is, if you even HINT at anything that can be construed by someone as not in favor of a move by Israel, you are labeled anti-semitic.

I believe in this instance Israel may have been just a little bit overzealous with its response, but that may just be me.

I, too, am tired of all the killing in the name of anything. World peace has been a dream of mine since the 60's, but I am rather certain that it will stay just a dream for my lifetime. However, we HAVE seen unprecedented peace, mostly during the 90's, but you still had problems in Africa and then there was Kosovo and the other regional problems caused by the rapid deflation of the Soviet Union into multiple vaccums of instability.

But since 9/11 gave the Bush Crime Family and Fascist Party all the excuses they needed to start the wars that they had already planned to start, it just seems like the world is going to a violent hell in a bomb-laced handbag!!

[AtomicKitten]

108. for some reason, the issue of war boxes Dems in

I think they have been pounded so much by the Republicans and they fear offering up any fodder for the GOP Wrecking Machine. Understandable. But still, and more importantly, people are dying. I take no sides in this. I just wish someone would knock their heads together and get them to stop the carnage.

[ShortnFiery]

46. That man is Dennis Kucinich! God Bless the Peacemakers

On Edit: Here Ya Go!

http://www.kucinich.us/

Kucinich Introduces Middle East Cease‑Fire Resolution
Calls on Bush to immediately send US diplomats to facilitate negotiations
Updated July 21, 2006

[AtomicKitten]

52. hallelujah!

a peacemaker walks among us.

Thanks S&F

[ShortnFiery]

53. You're welcome AK ... love the cutie pie purple mouse :-) eom

[Tom Rinaldo]

65. Oddly though, DK voted "Present" and not "NO"

to the House Resolution backing Isreal that passed with only 8 Nays cast. Having said that, DDK did step forward with this resolution.

[chill_wind]

116. Yep. I noticed that too. nt

[ShortnFiery]

144. Dennis Kucinich did that to prove that he's unbiased ...

In case you missed it he's also forwarding a Cease Fire Resolution.

http://www.kucinich.us/

Congressman Kucinich introduced H. Con. Res. 450 on Wednesday, calling upon the President "to appeal to all sides in the current crisis in the Middle East for an immediate cessation of violence and to commit United States diplomats to multi-party negotiations with no preconditions."

The concurrent resolution also asks the President to send a "high-level diplomatic mission to the region to facilitate such multi-party negotiations."

[Donna Zen]

97. UN Peace keeping force

I would think that a cease fire would be part of that. Or do you think that other countries would just plunk down their kids in an area with bullets flying. It's in the OP.

[fuzzyball]

180. Right, except Dennis K, not a single prominent dem is calling for cease-

fire. Not Dean, not Gore, Not Kerry, Not Clark, Not Hillary, No one!!

[mtnsnake]

185. I tried a similar challenge, too, & they couldn't come up with any names

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1663837

I notice nobody can meet your specific challenge, either. lol

[karynnj]

45. Neither the Kerry or Edwards quotes are relevent to now

They are from 2004 and they are not controvsial - Kerry says Israel can fight terrorists, on Edwards it just says he supports Israel. It was a Jewish newspaper that wrote an article saying that the VP candidate was a friend of the Jews.

Neither have made a major statement.

[oberliner]

60. Kerry Statement on Israel 7/21/06

“Rush Limbaugh’s ignorance and willingness to divide Americans knows no bounds. His latest statement about Israel is beyond offensive to all of us who have fought to protect Israel in the face of enemies committed to its destruction.

Rush Limbaugh needs to pick up a history book instead of a donut. It was a Democratic president who first recognized the State of Israel. It was a Democratic President who first sold Israel defensive weapons. And it was a Democratic President who first sold Israel offensive weapons.

The people of Israel and the Jewish community don’t need Rush Limbaugh to tell them who stands with them, and no one has time for right wing trying to score cheap political points while Israel fights to defend its very existence.”


source: http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=259214

[karynnj]

90. This statement was responding to the smears

against all Democrats by Limbaugh, who apparently has been ranting that Democrats hate Israel. I assume Kerry will make a statement about the current situation.

This statement is more historical - Truman recognized Israel. I assume the offensive weapons were before 1967 - which likely made those Presidents, JFK and LBJ. The rest of the comment was blasting him for trying to make political points with this.

I assume that he is in favor of disarming and moving them from the border. Hezzbollah is a terrorist group - he was for fighting terrorism. I assume that he (and Clark) would have preferred diplomacy being used to avert this. (He was very concerned when the Bush pushed elections resulted in Hamas in power. He spoke to CNN from Israel at that time - pointing out Abbas and Israel had wanted the elections postponed.)

[Tom Rinaldo]

93. Kerry's statement was a good one.

And I share your assumptions about what Kerry thinks should happen in the region now. I just can't resist noting how many DU activists fail to reward honesty and straight forwardness when something that is being said is controversial and problematic. It's not that I expect people to agree with something that they can not in good conscience agree with. It is that they attack the messanger who is willing to be straight up with them, and at the same time openly reward those who simply duck commenting on a controversial issue.

If you read Clark's full comments, they are actually more balenced by far than that coming out of almost all of the Democratic Party- note his call to provide material support for Lebanon's government and people. But because Clark actually commented on the advantages to potential long term peace in the mid east of removing an organization that is actively at war with Israel from Israels physical border, suddenly he becomes the war monger though no one questions what other 2008 potential Democratic candidates are saying in private to their fund raisers about the need to back Israel all the way. They get a pass on DU because they keep their mouths shut. That isn't leadership to me, and it shouldn't be rewarded by anywone.

[karynnj]

100. I posted earlier that it looked as though Clark's comments

in the article were choppy - as if they were editted. His comments are never choppy when quoted in full. I agree that there are many who are simply anti-Israel here.

I actually think all the Democrats are near the same place. It's clear that diplomacy has been the missing element in this area even more than in Iraq. Kerry and some of the others have been increasing frustrated with this when they get reviews in the SFRC from Bush people. I think all of them are concerned that this could destroy Lebanon and send it back to the hell they were in for decades.

As Clark is working in the news media, he had to comment immediately. I would assume that especially Kerry, Feingold, Biden and Dodd, who are all on the SFRC are likely getting information and trying to work through the government - even though as the Democrats and Lugar have complained Bush has typically disregarded their advice. Of these, Feingold is the only one of these that I have seen a statement from. Kerry is usually among the first to put out statements. Although he has been very busy on other issues, this is important- so I would guess he feels that his putting out a statement would not be helpful at this point.

[Tom Rinaldo]

103. A thoughtful reply. Appreciated. n/t

[karynnj]

112. Your comments appreciated as well

Noah Feldman has a NYT magazine article in this week's NYT magazine that is pretty interesting. (Frustrating as well because it seems hard to believe that "creative destabalization" could ever have been seen as a good option. )

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/21/magazine/30wwln_lede.html

[oberliner]

102. Senate Resolution

He is among the Senators who formally submitted Resolution 534.

[Tom Rinaldo]

62. Why haven't they? Isn't this an important enough issue? n/t

[DYouth]

36. Of course he does!

I don't know when he became this grand dove out to win peace for the world.

He's a very intelligent military commander and one who opposed invading Iraq for strategic reasons. But he's not some great sympathetic peacenik out to stop American imperialism. I saw this coming from 10 miles away.

[FrenchieCat]

41. Correct......Wes Clark is not a pacifist....neither is any other elected

Dem "leader" including Edwards, Kerry, Warner, Clinton, Bayh, Feingold, Dean, Gore, etc...!

Kucinich - Is the closest thing that we have to it.....and he's the furthest away from the presidency....seems to me.

[ShortnFiery]

48. Right now, he's supporting Genocide. How's that?

[Donna Zen]

66. Do all of the Democrats support genocide?

n/t

Since in the quote Clark is talking about a UN peace force to separate Lebanon and Israel, that seems like a disconnected statement.

[oberliner]

72. Genocide?

There is no Democrat in Congress who would characterize the current conflict as involving genocide.

Certainly not Dennis Kucinich who included the following statement when introducing his cease fire resolution on 7/19:

"Now is the time to reaffirm our support for Israel by showing leadership in diplomacy."

[citizen snips]

43. no surprises there

n/t

[NCarolinawoman]

56. Could you clarify, please? n/t

[citizen snips]

58. ok

I am just saying that I am not surprised by Clark's stance on this issue because he was a general.

[Donna Zen]

86. Was Hillary a general?

...or how anout Bayh?

[Tom Rinaldo]

98. Are you telling me Edwards and Gore and Warner etc.

are taking a different position, since none of them are Generals? By the way, do you have any idea what position they are taking?

[Sparkly]

171. They will take a position

when there's a safe, obvious, simplistic and expedient position to take.

[AtomicKitten]

207. gratuitous statement

The launching of such untrue yet snarky remarks is opportunistic.

[citizen snips]

216. I do have a position

and it is the opposite of clark's position.

[dogman]

218. The opposite of Clark's position would be that Hezbollah is the cure.

Then the true answer for the ME would be the elimination of Israel?

[Jai4WKC08]

219. The opposite of Clark's position

Is that Hizbollah should take control of Lebanon and be allowed to attack Israel whenever and however they want with no repercussions.

Is that your position?

[citizen snips]

224. My position is for a ceasefire.

and to put an end to the senseless bloodshed of civilians.

[Jai4WKC08]

226. That's not the opposite of Clark's position

In fact, it's not even any different, except that Clark's position encompasses more detailed analysis of what it takes to achieve a ceasefire and an end to the bloodshed.

[citizen snips]

228. I don't believe in military action to achieve a ceasefire.

I hope it's more detailed then bush's agenda.

[dogman]

54. Is this news?

Since Clark was critical of bushco for putting Iran in a position of power in Iraq, who would be surprised that he wouldn't want Iran's surrogates to gain power in Lebanon? Considering that Hezbollah arrived on the scene by killing a large number of American soldiers, I would expect that he would stand against them. Since he's quoted saying the UN should intervene, it seems fair to say he supports a ceasefire. His main concern has been avoiding expansion of regional strife. This is another failure of bushco, yet we see attacks on Dems, once again.

[ladjf]

64. Well, General, I've been an admirer but it's adios now.

[Donna Zen]

68. Adios to all Democrats who said that Israel can defend herself

Because that is everyone who mentioned as running.

Or is just adios to someone who was against the war in Iraq before it got out of control?

[jonnyblitz]

71. I doubt there will be a single DEM that is going to want to be

accused of "not supporting Israel". It's a political reality. I wouldn't single Clark out for criticism on this one . :shrug:

[ladjf]

73. I wasn't "singling" Clark out. The thread subject was Clark's

comment. I am very discouraged that the entire Senate voted in support of Israel's actions. You don't have to remind me of the power behind the Israeli lobby and that there are a lot of influential Jews living in the U.S.

By election time, if there are no Democratic candidates that objected to Israels attacks on Lebanon and Palestine, I'll hold my nose and vote for one of them.

[jonnyblitz]

79. I wasn't referring to you specificially. I am not a Clark fan to

begin with, just so you know. Anyways, I don't expect any DEM to take the stance I want, so if I were to criticize CLark it wouldn't be over this issue because none of them are going to diviate from the official position much.

I agree with your post about discouragment and holding your nose. :thumbsup:

but I didn't have you in mind when I wrote what you are commenting on.

[ladjf]

85. Even thousands of Israelis are protesting the war. The British

are breaking with Bush on this and are officially opposed to the Israeli operations in the ME. Yet, our govt. is lockstep in it's support of Bush's policy just as they were to vote to give Bush war power prior to the invasion of Iraq.

[Donna Zen]

89. But while you blame Clark

Clark goes on TV and calls this conflict a meltdown of the bush foreign policy.

So that's how it works.

You condemn Clark, while he goes after bush.

[ladjf]

174. Please don't rewrite my statement.

I disapproved of his statement supporting Israel's current attacks on Lebanon and Palestine. I condemned no one.

I haven't heard his recent statement that criticized Bush. But, that would be consistent with his position on that subject. Naturally I approve of that.

You don't mind if I have an opinion do you?

[Donna Zen]

211. So...are you going to say goodbye to all of the other Dems?

Actually, the General has been critical of the bombing. But everyday, and included in many of the transcripts here, the General has blamed this mess on bush. He has said that what we are seeing is a meltdown of bush's foreign policy.

[ladjf]

213. If every single Congress person supports the Israeli destruction

of Lebanon and one of those persons is the Democratic candidate for President in 2008, I will vote for that person. But, I will be grieved by the certain knowledge that every single Congress person supports killing and destruction as the best means of settling political issues.

[Jim Sagle]

107. Careful, the joooooooooos might be listening.

Mooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Jai4WKC08]

162. "The jooooooooooos"?

O.J. Simpson?

[Tom Rinaldo]

70. Do you prefer the candidates who are avoiding making comments?

The ones who are afraid that if they open their mouth and say something, they will lose support from one side or the other so they have little or nothing to say on matters of war and peace? Is that the type leadership you are looiing for?

[ladjf]

88. I'm looking for a good Democrat that thinks that Israel is grossly

over reacting in their current campaign in the ME. They have gone way beyond just defending themselves.

There are people all over the world that are opposed to what Israel is doing including thousands in Israel, England and most of Europe. Why can't we find a Democrat that is willing to march to a tune that Israel didn't write?

[Tom Rinaldo]

96. Well that's a good question, isn't it?

But in my opinion Clark has been much more independent of Israel's thinking than any other leading Democrat. Most recently Clark directly took on the war fever regarding Iran, and he is the ONLY Democrat I know of who has had the courage to actually say that the United States should not lock itself into a policy that under no circumstances can we co-exist with a nuclear armed Iran, without looking at and weighing every possible alternative to war with Iran to stop them from gaining nuclear weapons. In other words Clark was willing to go so far as to say accepting that Iran may someday have nukes, if we can't stop that short of war, might be a better course of action than attacking Iran over their nuclear program. That sure as hell isn't something the current Israel lobby wants to hear any leading Democrat say. Have you heard another Democrat say that?

Even now Clark is talking about the need for the United States to step forward and provide substantial material support to the people living in South Lebanon so that they will not be dependent on Hezbullah money funneled to them via Iran in order to have the basics of a decent life. If Israel showed more of that concern it would have far fewer people willing to blow themselves up to fight Israel.

[Crunchy Frog]

67. Has Al Gore made any statements on this issue?

I'm curious as to what position if any, he is taking.

[AtomicKitten]

110. good question

Backing Israel seems to be traditional; a la sanctions on Cuba. The tradition is passed on with no or very little further thought or assessment.

I have been looking for any Democrat to stray from the fold, from the safety of a consensus opinion. I would hope to hear from Gore as I have hoped to hear from all the other Democrats a strong voice in favor of a ceasefire and brokering a peace.

On Conan last night, Gore talked about the toxic atmosphere politically. He has spoken up pretty boldly over the last few years, but I haven't a clue where he would come down on this. He has the luxury of not having to speak on issues if he chooses not to.

I have no recriminations towards this politician or that on this issue. I just want somebody (besides Kofi Annan who the Republicans have marginalized successfully) to call for the killing to stop.

[ecstatic]

194. don't expect a response. he only comments on moot issues

He fools some of us by coming out charging LONG after the crucial deciding period has taken place

[AtomicKitten]

205. harsh words

that aren't true, but you clearly come with an agenda so I won't bother to correct you with specifics. Not much point IMO providing you with information you have already ignored or dismissed.

[Sparkly]

75. In General Clark's words....

Jay Marvin: ... Let me get a thumbnail sketch from you on what you believe is happening in the Middle East right now with Israel and Hizbullah.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Essentially, Hizbullah took advantage of Israel's distraction to attack. They did it to gain credibility, gain more (drop-out) funding, and, and raise their prestige. They probably did it in coordination with Iran to distract the attention of the world from the Iranian nuclear programs. And so, Israel was attacked. Israel's not occupying any of Lebanon. There's no cause for this. It's simply a unprovoked attack. So, Israel's fighting back, and Israel has a right to defend itself. It's running an air campaign, going after Hizbullah. It's going to try to take a significant bite out of Hizbullah and try to get the Lebanese government and the international community to force Hizbullah out of Southern Lebanon. That's what's happening.

Jay Marvin: And, and how much, how satisfied are you with the US response?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, the United States doesn't have the, the, the basis for, for an adequate response, because over the last four or five years we have cut off relations and refused to (drop-out) people that we should have been talking to, like Syria and Iran. The result of that is that now when we could go back and try to bring all this together, we can't talk to Syria. Also, we haven't been effective really in assisting the government of Lebanon. You know, the Bush administration took a lot of credit for Democracy in Lebanon, but they never followed through after the UN Security Council resolution was passed saying that Hizbullah had to disarm and, and so forth. They didn't help the government of Lebanon, and right now this administration should be streaming supplies in there, not just to get our people out, but to help the government of Lebanon.

http://www.securingamerica.com/node/1243

It's been my own opinion that a cease-fire agreement should be the start of a plan to get Hezbollah out of Lebanon, but I'm no expert on the situation and the possibilities (and General Clark is). It sounds right to support Lebanon's government, and to enforce the UN resolution.

As for Israel, I agree it has a right to defend itself; but the ground offensive is creating a humanitarian crisis, and if it strengthens Hezbollah (and/or other groups) the way we've strengthened terrorist groups in Iraq, it's not going to accomplish its political goals in the long run...

Having said that, I completely respect what General Clark has said, and hope to hear more of his point of view.

[Sparkly]

81. More of Clark's own words

(From July 18th)

Jane Skinner: International peacekeeping force - there is one that's already at the border there, the Southern border of Lebanon - by most accounts, hasn't been very effective. What do you think?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: No. Well, it's not going to be effective unless it has the right mandate and goes in and works hand in hand, glove with the Lebanese government to force Hizbullah out. To do that, it can't be just a military peacekeeping force. It's got to have the ability to bring the government schools and clinics in to provide education and healthcare for local villagers. That's what Hizbullah is doing now. Hizbullah is, is a full-service organization, and it, it controls Southern Lebanon. They've got to be displaced and taken out. Hizbullah is also a terrorist organization. So, there can't be any diplomacy with, with Hizbullah. This is about the Lebanese government. The people who are leading Hizbullah in the Lebanese government are criminals. They've violated an international border to do this. They should be held to international standards. They should be tried for provoking a military conflict in the region, and Hizbullah should be forced out of this region. It's not too early to start talking about this, but it's got to go in with the right mandate.

Jane Skinner: How much longer do you think we're going to see what we're seeing? You know, it's been reported in the media that Israel has this four-point plan, and that ground troops, at least some sort of incursions, not necessarily a full ground invasion, that that would be the fourth step. Do you think we're close to that?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I don't think we're close to that, but I think that it's a, really a function of the effectiveness of the Israeli military targeting apparatus. You're showing the pictures of the 155 Howitzers. What are they shooting at? How are they getting the targets, and how many unmanned aerial vehicles are up there? How effective is it? What are the results of that, that artillery fire? That's what we don't know as observers. If it's effective, you'll see the number of attacks by the Hizbullah go down dramatically, and Hizbullah will be pushed back on the defensive. If it continues another five or six days and they're still firing rockets in, then you'll have to judge that there are some limits to it, and that's when the Israelis will have to have the ground incursions to go in there and clean these forces out on the ground. But regardless of whether the Israel goes in on the ground or not, it doesn't want to occupy Southern Lebanon. That's where an international force that brings the Lebanese government back in is required.

Jane Skinner: I mean, General Clark, Clark, real quickly, you know, some have said, but don't have- don't be in the position of dangerously underestimating Hizbullah. They're not some ragtag group, with not significant funding.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think that's true. I think they're a very powerful group, but they're connected to Iran and Syria, and that's where the diplomacy has to be pointed, and that's where the blame has to be laid.

http://www.securingamerica.com/node/1224

Makes sense to me.

[Tom Rinaldo]

91. this administration should be streaming supplies... to help the government

What government is Clark referring to here? Lebanon of course.

This is worth repeating Sparkly:

"You know, the Bush administration took a lot of credit for Democracy in Lebanon, but they never followed through after the UN Security Council resolution was passed saying that Hizbullah had to disarm and, and so forth. They didn't help the government of Lebanon, and right now this administration should be streaming supplies in there, not just to get our people out, but to help the government of Lebanon."

OK, so what other potential Democratic 2008 Presidential candidate is talking about the need for the United States to urgently send support to the Lebanese government? Gore? Kerry? Edwards? Warner? Clinton? Biden? Anyone?

Hezbollah was formed to force Israel OUT OF LEBANON while Israel was occupying part of Lebanon. Israel withdrew from all of Lebanon 7 years ago, but Hezbollah continues to be at war with Israel, and through a literal act of war (I don't call it a terrorist act), an attack into Israel, Hezbollah just triggered off Israel's return to Lebanon. Is Israel now being overly aggressive? I think so, but Hezbollah is working against the interests of most citizens of Lebanon by continuing to militarily bait Israel into armed conflict inside Lebanon.

How does Hezbollah get away with that and still retain popularity inside Lebanon? Largely by taking care of the basic human needs of the population that lives in the areas under their control. And how does Hezbollah manage to do that? Largely with money they receive annually from Iran, which just now needed a little favor done for them in return.

Clark is speaking to the heart of the problem here, and NO OTHER DEMOCRAT IS. He is saying that unless the legitimate human needs of the population of Southern Lebanon are addressed by someone other than Iran and Hezbollah, Hezbollah will always have a sanctuary on Isreal's border that they can attack Israel from at will.

But that isn't what most DUers are paying attention to. Because Clark dares to actually speak about what is going on inside Lebanon now, rather than duck comments on it, he is perceived to be the warmonger. No wonder we always get stuck with electing mealy mouthed politicians.

[chill_wind]

115. Pretty much puts to lie a lot of Bush/Rice rhetoric on that so-called

agenda about spreadin' freedom and democracy.

You know, the Bush administration took a lot of credit for Democracy in Lebanon, but they never followed through after the UN Security Council resolution was passed saying that Hizbullah had to disarm and, and so forth. They didn't help the government of Lebanon, and right now this administration should be streaming supplies in there, not just to get our people out, but to help the government of Lebanon.



Has Rice even back there since they had their elections?

Friends of Israel and ME "democracy" indeed.

[Sparkly]

125. Exactly... Has any prominent Dem said "Israel shouldn't do this?"

The silence is deafening!

"Israel has a right to defend itself" is hardly a radical, "warmongering" statement! How many others have said that? How many would contradict it?

One of the things I appreciate about the General is that he actually addresses issues, explains them in clear terms, and offers his thoughts. (Try looking at any other prominent Democrats' websites for anything CLOSE to the continuous transcripts and information found on Clark's site!!) And in doing so, I see him as a teacher. I have learned so much by reading and listening to him.

This is another case in point. My initial reaction was, "Cease fire and then talk!" Isn't that the usual course for brokering peace? But I know I'm no expert!! (Socratic wisdom: knowing what we don't know.) General Clark explains that Hezbollah won't respond to talking -- that their power didn't have to escalate to what it is now (BushCo blunders), that the diplomacy should be with Iran and Syria, and that force is required to push them from Lebanon.

I believe him.

[ShortnFiery]

135. Again Dennis Kucinich has. Indeed!

He voted "present" so his Cease Fire resolution would be viewed as non-biased.

Link to Congressman's Dennis Kucinich's Website http://www.kucinich.us/ and you will see this "front and center:

Kucinich Introduces Middle East Cease‑Fire Resolution

Calls on Bush to immediately send US diplomats to facilitate negotiations

Updated July 21, 2006

Congressman Kucinich introduced H. Con. Res. 450 on Wednesday, calling upon the President "to appeal to all sides in the current crisis in the Middle East for an immediate cessation of violence and to commit United States diplomats to multi-party negotiations with no preconditions."

The concurrent resolution also asks the President to send a "high-level diplomatic mission to the region to facilitate such multi-party negotiations."

Finally, the Kucinich resolution "urges such multi-party negotiations to begin as soon as possible, including delegations from the governments of Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Lebanon, Iran, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt; and supports an international peacekeeping mission to southern Lebanon to prevent cross-border skirmishes during such multi-party negotiations."

In introducing H. Con. Res. 450, Kucinich issued the following statement:

"The continuing violence in the Middle East is spiraling out of control and is on the verge of being full-out regional war in which there will be no winners.

"The US has a moral obligation to become immediately engaged and to try to seek a peaceful resolution to the situation. This Administration must seek an immediate cease-fire and return all sides to the negotiating table.

"The region urgently needs diplomatic assistance. The only way the US can reclaim its role, as a mediator is to speak and act like a mediator. Unfortunately, the Administration is making statements that only will contribute to escalation.

"My resolution is not about assigning blame, it is about seeking an end to the conflict."

[Sparkly]

137. I see a lot of commonality between Kucinich and Clark

Both are saying the US should become involved in this as a regional issue, dealing directly and diplomatically with nations in the region including Syria and Iran.

As you point out, Kucinich is not taking sides or assigning blame. Both are saying the administration has failed to stay engaged. Both are seeing the current situation for what it is, calling for diplomatic assistance and a multi-national approach, and seeking resolution to the conflict. Both see the potential for it to escalate into a wider war.

Neither is supporting or defending Hezbollah, as far as I can see. Neither is bashing Israel; instead, both are focused on a solution, and are criticizing the Bush administration.

[ShortnFiery]

149. I don't see it at all ...

Kucinich is advocating diplomacy whereas The Good General is comparing Hezbollah to "a cancer." Hey, if Hezbollah is a cancer, the Likuud Party is one too and it's driving Israel's war machine and "Collective Punishment Tactics." Both the USA and Israeli Military have killed FAR MORE innocent civilians than these so called terrorist groups combined! Face it, we are the worlds most feared Terrorists and Thugs. As such, we always get our way as The World Community watches in horror.

Watch out for the blow back because it's going to be tremendous. :(

[Sparkly]

152. Both urge diplomacy.

However, Clark doesn't believe diplomacy can be effective with Hezbollah; he sees the larger issue as Syria and Iran, and urges diplomacy with them, involving other countries (as does Kucinich).

As I quoted and linked above, Clark said:

"Well, the United States doesn't have the, the, the basis for, for an adequate response, because over the last four or five years we have cut off relations and refused to (drop-out) people that we should have been talking to, like Syria and Iran. The result of that is that now when we could go back and try to bring all this together, we can't talk to Syria. Also, we haven't been effective really in assisting the government of Lebanon. You know, the Bush administration took a lot of credit for Democracy in Lebanon, but they never followed through after the UN Security Council resolution was passed saying that Hizbullah had to disarm and, and so forth. They didn't help the government of Lebanon, and right now this administration should be streaming supplies in there, not just to get our people out, but to help the government of Lebanon."

On a UN Peacekeeping force:
"...(I)t's not going to be effective unless it has the right mandate and goes in and works hand in hand, glove with the Lebanese government to force Hizbullah out. To do that, it can't be just a military peacekeeping force. It's got to have the ability to bring the government schools and clinics in to provide education and healthcare for local villagers."

"...An international force that brings the Lebanese government back in is required."

On Hezbollah, Iran, Syria:

"I think they're a very powerful group, but they're connected to Iran and Syria, and that's where the diplomacy has to be pointed, and that's where the blame has to be laid."

[niallmac]

84. Ah. So Israel is 'helping' Lebanon rid itself of Hezbollah.

And all this time it looked to me like Israel was just bombing the crap out of the country and it's army.
I am such an amature newz watcher. :shrug:

[Donna Zen]

95. Part of the UN agreement that got Syria out

Lebanon was to get rid of Hizbullah.

Personally, with Israel's current plan, I don't think they are helping anyone. But I can only watch the news too. However, if that was meant as snark, you should follow Clark's lead and blame bush.

FWIW, if you read the OP, it would seem that Clark is leaning toward a UN buffer zone. I had wondered about that after listening to a representative from the ICG who was also promoting that concept.

[niallmac]

139. I'm having a hard time finding the full text but

if helping Lebanon get rid of Hezbollah is the goal I sure did miss
the part where Israel lobbys pleads and uses every diplomatic channel
including the U.S. powers of persuasion before they decided to level
a country that was just emerging into it's former glory.

I am sorry but it seems to me that when it comes to criticizing Israeli
policy you had better be careful or say goodbye to your political career.
I even shake in my boots posting this little disagreement with the
present human travesty.

[dennis4868]

99. I love the General....

he is right on everything!

[ShortnFiery]

136. I refuse to idolize any one individual, most especially a Politician

AND/OR any Career Military, i.e., too much temptation to continue the warmongering. :(

[Douglas Carpenter]

101. This war has convinced me that in primaries I will vote my conscience

I will save my pragmatism for general elections.

Primaries are the closest thing to proportional representation we have and probably ever will have.

[Jim Sagle]

105. Clark RRRRRAWWWWWWXXXXXX!!!!!!!!

[martymar64]

191. The only good Arab is a dead one, right Jim?

How's the Nile to the Euphrates plan working for you?

[sampsonblk]

114. A snippet of a hint of his thinking...?

Gen Clark has not endorsed a massacre here. I would like to get his full thoughts on this, instead of what amounts to a snippet that can't possibly express what he and other experts are thinking.

[Totally Committed]

118. I can't support Wes's position on this....

I have two friends. One is from Lebanon and one is from Israel.

My Lebanese friend was here for the funeral of a mutual friend when the current fighting broke out. He has not been able to return. From phone calls to Lebanon, he's learned he's lost everything. His business, his home are gone. His family and friends are scattered and displaced, the lucky ones to other countries, but most to relatives homes in the hills to the north. He is a good man. He works hard, has two post-graduate degrees, and always displayed a small American flag on his desk in his office. He despised Hezbollah.

My Israeli friend is a fervent believer in peace, and is part of the Peace Movement there. She believes that the Palestinians deserve their own land and that the settlers are wrong when they steal land to settle on. She is a strong believer in co-existence and mutual respect. Her home and everything she owned is gone because of a Hezbollah rocket. Had she not been at work when it hit her home, she would be dead.

Both of these people are hard working, intelligent, gentle people. And, both feel Hezbollah needs to be dealt with. But, neither of them feels what Israel has done of late is the correct way to deal with the situation. And, they both feel betrayed by and resentful of the American politicians who are now handing out their "opinions" freely without having to live with the consequences they now have to live with for the rest of their lives.

These stories are just a way of putting some perspective on what I am about to say. And here it is:

As most on this board know, I have been a Wes Clark supporter for a very long time... back to his "draft", in fact. I believed then, as I believe now that he is a good, decent, honest, and peaceful man. I believed then, as I believe now that he would be a great President. That having been said, I must say that his quotes in this article, as they are presented (I will be looking for a fuller, more complete position later on) disappoint me in the extreme. I wrote yesterday about Kerry's comments about Limbaugh that they weren't correct because they seemed to be boasting about putting weapons in the hands of Israel while civilians on both sides of the conflict were dying and/or losing everything. And so, when I see the man I have supported make statements I don't agree with, I have two choices: I can pretend I didn't come here at all today... that I never saw them, and quietly allow this thread to pass. Or I can do what my personal integrity says I must and weigh in on this subject.

Personal integrity aside, somoene who is a friend started this thread, and with that I feel a sort of gauntlet has been tossed at my feet to repsond. So, I've decided to weigh in.

I feel the comments Wes made, as they are presented in this article, do not represent my opinion on this subject. I disagree with him. Do I still respect and admire him? Indeed, I do. Am I disappointed in what I've read here? Yes, I am. Very. His comments in that article are uncharcteristically one dimensional, and one-sided. I see none of his usual compassion there. All this leads me to believe they are incompletel and cherry-picked, but as they are expressed here, I must break with him, and say I can't support what he's said.

For those on either side who feel they must attack me for that, I will tell you I have no joy in doing or saying this. I have loved and supported Wes loyally for years now, and I respect so many of the people in the Clark camp. But, I must say that I stand on the side of disarmament, diplomacy, and peace-making now. I find the current carnage ON BOTH SIDES reprehensible. And I am siding with all the civilians who are suffering, whether they are there now, in the midst of war or here, with no way to go back and gather friends and family and make sure of their safety. It all appalls me. It's all no fine with me. None of it is okay. And, no one, including Wes, who backs the actions of either side in this horrendous bullshit fighting is correct in my eyes. I cannot support his position in this matter.

My heart is so heavy right now, I can't write another word.

TC

[Adelante]

141. TC

:pals:

[AtomicKitten]

146. we are in agreement

"But, I must say that I stand on the side of disarmament, diplomacy, and peace-making now. I find the current carnage ON BOTH SIDES reprehensible. And I am siding with all the civilians who are suffering, whether they are there now, in the midst of war or here, with no way to go back and gather friends and family and make sure of their safety. It all appalls me. It's all no fine with me. None of it is okay. And, no one, including Wes, who backs the actions of either side in this horrendous bullshit fighting is correct in my eyes. I cannot support his position in this matter."

Precisely.

I have been accused of attacking Wes Clark by posting this. That sentiment is tantamount to Republicans complaining that facts are biased. I posted a news release with no comment. I am frankly saddened by the paucity of peacemaking efforts, because that is what I'm looking to the Democrats to find, anywhere, anyone. S&F, bless her, posted a ray of hope from Dennis Kucinich.

I too am saddened beyond words. Politics has nothing to do with this issue, so all those working overtime on this thread to explain/smooth over their candidate's position can give it a rest. I'm looking for a stop to this insanity from any quarter.

[Gloria]

176. I watched his 4 appearances on FAUX (up until tonights which

I missed...)

In the first appearance with Kasich, he mentioned the Bush admin. policy failures. An American Muslim woman was very eloquent in reminding viewers that there wer previous events and that the human needs in Palestine and Lebanon had to be acknowledged....Kasich blew her off, but as the discussion was ended, Clark was nodding his head in agreement with her.

In the next three, he was very hawkish, making the comment about defending Israel's right to exist...I kept waiting to hear the "honest broker" analysis which would also comment about the proportionality of the Israeli actions and the humanitarian costs.

Like I said, I missed tonight's (Sunday) appearance. I saw a brief comment that he discussed diplomacy. But the later three just mentioned plus comments I've read in the Colorado press and radio interview, do not touch upon the concerns I mentioned and I don't know when or if we'll hear them.
This is very disappointing to me! Is this a "framing" problem or what?

Furthermore, I'm asking myself--Clark spoke at a lunch and said he was basically sure of an attack on Iran. So, my question is...how can you strongly embrace the Israeli military action which is being seen in many quarters as a prequel to an attack on Iran...how can that be embraced if at the same time you know at attack on Iran is coming?

[Donna Zen]

188. Did you read the Q & A

after the luncheon? All of it.

[Tom Rinaldo]

190. From Clark's 7/23 comments on Lebanon, Israel, and Iran:

I think Clark is looking and talking about the big picture more than any other big Democrats, including the need for diplomacy, including the looming crisis with Iran and how what is happening now in Lebanon relates to that. Here are pieces of the transcript from Clark's commentary yesterday, and this link to video and full transcript"
http://securingamerica.com/node/1249


"GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think you've got to have senior American statesmen in the region. Phone calls aren't enough.

Alan Colmes: I want to get back…go ahead.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Phone calls aren't enough and in fact, the United States did not have a strong position in the region because basically we were working only to ensure Israel had freedom to maneuver. That's not enough. We have to get the Lebanese government to support and have confidence in itself and we should be helping the Lebanese government recover from the impact of these Israeli air strikes and give them the confidence to turn against Hezbollah."

And also this:

"Sean Hannity: I want to know specifically…Iran, potentially…we know they're fomenting this terror with Hezbollah, we know they're adamantly, they're feverishly seeking nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction, do we wait until they get them or should we consider military action against them if they continue that pursuit, knowing that the danger in the future?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I think what we've got right now is a strategic opening. I think their support for Hezbollah can be turned into a strategic vulnerability for Iran and if we were to take this crisis and use it, through our diplomacy in the region and strengthening the government of Lebanon, to break the ties with Iran and Hezbollah, then Iran suffers a net loss. Iran's trying to become the preeminent regional power. It's not in our interests to have them there and we need to take advantage of this opportunity to move against them. <crosstalk>

Sean Hannity: I don't think it's a bad idea, but I think the likelihood of that succeeding is probably 10-15% at best. But, let's assume that that doesn't work. What's the next step for the United States as they actively seek nuclear weapons? Should we put on the table a strike on their nuclear facilities so that we don't face a day where Iran is arming a group like Hezbollah with nuclear weapons?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well I wouldn't want to take the military option off the table Sean, but it has to be the absolutely last, last, last option. I'll tell you why: because first of all, there's no assurance that we know where all those installations are and we can be effective. Secondly, once we've initiated the program of strikes on Iran, we've opened warfare against a government that represents 70 million people. I don't see an end-state to the strategy. I don't see the United States and our allies having the wherewithal to occupy Iran or deal with it. And, there's nothing to prevent other powers from coming in behind these strikes and re-arming the Iranians so…<crosstalk>

Alan Colmes: Hey General, we…

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: So, I think the strikes are problematic."


My read on this is that Clark clearly sees Hezbollah as a real problem. As long as they are at war with Israel (and they are, they call for Israel's total destruction) and camped out on Israel's border with their militia and rockets, they are the heat that can be turned up at any time by their Syrian and Iranian backers to inflame the situation with Israel and provoke a destabilizing Israel reaction to military provocations.

Clark would rather have had ongoing serious regional diplomacy over the last 5 years defuse this situation in advance, but neither he nor we control Bush's government. There were preventive diplomatic means available that could have avoided the current crisis, but Bush sold off all his diplomatic tools in the region (other than his ties with Israel) at a garage sale to help pay for all the guns he so much likes to use instead. So now there are few if any appropriate tools available. When your first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh best options were removed from the table, one is left debating between the eighth, ninth and tenth options that still remain. Clark is still pushing diplomacy, but diplomacy now, no matter what form it takes, comes after a situation was allowed to drift into dangerous waters from which there is no safe good exit.

Hezbollah is part of Lebanon's current government yet it's primary professed political goal, the destruction of Israel, is at odds with the position and best interests of most of Lebanon's citizens, who do not want to have Israel as an active military enemy if Israel will agree to respect Lebanon's territorial sovereignty. Hezbollah's primary allegiance isn't to the government of the the nation it exists within, it's primary allegiance is to governments foreign to Lebanon; Syria and Iraq, because that is where they get their funds and material support. Hezbollah wants to be an international force in the Islamic world, and in that way it has a "foreign policy" completely separate from and at odds with that of Lebanon's full government. This contradiction has always been a smoldering ember that could at any point burst into flames, but it could have been worked diplomatically in the region, if the Bush Administration had been willing to work diplomatically in the region - which meant engaging with Syria and Iran too, not just Egypt Jordan and Israel. That can still be started, but the dangers are now more advanced, and simpler paths forward by now have vanished.

[Gloria]

192. Yes, I've read it all. There are serious gaps here for me...

one is the continuing lack of addressing the issue of proportionality and the other is the lack of any mention of the necessity for being an "honest broker."

My gut tells me something is just off at this point. I still do not get how someone who is saying we shouldn't bomb Iran unless as a very last resort can in the interim sign on without question to a planned Israeli-US which is part of the march toward conflict with Iran. (!)

Furthermore, I still do not hear anything on the FUTURE problems caused by slaughtering many civilians and destroying nearly all the infrastructure of this country. Problems in terms of creating a whole lot MORE animosity toward the US and other parties in the ME.

Diplomacy after all this?? Bush-style diplomacy?? Like we've had real diplomacy in 6 years and it's supposed to start now?? Talking about diplomacy now sounds like the Condi Rice approach to diplomacy--obliterate the place, "it's too soon" for diplomacy. Phooey! Selective posting of parts of interviews doesn't really give the whole picture of what has stayed constant and what has been added as things go along.

Who gets the contracts to rebuild Lebanon? This is so PNAC-driven and I can't believe that Clark isn't seeing this as part of the equation.

[Tom Rinaldo]

196. OK, now I'll be doing some guessing here...

...Because the type of things I'm speculating on here can only be guessed about unless one is in a very small circle of people in the know.

Unlike most commentators, Clark is still an indirect player in what happens in our foreign policy, but the key point is the word "indirect". Clark knows Arab leaders, he knows people who have contacts with Syria and Iran's leaders, and he knows people in Israel. He also knows leading politicians on both sides of the aisle. So Clark is in a complex position. He is a highly respected National Security expert (anyone who listened to broadcasts of Clark's congressional testimony will quickly "get" that his counsel is respected) and Clark has back channel ways of slightly influencing events, but of course he has no direct authority to set or guide American policy long term, and he lacks the power (God maybe lacks the power) to change George W. Bush's mind about anything, at least over the short term, and we have an immediate exploding crisis here, with potentially devastating consequences for the world.

Absolutely no one in America has sufficient authority to force Bush to seriously lean on Israel to achieve an immediate cease fire in Lebanon now or within a matter of a few days, if Bush doesn't want to. OK, maybe Condi does, he listens to her, but she's almost as bull headed as he is. It doesn't matter who cries bloody murder now, there won't be enough of us, because too many Democrats will never cry bloody murder when it comes to Israel and no Republicans will either. That is the very hard, very cold truth, and no people power force can be mobilized sufficiently to change this pig headed Presidents mind within the matter of days that could make a difference, not with most of Congress on both sides of the aisle backing Bush.

A person who has no private channels tuned in to hear his words is free to speak for public reception only. A person who has no immediate ability to at least indirectly influence events over the course of the coming few days is free to render an opinion for history and the next election, and not give a thought to whether they can move the ball forward even slightly now in a positive manner. That's my own situation of course. The Speaker of Lebanon's Parliament will pay no attention to anything I say, nor will members of Israels cabinet. But what message can Clark send them that they might in some way heed? I would like to think that he could say "Stop the madness now or you will only bring that much more death and destruction down on the heads of your children tomorrow". And that does need to be said, and in fact plenty of people are saying that already, including some people inside of Israel. But I think Clark understands the real players involved. This American President is not going to reverse course this week. That Israel Prime Minister is not going to reverse course this week. And the Hezbollah leadership is not going to unilaterally back down this week. So what message might get through? The need to shore up Lebanon's government and get relief aid to Lebanon's new refugees has the best chance I think. That and the need to engage in talks with Syria about their logistical support for Hezbollah. Syria still has an interest in moving toward striking some grand deal with Israel, because ultimately they want the Golan Heights back.

I think Clark is focused on hitting on those key notes because they are the ones that can still be heard in the blood pounding ears of some of the key players. A straight forward condemnation of indiscriminate bombing, as true and passionate as it may be, won't be heard by those ears now. They fully anticipated that condemnation and chose to act anyway. That die was already cast for Bush and Olmert, they are determined to clear Hezbollah away from the border and degrade their capacity to strike Israel. Given that I think Clark now is trying to do is draw a public verbal distinction between the leadership of Hezbollah and the active militia members of Hezbollah, vs the general Shiite population that supports Hezbollah. Clark is clear about the need to reduce the power of the former while otherwise filling the void it currently fills in the lives of the Lebanese Shiite population, and that latter emphasis dove tails with Clark's message about needing to increase support now to Lebanon's government.

During a crisis Clark is trained by a life time of experience to think tactically. You face the situation as it is, not as you wish it was. Bush and especially Olmert will remain in power for at least a couple of years, and they will continue to react in reasonably predictable ways based on past patterns. The tense stand off unspoken truce between Israel and Hezbollah has now been shattered into a thousand pieces, and just like Humpty Dumpty, all the kings horses and all the kings men ain't gonna put it together again, not the way it looked before anyway, not with the current leaders in charge. The situation has deteriorated into a different dangerous phase, and I think Clark is trying to figure out the best plays remaining on a rearranged chess board while the situation remains white hot fluid. Everyone can see the shape of the attempted plan that is emerging, like it or not. Israel will not let up militarily and back down until it feels confident that it has sufficiently cleared out most major Hezbollah positions within a dozen or whatever number they want miles of it's border.

Maybe if enough concern is expressed about the survival of Lebanon's government, a concern that Clark continually expresses, Israel will be a little more careful about what targets they target outside that strip, or maybe not, but shame won't make them back down, only perceived self interest. And if an appeal to Israel's self interest over not feeding into a continuing cycle of hate and revenge were in fact an effective one, things would look a lot different in Palestine than they do today. An appeal to Geo-political realities has a greater chance of influencing Israel' behavior now, and since Bush clearly won't pull the plug on Israel over their action, a threat of American displeasure carries no weight. This is going to sound harsh I suspect, but I think Clark understands that Israel is going to finish what it started no matter what anyone says. The only leverage that exists lies at the margins. I think Israel will no longer tolerate the existence of Hezbollah in the manner that they did before, and they will remain at war until they believe they won't have to. So the only question that remains is what type of Lebanon will be left behind after Israel's actions?

"The plan" that is emerging in discussions with European Allies and with Kofi Annan is this. Israel will not be forced to stop it's offensive before achieving it's minimal short term military objectives - there will be heated discussions with Israel (or more likely with the Bush Administration acting as Israel's proxy) over what it's minimal objectives in fact are. Then the emphasis will turn to what type of international force will be needed to replace Israel in a buffer strip along the border that will be sufficiently positively regarded by Israel that they can be convinced to withdraw. Then there will be a face saving formula worked out for the Lebanese Army to technically control that border with International backing. If voices like Clark's are heard and heeded sufficiently, massive aid to Lebanon's government and people will be forthcoming, to tend to a humanitarian disaster, to help Lebanon rebuild, and to lessen the Shiite populations dependency on Hezbollah for their basic economic survival. Then there is the geo-political diplomatic angle. Syria minimally has to be engaged in the effort to force what remains of Hezbollah (and there will be a lot remaining) to at least partially stand down. Syria will want something for it's cooperation. If Israel feels that their border security has in fact been restored, they may be willing to consider that type of diplomacy, but not before.

I think that is the plan being worked on in capitals around the world. Clark is trying to push that package, both in private and in public, because it's the only viable game left in town. In other words Clark, I feel, thinks that there are still things that can be done at the margins to influence some of Israel's behavior in the coming months that might help re-stabilize the situation, but blasting Israel's intention to rid themselves of a hostile militia sitting at their border now, or the basic means they have chosen to do so, is not likely to increase leverage with Israel now, and the only thing that can help now is marshalling and not dissipating that leverage. For the record, Clark is reported to have answered a question from people who were at a fund raiser with him on Sunday by saying that Israel is not doing a good job of targetting it's strikes and that it wasn't necessary for Israel to destroy so much of Lebanon's infra-structure.

[leesa]

121. No surprise there. Bombing is the answer.

[truth2power]

122. YEARS ago I posted here on DU that I didn't trust Clark...

trusting my intuition on him. I never climbed on the bandwagon.

Israel is committing atrocities. If that gets this post deleted, so be it. I just hafta say I've examined my conscience and that's where I stand.

[jonnyblitz]

124. his endorsement for the "School of the America's" is all I needed

to know about him.

[dogman]

127. Sure, why bother with the truth?

This has been posted and refuted so many times on DU. But that's how propaganda works.

[alvarezadams]

134. Just as a favor

Can you dismiss it again?

From what I see he's at LEAST delivered a commencement speech at that place.

http://www.soaw.org/new/newswire_detail.php?id=407

[dogman]

172. Seems the link in your link is missing.

None the less if you gain a star you could search the archives here and see the discussions. Basically the facts are available through google. If one leaves the one sided reports in places like your link, you would find the SOA was reformed under the Clinton administration. That is when the SOA was renamed in an effort to move it forward. Although your link claims Clark was dogged by the anti-SOA advocates, I only recall it being brought up directly once on the campaign trail. It was a sort of gotcha moment in which Clark stopped and took the time to answer the questioner. Clark told him that if he were President and someone provided proof that WHINSEC was misused he would close it. I, like many others, have no doubt that bushco is misusing it. That is their MO. On the other hand, strangely, we saw no equal demands on the legislators, who continued to fund it prior to that campaign, held accountable. Kucinich has been out front on this and I admire him for his stands, however it was apparent early on that he was not a contender for the nomination. The fact that a General gave a commencement speech at a military school is really not a surprise.

[Tom Rinaldo]

128. So what do you know about Murtha? Why not go attack him now?

Murtha just voted to refund the current School of the Americas a few weeks ago. Gore supported it when he was Vice President. There isn't a Democrat pure enough to elect President you know. I guess that's part of why we keep getting stuck with Republicans.

[dand]

123. Then Clark is a pandering loser.

He blew any chance of getting my vote.

[Tom Rinaldo]

130. Then who will get your vote and why? Politicians who stay quiet

in public but back Israel to the hilt in front of private lobbying groups and rich contributers?

Tell me one Democrat who you think it makes sense to vote for in 2008 because they have a better position, in your opinion, on how the United States should handle the middle east crisis NOW, than what you have heard from Clark. I'll make it easy and point out one, Dennis Kucinich. Do you think Dennis can get elected in 2008 or will he lose to another Democrat in the primary or get killed in the General Election. And Dennic voted "Present", not "NO" to the HOuse Resolution offering full support to Israel. Only 8 Nays were cast.

How about our Senator potential candidates? Did any of them rise to speak out against backing Israels military moves in the Senate, and cast their vote against the resolution backing Israel? Did Feingold? Did Kerry? Did Biden or Bayh or Clionton? What about the free agent Democrats out there who seek to lead our nation. The ones who are free to speak their minds since they are not beholden to any constituency that elected them. You know, men like John Edwards and Mark Warner and Al Gore, have they spoken out or have they remained silent? You aren't remaining silent are you? Do you approve of possible Democratic candidates for President who suddenly have nothing to say about a major escalation of violence in the Middle East? Do you assume they silently agree with your position, but are maybe too afraid to say anything? I think they are more likely to not agree with your position but are afraid to say anything that could cost them any possible votes.

[dand]

138. You are right on the money Tom,

AIPAC owns just about all of our fine contenders.:mad:

[mom cat]

126. Zionism is also a cancer, but I do not advocate massive bombing of

Isreal to rid the country of it.

PS ... What ever happened to international law? Aggression like what Isreal is doing now is illegal.
Shame on Clarke for supporting it, and Hillary, Feingold, etc.
Why are the Dems supporting war crimes?

[SaveElmer]

133. Wesley Clark is a wise man....

And just proved it again!

[Donna Zen]

142. Let's try this: Policy

Your country, and all other countries, take part in treaties, alliances, and sign-on to stated policies. An example might be our stated policy about China and Taiwan. We do not sell certain weapons to Taiwan, and China in turn agrees to not threaten it. (There is more to this, although screw-up-bush blew an interview question about Taiwan and further revealed his ignorance.) Sometimes policies change, as it did with the "One China" policy. But rest assured, your country has a policy and alliance regarding the state of Israel. For anyone to speak for Israel, may or may not depend upon their individual donors, political fortunes, or beliefs, but it sure as hell reflects their knowledge about the current US policy.

No one is suggesting that we must agree with that policy, what I am suggesting is that rather than proceed in the darkness of ignorance, this discussion would prove more fruitful in the light of knowledge.

[ShortnFiery]

143. and sometimes "Genocide Happens!" Move along nothing to see. eom

[FrenchieCat]

145. Nothing to see but your indictment of one when you should be

indicting many.

You have no answer, only criticism.

The world is the way that it is, not the way that you want it to be.

According to you, Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, Gore, Warner, Clark and everyother politicians except the Great "can do no wrong" Kucinich is basically supporting Genocide.

I think you're purposefully being "simple" about this entire issue, and in particular, I think your "simplistic" blanket indictment of one man is clear to your transparent bias.

Too bad. You could have been part of the discussion....but instead, you are contributing to sound byte logic.

[ShortnFiery]

147. Stop putting words into my mouth ...

And yes, I will concur, at the present time, Dennis Kucinich is a hero in my eyes SIMPLY because he won't take sides yet has sponsored a resolution to stop the Killing and Dying.

Anyone who thinks continuation of Genocide of Israel from the LAND, SEA and AIR is "balanced warfare" vice "Collective Punishment" of totalitarianism, be sure to speak up.

The VAST Majority of The World Community sees it my way.

I have NO love lost for Hezbollah, nor condone the fascist Likkud Party.

It's TIME to stop the killing. If we let this continue, The 100x more mighty Israeli Killing machine will completely destroy a whole nation. That is wrong.

[Donna Zen]

157. If it is time to stop the killing

...a statement with which I agree, then what problem to you have with Clark's calling for a UN Peacekeeping Force?

What do you have against Peacekeepers?

You do realize don't you that Clark was the only person in Washington that tried to stop the genocide in Rwanda?

And I've noticed that you have filled this thread with comments and yet have never answered the question as to why you are bashing Clark but not who ever your favorite is? Gore? Well Gore hasn't said a word. Are we to believe that Gore would go against existing US policy and say that Israel has no right to defend herself? Or that in the middle of this war, an American politician would call out Israeli behavior publically?

You know who I blame: bush. I read, I think, and I can connect the dots. Bush. Put me down for blaming bush.

[AtomicKitten]

148. not nice

Personal attacks - "simple" - do not an argument make. You are bending over backwards (along with others) to excuse/explain your candidate's words. There are others, like myself, that will not protect their candidate of choice at all cost. If Al Gore came out with unequivocal support of Israel with no call for a ceasefire, I would be sorely disappointed in him and would not use pretzel logic to try to portray that position as palatable.

Politics has nothing to do with this issue, so those protecting their candidates needn't bother. What is important is that somebody needs to speak up, loudly and often, to call for a stop to the killing.

The situation is tragic. There are some here that are appalled at the death and destruction and see that as superseding domestic politics.

Flame away.

[ShortnFiery]

150. I'm also guilty AK

We can reach an agreement and support the leaders who are USUALLY balanced and pragmatic, if only THEY could embrace the fact that continued Israeli aggression will NOT be productive. In fact, it is going to recruit more Hezbollah for decades to come.

I want no fight - but Our Leaders must recognize that the Israelis have Gone Too Far and a Cease fire is the only way to POSSIBLY get the waring parties at the table.

I don't understand why more of our Elected Officials don't want the carnage (on all sides) to end NOW?

[AtomicKitten]

151. this thread took a bent

that doesn't surprise me but really fails to capture my unspoken point, that I don't give a rat's ass who does it, I just am looking to our leaders to stop the insanity. This isn't about personalities or politics or potential 2008 contenders, although too many people funnel most issues through the prism of 2008. I have no interest in defending or condemning any particular person.

I just want the death and destruction to stop. Period.

[Jai4WKC08]

153. Why aren't you "sorely disappointed"

That Gore has apparently said nothing at all? I mean, if you are really "appalled at the death and destruction," it seems to me the failure to say anything is at least as bad as saying something you don't agree with it. At least with the latter, there is room for dialogue and dissent. With the former, you're only operating on faith.

And fwiw, I don't think anyone here has used "pretzel logic" to portray Clark's position as "palatable." I think we're trying to demonstrate that what you posted does not fully or adequately protray his position. We also question why you pick out that one particular news report, one that was obviously truncated? There are so many more complete interviews available.

Here's what I know. You can take if for what you will. Clark's opinions are informed by first-hand dialogue with Lebanese leaders and no doubt others in the region. He has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is not anti-Muslim or anti-Arab, but strongly respects and has great compassion for all the peoples involved. He understands warfare and what's required on a battlefield, as well as at the negotiating table, and in building the peace after warfare ends. He has as far as I know never ever voiced any opinion solely because it's what someone wanted to hear. He's been right time and again on every aspect of what was going down with Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran. As far as I'm concerned, a little more trust in his judgment is warranted this time around too.

[AtomicKitten]

154. you fail to grasp my point

This issue isn't time for a "yeah, (insert your candidate's name here)."

I supported Wes Clark, a thoroughly decent man btw, in 2004 so you need to re-tool your insinuation of my alleged bias.

Al Gore isn't in politics anymore; he isn't responsible to get a comment on record, but I would definitely be interested when he does choose to speak.

As to your critique of the piece I posted, it was the first hint of where Clark stands that entered my sphere of consciousness. Others have added more information which is the point of discussion boards, right?

And you also are in no position to dictate what I feel or think other than what I choose to share; extrapolation doesn't count, you know. One comment does not preclude or guarantee a follow-up sentiment.

Here's my point: Who's calling for a ceasefire??? I have a huge problem with not hearing that from those in leadership.

[Jai4WKC08]

160. No, I understand your point

And I think it's a lot of bull.

I also know you supported Clark once upon a time. That's why I thought you knew enough about him to see a reason to trust his judgment. Guess I was wrong.

For you the issue is black and white, and anyone who doesn't see it that way must be wrong or rationalizing or making excuses for (insert your candidate's name here). I don't see it that way. I don't necessarily think a cease-fire is warranted, not to mention possible, and I don't automatically assume Israeli actions are unjustified. I believe we do not know enough of what's going on to decide.

And don't give me the "Gore isn't in politics" nonsense. He may not be running for office, but neither is Clark. But Gore is most certainly "in politics" (and thankfully so) when it comes to anything he considers important enough to speak out about. Obviously, this war isn't one of them.

[AtomicKitten]

161. You bet it's black and white --- CEASEFIRE

If you can't talk about this issue without feeling the need to defend those whose words could have the leverage to stop this, then you are sadly missing the point. And if Gore comes out with the same, I will feel the same and will be sure to post his statement here.

Get over your partisanship (your own brand of bull). And then start having some compassion for the innocent people caught in the crossfire of this insanity.

[Jai4WKC08]

168. I have plenty of compassion

For the innocents on all sides.

I just happen to know that wishing for something doesn't make it happen. That sometimes (usually) there are no easy answers for complex problems. And that neither you nor I really have any idea what's going on over there and who's dealing with whom.

[Donna Zen]

158. Two things:

I am not explaining his words, I'm reading them. Personally, that's how I like to get my information.

Second, the first line of your OP says that Clark calls for a UN Peacekeeping force to separate the two sides. That's not me explaining anything, that is directly from you OP. I read it. The UN will not put a force in without a cease fire. That is a fact.

Go ahead and hate Clark and promote Gore. I really don't care. Hate Clark as much as you damn well please. Okay? Now, I can read, and I do not like lies. I don't like them from republicans, and sure don't like them on DU.

You could have used Clark's call for a UN Force as the title of this thread, but instead you chose to make this into an anti-Clark issue.

If I've taken my time to comment here, it is because I appreciate people who have defended the things I believe. That is General Clark, and that is Al Gore...and a very few others. And I will continue to do that. If you continue to refuse to address the issue with feigned innocence, that's your business.

[AtomicKitten]

159. oh, okay

1) The OP was a news release, not my words.

2) I don't hate Clark; that accusation is petulant and bereft of truth that could have easily been gleaned had you really actually read my comments. I supported Clark in 2004 when Gore didn't run, and will probably do so in 2008 if similar circumstances occur.

3) Extrapolation doesn't count. I want to hear the word "ceasefire." Nobody except Kofi Annan and a resolution drafted by Dennis Kucinich use that verbiage.

4) Jon Stewart made fun of Republicans for being pissed off at news releases that could be construed as less than flattering, saying they think facts are biased. Apparent you do too. The piece I posted was the first hint I had of where General Clark stands on this issue. Since he isn't in politics (directly, yet), he isn't responsible for getting a comment on record. I am glad others have posted more information because sharing information is a good thing. His comments are news. I'm sorry if you think that is biased.

5) I haven't even mentioned Gore except to say that I would be sorely disappointed if he came out with a statement that didn't mention a ceasefire. That's nowhere in the ballpark of promoting him. And I'll be sure to post his statement on this if and when he makes one, only I won't bend over backwards to defend him if he doesn't call for a ceasefire. That's the difference between you and me. I'm not a partisan on issues like this.

So, you have your knickers in a twist over imagined slights to your candidate of choice. It would behoove you to read my comments before commenting on them. I have said nothing derogatory about General Clark. He is thoroughly decent man.

'kay?

[Donna Zen]

163. Okay

1. The choice of the title was yours.

2. I'm only going by your actions which always speak louder than words. If Clark doesn't run, I would support Gore at this point in time. I will not support anyone who voted for the Iraq war.

3. Logic not extrapolation. I understand that a UN Force will not enter without a cease fire. Those are the rules. If you would like to fault me for knowing how the system works, for paying close attention to what is being said, and/or reading information beyond DU, that is your perogative. It will not change my mind about what I know is true.

4. If you are referring to Steven Colbert's line, yes, I found it both profound and funny. I have no difficulty with the facts at all, that is why I look at all of them including circumstances under which a UN force would enter Lebanon.

5. If Gore came out with a statement that didn't include the "word" ceasefire but included the call for a UN force, I would understand exactly what he meant. As I said, I've been doing my homework.

My knickers will remain business. After reading your comments and noting that you started this thread, I don't need to go much further. If you had chosen to include other comments by Clark, or emphasised a different aspect of the poorly written article in the title, then the nature of your intent would have been very different. Let's look at this:

I got to ask one more thing before I let you go. Isn't it ironic that in the year 2006, here you are out on the road helping people like Jay Fawcett, helping other Democrats to get elected when Joseph Lieberman, at one point, challenged your Democratic credentials, and now he is saying that if he loses the Democratic primary in Connecticut, he intends to run as an Independent. You got a comment on that?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, you know, I'm sorry that, that we've got this problem inside our party. I think parties are essential to help articulate the, the, the voters' interests and concerns and, and help shape (drop-out) When, when somebody (drop-out) larger than the party, I, I think, I think he's doing a disservice to himself, really. So, I'll support whoever wins that, that primary in Connecticut. But I think the real issue for America is: Let's get some competent leadership. You know, when George Bush was running, He talked about being a compassionate conservative. He talked about having a humble foreign policy. When you, when you look at America today, we're not being lead by a compassionate conservative, and the foreign policy certainly doesn't have much humility in it.

Jay Marvin: No, it sure doesn't.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: But we do need Americans in office who are compassionate and who do have a sense of humility about them, because all of us are just, we're just out there doing the best we can do. We're all human. We all make mistakes and errors and misjudgments and so forth, and, and what we need are people who can represent us who, who understand who we are as Americans.

A foreign policy that includes humility. Now that is a real headline. Funny that the reporter missed that. That is of course that's transcript, not the extrapolation of the wingnut press. I don't put much stock in them.

[AtomicKitten]

164. this is all I have to say further on this subject

1) My title was the title of the article. I added "general" out of respect, and put "conflict" in quotation marks because it seems an absurd word to use under the circumstances.

2) We agree on our support for Clark and Gore for the very same reasons.

And that's really all I have to say to you. I would suggest you step back from your partisanship on this humanitarian issue because politics are irrelevant. Your kneejerk response to defend Clark is really out of proportion to his comments. Defend his comments; I can't. And if Al Gore makes the same comments, I won't either. It doesn't mean they are bad people.

It's okay to have nuances in opinion and especially to have entirely different opinions. That point seems to escape people here. I have never understood why people put on their war paint to discuss current events.

[Donna Zen]

165. You claim the last word! Very clever move.

General Clark's words speak for themselves. I do not like republican lies, nor will I tolerate distortions at DU. If you are trying to intimidate me by using meaningless, in this case, terminology like "knee-jerk", I don't fall for that trick. If you have read my post, you would have understood that if I was reading a Gore thread, and someone was uninformed enough to not understand the meaning of UN Force entering to separate the Israels and Hizbullah, I would most likely correct them. IOW, there must be an agreed ceasefire.

You see, when I read that Wes backed the concept of the UN Force, because I understood exactly what it meant, I was very pleased.

Reading what something says and understanding what it means is not by definition a nuanced opinion. I too don't understand why people approach the threads, especially the initiating of those threads with war paint. Yes, differences of opinion are to be expected and often embraced. It's the lack of knowledge, and the passing on one's interpretation because of that lack, that serves no purpose. If you chose to fail to understand what is happening at the UN, that is entirely your business. If I chose to correct the facts, I consider that something that informed, truthful people do.

So, are you now going to start a thread about how Clark is advocating for the US to send a stream of relief supples and help to the Lebanese people? Thought not, and there's the rub.

[Donna Zen]

169. I know your done with comments

This is just in: Note, the article mentions a UN Force, knowing what I know, I know that this means a ceasefire. The word is referred to much later by the Saudis, not the original cited agreement.:

Saudis ask Bush to intervene; U.N. humanitarian chief calls for end to killing
MSNBC News Services
Updated: 2 hours, 1 minute ago
JERUSALEM - Israel said on Sunday it was prepared to back the deployment of a temporary international peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon to ensure Hezbollah is removed from its border and to prevent the group from re-arming.
“Due to the weakness of the Lebanese army, we support the deployment in the south (of Lebanon) of a multi-national force with broad authority,” Defense Minister Amir Peretz told German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier.
Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia asked President Bush on Sunday to intervene in Israel’s military campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon to stop the mounting deaths.
Cont.

MSNBC

Note: This thread has been very unfair to a fine human being who has always stood up for progressive ideas. It has managed to include comments calling Wes Clark a "warmonger" and untrustworthy. Oh, and don't forget that someone decided that Wes supported genocide. Hmm? The Kosovar muslims would certainly have been surprised by that. Without any sense of irony, someone put forward the ludicrous notion that a Rhodes Scholar would chose to stay in the military to get rich. Amazing. Sad what people will do and say. Some people who claimed to have been supporters proved that they knew nothing about Wes. Saddest of all, were supporters who jumped on this man.

[AtomicKitten]

178. the comments

of which you speak didn't come from me.

You don't need to argue Wes Clark's case to me. He is a truly decent human being. I quite frankly would love to see him put to the best use for his extraordinary talents and that is as Secretary of Defense. I think he would be brilliant in that post.

But, again, you are slamming me for remarks others have made. You can't control what other people say or think. You can only present information and hope for the best. I really appreciate all that people have posted regarding Wes' position on this particular issue because what I posted in my OP was the only information I had. The more information the better and exchanging information is the best use of discussion forums.

I come from a viewpoint of being appalled at all the bloodshed during this administration's reign of terror and the fact that they have done ZERO to try to mediate this conflict. In fact, they are completely fine with the violence. I have a now 20-year-old son and through this administration's tenure, I have been biting my nails worried that he'll be drafted, worried that this is the world he is coming of age in, sick that his first vote was cast in 2004 when yet another election was stolen. My head is exploding with the state of the world and I just want the violence to stop.

I don't blame anyone but BushCo for this. I have, however, been hoping that the grown-ups - the Democrats - would have a more balanced view of world affairs. Quite frankly, I think they are all afraid to veer from the pack, from the traditional consensus of supporting Israel no matter what, but what Israel is doing is so over the top, and nobody in leadership seems to acknowledge the consequences as each day passes and more people die.

We are so desperately in need of someone to call bullshit on this carnage. That's where I'm coming from for whatever it's worth.

Peace.

[Donna Zen]

186. Information

My comments referred to the various mudslingers who posted in the spirit set out by the title of this post which you, not they, not me, chose. Clark has said many things about this conflict-war. Each time he has spoken he has blamed this entire thing on bush and called for relief and support to be sent to Lebanon. Clark is also appalled by the bloodshed of this administration. He has spoken privately about this situation: I am more than pleased with his attitude given what he had to say mirrors your distress. It is not for me to post this on a public forum.

As for my distress and sadness, I try and step back to realize that this is not about me. My pity is saved for all of the people suffering from bush's failed, horrible policies. I'm sorry that more Democrats, beyond the 22 who voted to stop bush, were unwilling to listen Clark, Zinni, and others who warned them about bush's intentions. I'm sorry that we no longer have a working press. I'm sorry about plenty of things. My sorrow and anger keep me working against bush.

As for the General ever being the Sec. of Def., I don't see that happening. First, he is not eligible for that position. Moreover, the politicos currently being considered are all people tied to the crony game. Kerry, as unbelievable as it sounds, was considering putting McCain in that position. People are not chosen because of merit, they are chosen by who owes who what, and political advantage. I think that this is perhaps something that should be welcomed. The current run of presidents I've witnessed use the military for their personal political gain, and thus, Clark would be in a position of carrying out someone elses policy and not his own. Besides, SoD taps a very small fraction of his talents. Today one of his jobs is putting together the funds to enable emerging technologies to become reality. While the real workers don't get to yap on TV on Sundays because they are making a better world, his mission may be of greater to us in the private sector.

It should be remembered that even if they would be willing to go on record, the Democrats that hit the small screen do not have the credentials to rationally discuss foreign policy, and certainly not the military. If I want to know what most of them will next week, all I have to do is listen to what the General is saying this week. General Clark has been speaking out, I'm sorry you have missed him.

[AtomicKitten]

187. I will reiterate

The title I posted was the title of the article; if you have a problem with it, follow the link and complain to the news organization. I think the "spirit" of the article is subjective and interpreted by each DU'er according to a myriad of factors including their own agenda.

In the final analysis and what I wish most to impart to you in particular is that I find the support of politicians no matter what as egregious as support of Israel no matter what. The crux is in the details of the "no matter what."

I never expected to agree with anyone, ever, 100% of the time.

That said, I join others in my call for an immediate ceasefire.

Have a great day.

[Donna Zen]

189. Well good

That would mean that you then support the UN Peacekeeping force.

BTW, it is currently Hizbullah that has refused to agree with the UN. Looking at this regionally and comparing this to similar events in history, I would think that there will be an agreement whenever Iran wants one.

[karynnj]

199. Kerry never spoke about cabinet positions to my knowledge

and I followed the campaign. Other people put out conjectures - and this was one based on the fact that Kerry and McCain were friends in the Senate. I seriously doubt Kerry would have nominated him or McCain accepted the position. Their positions on Iraq were very far apart. As your comments on Clark indicate, McCain would have to implement Kerry's plan. In addition Kerry would have gained a Democratic Senate seat appointed by the Democratic governor. The offer would be awful for McCain. I think Kerry would want someone more in line with his views - Hagel is closer.

[Jai4WKC08]

202. Yes he did

I specifically remember an interview on Imus where Kerry himself mentioned several possible cabinet members, and one was McCain as SecDef.

[karynnj]

212. I would take anything said on Imus with a grain of salt

Why would McCain take such a position? Turn it around, if McCain offered Kerry the Secretary of Defense job, do you think he would take it? (I don't - the policy would be McCain's - who is far more militant than Kerry.

[Donna Zen]

214. It was also in Newsweek

quoting Kerry's staff. The link was around when it first came out: Powell at State and McCain at defense. Actually, I was also told the same thing from someone very close to all of this. And no, I am not at liberty to say. But, Clinton put a republican at defense. I mean, that's the way it goes.

[Jai4WKC08]

215. Are you saying Kerry was lying? Or joking?

I don't think so. I read the transcript. Kerry listed a number of names. I'm pretty sure I remember Wes Clark's mentioned -- it's probably why I bothered to read the transcript.

I'm not as sure as you that McCain wouldn't have taken the job. I seem to recall his saying afterwards he would not... but he was stumping for Bush then, so saying anything different would probably have seemed disloyal -- something he would not want if Bush won. But if Kerry had won, and if McCain thought Kerry would win a second term, he'd have to realize he'd be too old to run in 2012, so why not take a chance to make some history? For people who desire power, fame, or just a chance to accomplish something, there are worse jobs than Sec of Defense in time of war.

[karynnj]

220. Good point

I know that Cohen, Clinton's Secretary of Defense was Republican. I would have had to hear the tape - Kerry did often joke around with Imus in response to Imus's jokes, but you are right that Kerry might have tried to be bi-partisan. I just thought that knowing it would cost a Senate seat and knowing that Kerry was much more restrained on how the military could be used than McCain, that McCain would likely feel that he didn't have the latitude to suceed.

I would not say that Kerry was lying - if Imus suggested McCain and Kerry said something vaguely positive - I wouldn't take it seriously because it's simply a more political answer. I don't think Kerry was caught in any lies, fibs etc because he is basically honest - though not brutally so (in this case he likely wouldn't strike out any name unless it was someone really bad.

[wyldwolf]

155. Ok. Wes Clark speaks for me!

[robcon]

166. You go, Wes.

I agree completely with Wes Clark on this (I'm a Clinton for '08 supporter.)

[nealmhughes]

173. What is warmongering about the General's remarks?

He never said, "OK, Israel, blow the whole country to bits." He only said that the US should play a role in strengthening Lebanon to prevent a shawdow government from operating in the south thru Hezbollah.

Does anyone not wish for a stable Lebanon that is not a puppet of Syria, Israel, or Hezbollah? Does anyone want the militias back?

Kidnappings and minor rocket attacks, even when done in retaliation for state of Israel's tit for tat does not make a moral high ground for Hezbollah. All the schools, clinics and TV channels cannot erase the extra-state status they have.

Gandhi and MLK did not gain anything thru violence. They shamed the British and the United States into action.

The first step to a peace in Lebanon is for the government to gain control of all the country, disarm all militias, and then begin to strengthen the government. The next step is for a prisoner exchange from Lebanon and Israel. The next step is guarantees of a peaceful cooexistence by a treaty between the two states. The next step is for the Palestinian territories to have true sovreign status, with no more militias, and a strong government, followed by permanent boundaries and a peace treaty. The settlers have to withdraw from the West Bank. Gaza must not be a desolate wasteland any longer with 2 million unable to do anything due to the locked down Egyptian and Israeli borders.

The first step comes with the militias going away. Period. Without them, there will be no organized terrorist activity, only sole actors, and putting the clampdown by Lebanon is the only way that can happen: we know from where their monies come, and it is not from the West.

But Israel cannot be given the blank check with the world for unilateral vindictive attacks against the civilian population of Lebanon and the Palestinian Territories. Two kidnapped soldiers do not warrant an invasion and destruction of a great part of a country.

Gen. Clark's remarks were entirely reasonable. I see no reason why anyone should withdraw potential support from him as a result of them.

[Sparkly]

175. As a great admirer of Kucinich...

I thank you! :hi:

[ecstatic]

193. Clark is a General in the US Army

He didn't get to be a general by organizing peace rallies. Of course he is pro war! :shrug:

[dogman]

195. Wrong on both counts!

He is a retired General and he is not pro-war.

[Texas_Kat]

197. Sorry, seems like you couldn't be more wrong:

At NewsHounds: Fox Undercuts Wesley Clark's Sane Words

http://www.newshounds.us/2006/07/24/fox_undercuts_wesley_clarks_sane_words.php

...Instead, the question had to do with Gillerman's claim that World War III is upon us. Clark rejected the World War III view of the conflict, and instead sad it is a strategic opportunity for the U.S. to move Hezbollah from that region "if we play our cards right" by sending in a NATO force quickly with a broad enough mandate to accomplish it.

Later, a member of the audience challenged Clark and said she agree with Gillerman that the world is in World War III. "We simply don't appreciate or fear the threat we have from radical Islam. They want to destroy us," she said.

Clark was well-prepared to respond. " I think we have to be careful of labeling things World War III," he said. "We're not in the same position of Israel. ...We don't want to get drawn into a head-to-head conflict if we can avoid it. That's why we should be talking to people."

Huddy did her dirty work again, interrupting Clark, "Can we talk to people like Syria and Iran? How?"

"Yes you can," insisted Clark. "And here’s the thing. You cannot occupy those countries, you cannot simply declare World War III unless you want to raise an army of 12 millon men and march into the Middle East and occupy it, and we’ve already seen the example of Iraq. This is very, very difficult. So this is not like World War II with Germany and Japan. This is entirely different. We should use the military sparingly, as a last resort."

Again Huddy, who rarely challenges a conservative guest, asked Clark how the U.S. could "have diplomacy ... with countries like Syria and Iran. ... These are countries that have been on the record saying let's destroy the United States."

"If you agree with people, the diplomacy is different. When you don’t agree with people, it’s even more important to talk, to box them in, to understand what they want, to help them see the world differently. Keep the force in reserve,. Otherwise, you’re just going to end up raising a 10-million man army to invade the Middle East and that’s something we don’t want the United States to do and I don’t think your viewers want all their children to spend the rest of their lives in uniform."

[FrenchieCat]

198. And this......from the same Hounds "fox" review.....

Clark, who is a Fox News military analyst, has been a rare guest on "Dayside." The "Dayside" crew is unlikely to invite him back after Clark delivered an articulate, well-thought-out appeal for an approach to the Israeli-Lebanese crisis that reduces civilian casualties, avoids direct U.S. ground troop involvement, and tries to permanently remove Hezbollah from the area along Isral's border. Clark was callling for a NATO force of 10,000 non-U.S. troops that would have the authority to police the area.

Wes always has a plan, and it is always the best one around.

Too bad some want to reduce his words to sound bytes. Nothing could be more harmful when you have the liberal Dems doing the GOP's dirty work.....

[xkenx]

203. Read my post #201, THE DUCK PRINCIPLE

Or to be snarky, "You're a Democrat, therefore you are a baby killer, or, or, or"

[Adelante]

200. This thread has gotten long

For those who have interest, there is a new thread that more fully examines Clark's thinking on Lebanon.

So perhaps we can adjourn?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2740587

In addition, several transcripts, videos and audios of interviews on Lebanon can be found at his website:

http://securingamerica.com/taxonomy/term/109

[RedstDem]

204. Good For Him, He's Right.

Run Wes Run.
God I'd Love It, If He Were The POTUS !!

[Zhade]

206. Oh. Well, he's wrong to do so.

Indiscriminate bombing of civilians is not to be supported.

[Jai4WKC08]

209. Clark does not support "indiscriminate bombing of civilians"

Never has, never will.

If you read thru the thread, he's been quite clear on that point in multiple sources, specifically addressing the need for careful targetting and maximum use of targetting resources to prevent civilian (non-Hezbollah) casualties.

From the rather odd way the OP interview is put together, I'd guess he was clear about it there too. Certainly nothing that he is quoted as saying in the interview says he supports everything Israel is doing, and it is an unfortunate choice of subject that implies so.

Should be needless to say that Clark's view on the situation, as well as his advice to the Bushies as to what they ought to be doing to help Lebanon regain control, is far more sophisticated and detailed than the OP describes.

[AtomicKitten]

210. But still he's not calling for an immediate ceasefire.

And neither is anyone else (except for Annan and Kucinch to my knowledge). I disagree with any politician who offers an opinion that does not include calling for an immediate ceasefire.

Time is of the essence, you know, and people are dying each and every day, one-third of them children. That bothers me and IMO allegiance to this politician or that does not supersede that horrible, shameful statistic.

It's always interesting to watch partisans turn themselves inside-out to try to paint their candidate of choice in a flattering light. I admire General Clark but you (and your tag-team) have blamed me, the news piece cited, and across-the-board lack of understanding as the cause for some not liking the General's response to this crisis. Some DU'ers use statements from politicians to launch their broad-brush venom toward others, politicians and DU'ers alike. That kind of scorched earth rhetoric you can't control, but you aren't even trying to discern between that and others that simply respectfully disagree.

The bottom line is you are fine with the General's position on this issue (which is your prerogative) but are having trouble tolerating others not being fine with it (which is my and others' prerogative). The disagreement is with his position on this issue; I have said nothing disparaging about him. However, I have never held any politician in such high regard that I would compromise my belief system and standards to go along with their POV. Rather than attacking those that don't subscribe to your line of thinking, you should probably just let sleeping dogs lie.

[Jai4WKC08]

217. Oh get the burr out from under your saddle

I gave you the benefit of the doubt that it was the interviewer and his editor who led some people to believe Clark is supporting "indescriminate bombing of civilians" when it has been made clear that he does not. There was not a single word in my response immediately above that applied to you, so don't accuse me on not discerning between you and those on full-blown attack. Geez, you almost make it sound like you know deep down your motives weren't quite as pure as you'd have us believe (as in, "the lady doth protest too much"). A little introspection on your part might be warranted.

As I think I made it clear above, and in at least one other thread, I do tend to believe that an immediate ceasefire is probably both pointless and impossible. But when I said that above, you accused me of having no compassion, so don't lecture me about "not being fine" with tolerating disagreement. You also charge that I am making excuses and twisting logic to defend Clark, when what I am plainly doing is challenging those who accuse Clark of saying things or taking positions which he very clearly has not.

I also greatly resent the "tag-team" label. I can read threads and decide where and to whom I respond all by myself and that's exactly what I've done. If I happen to agree with most (but not all) other Clark supporters here, I can't imagine why you would expect anything else. I would certainly expect, and not begrudge, that most Kucinich supporters agree with him on the issue, and would defend him against those who mischaracterize his position. Or Gore supporters as well... if any of us knew where he stood.

[Catchawave]

208. Yay, I agree with Gen. Clark.....

Seriously, my husband explained this to me, and he had a battalion of Marines in Beirut, just before Reagan "cut and run" in '84.

[ShortnFiery]

222. If the Democratic Party nominates "The Good General"

then The Democratic Party has left me ... center-right and militaristic. :(

[Catchawave]

225. Hi ShortnFiery.....

Hope you didn't think my post was in support of a Clark Dem nom !? A cabinet position under President Edwards, maybe :)

I merely agreed with his current mid-east position.

[Donna Zen]

231. General Clark doesn't agree with

Edwards' position on bombing Iran.

[citizen snips]

232. ?

:wtf:

[ShortnFiery]

233. Yes, Clark would make a fetching Sec. of Defense or State.

Under President Edwards. On that we can agree. :he:

[Jai4WKC08]

227. Clark is NOT center-right and NOT militaristic

Clark falls to the left of every potential 08 candidate I've heard mentioned so far except Feingold.

You really need to pay attention to facts and not make assumptions based on stereotypes.

[citizen snips]

229. I respectfully disagree.

[Snivi Yllom]

230. Clark gets it right

Hezbollah is a cancer.