Wes Clark- “this time, we've gone too far.”

[FrenchieCat]

Wes Clark was speaking at the Center for Politics and Foreign Relations, Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), at The Johns Hopkins University yesterday when he gave a rather long speech. This is only a very small portion of what he said. In it, he refers to our invasion of Iraq, and how in the past we might have gotten away with certain actions that weren’t the best of ideas (coups, etc...). However, he strongly believes that this time, in reference to Iraq, we’ve gone simply way too far.

Here’s an excerpt- and the audio can be heard here http://www.sais-jhu.edu/media/may07/wesleyclark051607.mp3
(His answers during the Q&A at the end of the speech are really quite incredible, IMO--holding the administration accountable, his views on partitioning Iraq, the difference between Kosovo vs. Iraq, and what each of us need to do during the political election season to advance the debate on Iraq for the good of America, Iraq, and everyone else involved.)

“there are hundreds of millions, billions out there who watch the United States. They observe our actions in the world. They hear our rhetoric. They're not committed enemies, but they're not necessarily our friends yet. And if we want to succeed in the world, we've got to win over these people, at least to the legitimacy of our aims and purposes.
Right now, we've lost a crucial underpinning of America's safety, security and ultimate well being. <>
It is our legitimacy as a nation.<>

Today, the evidence shows we've lost much of this. I don't have to site the poll after poll after poll over the last five years. You see them - the Pew polls, the BBC polls, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs polls. They show that, here's one in- published in March, "The United States is viewed more as negative than in positive in world Affairs" - 51 percent of the people. In 27- 28,000 people in 27 countries view the United States as a more negative than positive force in world affairs. We're ranked lower than North Korea. Ten out of fifteen countries in a Chicago Council of Global Affairs poll show that the most common view is the United States cannot be trusted to act responsibly in world affairs. <>

How did we lose legitimacy?

First of all, we distorted, overplayed, exaggerated the threat. This was not a defensive war. It was an elective war. America chose to go to war when any reasonable look at the intelligence, even at the time, would've said, 'This is not a necessary war.' Then in our haste to go to war, we didn't even go to war as a last resort. We pushed it. We didn't allow time for the completion of the inspections. We didn't ask for and demand a second UN Security Council resolution. We pushed it. We had a timeline in mind.

When we went to war, we used a terrible terminology for this. "Shock and Awe," coupled by a statement by an American General that "we don't count Iraqi casualties" - what, they're not people? They don't count? The thin veneer of the UN resolution that we had may have provided an element of legality, but it did not provide legitimacy.

After we reached Baghdad, we failed to take due care to protect noncombatants and property. As the insurgency began, we didn't protect the civilian population. We pressured the civilian population. When we took detainees in and had them under our control. We apparently did some things that we should never have done, and when it came out at Abu Ghraib, instead of cutting to the quick of it and ending it, we dissimulated and dallied when urgent action to the very source of that unacceptable conduct was required.

We were unable to even follow through on the original purposes of the operation except insofar as removing Saddam Hussein from power. We lost all sense of proportion between ends and means, and even today we're engaged in a military surge that the administration would like to see an open ended commitment, which as actually a participation in an ongoing Iraqi civil conflict.

We violated virtually every principle of Just War doctrine. It's in Christian thought. It's in Islamic thought. And it's in the common sense of ordinary people all around the world, and we violated that.


http://securingamerica.com/node/2425

[Captain Hilts]

1. Wesley Wesley, he's our man, if he can't do it no one can!! nt

[burrowowl]

2. Wes Clark has got it right!

IMPEACH BU$HCO or the US of A will have no moral authority what so ever and for a loong time to come!

[FrenchieCat]

6. Yes he agrees that we need to get on with the first step towards

what could lead to impeachment.......and whatever else we need to do.....

When asked about impeachment and pardons (he was asked if he would pardon Bush and Cheney if he became President, this was his reply.....

"with respect to the consequences for those who led the nation. <>

We have something here which simply can’t be washed away and covered up. I’ve met with too many parents who’ve lost their children. I’ve met with too many foreign leaders whose faith in America has been damaged. I’ve met with too many military leaders who are struggling to come to terms with what they felt were the pressures and orders from above and what they knew in their hearts and had reservations about as a consequence and tried to resolve it.


This doesn’t…this is not an issue that’s going to go away so I think it needs to be followed step-by-step and I think the way to begin is to first finish the Senate investigation that was promised on whether or not the administration properly used the intelligence information that was available. No point in having everybody write his own memoirs on it - we’ve just had George come out with his – and…let’s get the facts out. We have a Congress in place that is not of the same party as the executive branch in the American system. That normally means that you could provide greater trust and reliance on the adversarial system of inquiry that’s in place.


Let’s have it…let’s have it done. And then let’s go back and find out about those memos written in the Executive branch. What exactly did they mean when they said…when they say the Geneva Convention was an anachronism, when they redefined the definition of torture, when they indicated that…what was going through the Secretary of Defense’s mind when he was talking about how we needed more information, not more people in Iraq? And what did he think that meant to the people on the ground? Where did the abuses at Abu Ghraib come from? What are the secret findings that are out there in the intelligence community? Why are these rumors still surfacing of people being beaten up and abused and conduct that’s just not…and what did the President in a signing statement in the 2006 Act on Military Commissions and the 2005 Act on detainee treatment? What have been the actual consequences of those signing statements?


These are legitimate matters of public inquiry and in our political system, we have a lot of people in office who do have political courage and I have confidence that our leaders will ask these tough questions because it’s the only way we can move our country forward and regain the trust and good faith of others in the world."
http://securingamerica.com/node/2425

[Clark2008]

3. You know, I agree with every word this intelligent man has to say here, BUT

I have to be stupid and comment about something silly: isn't he just so handsome in that picture?

Sorry to take away from what he said - but that picture just struck me.

Oh, and some of us knew this, too: "America chose to go to war when any reasonable look at the intelligence, even at the time, would've said, 'This is not a necessary war." Which is why we have such a hard time "forgiving" some candidates when they apologize for their votes on the matter.

[Texas_Kat]

4. From the same speech

.....we're not going to restore the legitimacy we seek without a full inquiry into how we as Americans could've gone so wrong.

How could it have happened? Why did it happen? And who must he held accountable for abusing the good name and authority of the United States of America.

This includes not only addressing the administrations misuse of intelligence in the run up to the war in Iraq, but also into who and how we misled our Armed Forces and our intelligence agencies into believing that our international obligations under the Geneva Convention and the 1996 Treatment on the Prevention of Torture- Treaty of the Prevention of Torture weren't somehow legally binding or applicable.

Holding a few soldiers accountable in military trials is not enough. Their actions reflected a broadened tolerance for hither afore reprehensible acts of mistreatment all in violation of international law and the responsibility for which must be sought at the highest levels of the Pentagon, the Justice Department and the White House itself.

I say this without partisanship and with a great deal of sadness. I love this country. generations of Americans have served and sacrificed in battle to preserve our freedoms, including our inviolable Bill of Rights. Torture, however you define it - and let's not quibble with the definitions - was never acceptable as a matter of policy. It was always something deeply abhorrent to our ideas of human dignity, and we sought and supported legal retribution against those who employed it elsewhere.

How can we as Americans hold others to high standards of conduct unless we hold our own leaders to the same high standards?

[AX10]

5. K & R!

[AtomicKitten]

7. when I hear Clark speak on this war

... it makes me realize he and Gore are leaps and bounds from the rest of the field, with props to Obama for having opposed Iraq from the get-go but now being bogged down in the Congress.

Clark reinforces why those that bought into this folly were so wrong and why those the opposed it should step forward and lead.

[calteacherguy]

8. Great post.

Clark impresses me more and more everyday.

[Captain Hilts]

9. Check out Gen. Willima Odom's "Democratic response" to Bush.

http://www.democrats.org/a/2007/04/lt_gen_odom_del.php

Ouch!

[FrenchieCat]

13. Gen. Odom spoke well on this......

"The challenge we face today is not how to win in Iraq; it is how to recover from a strategic mistake: invading Iraq in the first place. The war could never have served American interests.

"We cannot 'win' a war that serves our enemies interests and not our own. Thus continuing to pursue the illusion of victory in Iraq makes no sense. We can now see that it never did.

"A wise commander in this situation normally revises his objectives and changes his strategy, not just marginally, but radically. Nothing less today will limit the death and destruction that the invasion of Iraq has unleashed."

:thumbsup:

[youthere]

10. Thanks for posting this FrenchieCat..

Wes Clark 2008!!

[Trisket-Bisket]

11. Now that's PRESIDENTIAL!

I sure hope he will run. If not he would be great as SOD or SOS. Speaking truth to the reptiles that have wasted two centuries of good will.

[FrenchieCat]

15. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[Wesin04]

12. Required listening

This speech should be required listening for everyone. Wouldn't I love to see a debate--a REAL debate--between Clark and the other candidates! It's so refreshing to know we have someone who knows what he speaks about who is this close to running for President. We need him badly.

[Canuckistanian]

14. You could do worse than Clark as President

That was a masterful speech. Or at least a small part of it.

The man gets it, in terms of international opinion.

A shame he's not part of the Dem lineup.

He scares the bejeebers out of Republicans.

[jenmarie]

16. If anyone is having trouble

with the audio, Reg NYC and Melange have transcribed the entire speech -- including the Q&A at the end.

General Wesley Clark - Legitimacy: First Task for American Security

[jenmarie]

17. This answer explains why

he hasn't entered the race yet. He is more concerned with changing the policy and doing what's best for our country than anything else.

Liz Garner: I’m Liz Garner, I’m with the Hopkins Government Program and I have probably the most basic question you’re going to get other than whether or not you’re running in ’08.

Um, would you see yourself potentially running as a vice presidential candidate on a ticket in ’08?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: You know…Liz, thank you. That’s a great question.
You know…you can’t answer a question like that. It’s entirely too speculative and you know…what I…I’ve said to a lot of people…what happened when I ran the last time, I was very happy to run.


I was against the war in Iraq early on. I wrote the op-eds against it, I testified in front of…against it. I was cited in the Senate, and then when I ran it was like as though somebody said ‘ah, he’s running for office, you see – all of this was a smokescreen, he’s just out for his own ambition, forget about what he says, it’s how he uses it to advance.’


I’m not.


These are…and what I said when I ran, I meant every word of it and I didn’t say it to get elected and that’s counter to political logic. When you’re running for office, you have to say what it takes to um, appeal to your base and to get yourself put into office.


I’m not standing for office. I haven’t said I won’t, but I’m not standing now.


I want the words I’m delivering to be taken seriously by somebody who’s spent his life in this field. I’m the only one on any side of any of the announced candidates who’s ever ordered men and women into battle and had to deal at the head-of-state level with the concerns and problems where diplomacy and force intersect. So I’ve got some experience and, you know, with the help of a lot of other people, we were actually successful in what we did in Kosovo in 1999. It’s the only air campaign in history that ever succeeded in accomplishing its purposes. So, I want to share those experiences as I saw them, with the American public and with people all over the world.


And…and so I’m very honored by your question and it’s nice that you asked me that and of course, like anybody I’d love the opportunity to be of service at some point, but it’s really about trying to work the ideas at this stage. And it’s the way the media works – if they say you’re in it for your ambition, then what you’re saying is only what you have to say to get elected, you don’t really mean it. So I really mean this and uh, and I think if we would take heed of some of the experiences that I and other people are sharing around this country, then maybe we’d get a better policy.

[guruoo]

18. K&R for the General

[latinjum]

19. As I like to say, welcome to Wes Clark's world . . .

I've read the entire speech and Q&A at Clark's website, and it really speaks to who Wes Clark is and why so many people like myself were drawn to him in the first place and why we continue to admire him so much. Have you posted this elsewhere? I'd include the title, too - "Legitimacy: First Task for American Security."

[FrenchieCat]

20. Welcome to DU!

Make yourself at home!

I like my title simply because it encapsulates the total seriousness of our present mucked up situation. It's that bad!

[capi888]

21. Listened to the whole speech...WOW!!

Everyone needs to hear him. This man is a gift for the times we are in! He loves his Country, and is serving in the capacity he feels he can do the most good. He is on a mission to help us all.
We need him leading our Country!!

Thanks Frenchie for posting this article and the video of Wes Clarks wisdom!

[Cameron27]

22. K&R

"By and large, we escaped with our reputation mostly intact, but this time, this time, we've gone too far"

[Dinger]

23. We Need Him, The world Needs Him

Please run General Clark, please.
:patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:

[FrenchieCat]

24. Yes we do......and the great part about it is that

He's not going anywhere!

He will make a difference because that's what he knows he needs to and can do. :patriot:

[BikeWriter]

25. Wes is the best and the brightest. He is Presidential.

[Sparkly]

26. That was an extraordinary speech and q/a

The General is always several steps beyond anyone else. His emphasis on broader issues of our place in the world -- and both the moral and practical implications of it -- was brilliant. It would do SO much for the political debate in this country if he would run; on the other hand, sometimes I think so few would understand him, and so many would take snippets out of context and twist them, maybe we're doomed to keep discussing troop tactics and "who's tougher" for the next however-many years... :/

[Jai4WKC08]

27. "Clark is the first I have heard make the case for accountability"

So says Joe Rothstein, editor of U.S Politics Today.

Rothstein enjoins every one of his readers listen to this speech in today's editorial at http://uspolitics.einnews.com/article.php?nid=277248

Do yourself a big favor.

Go to http://www.sais-jhu.edu and click on the speech given the other day by retired General Wesley Clark to an audience at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University.

In just 20 minutes, Clark presented the most cogent case I've yet heard for what the Iraq misadventure has cost America and Americans, and what's needed to clean up the scene of this crime.

Rothstein concludes,

...Of all of the major public figures on the political scene, Clark is the first I have heard make the case for accountability.

Here's why we can't just consider this a black chapter of American history and move on: because we did that once before---in Vietnam. The Johnson and Nixon administrations took the nation into Vietnam and kept us there on the basis of lies, deceits and violations of the law. No one ever was held responsible or made to pay a price for it. Except, of course, for the 55,000 men and women in U.S. uniform who were killed, the hundreds of thousands who were wounded and scarred for life, and the million or so Vietnamese casualties.

Charges should have been brought against those in office who ordered such carnage. If that had happened, just maybe the Bush-Cheney White House would have been more sensitive to the truth and less willing to bend and violate the law to take us where we are today.

Clark isn't talking about a show trial, either. He specifically called for an inquiry into "the highest authorities" at the Pentagon, the Justice Department and the White House.

"We have to hold our leaders to high standards of behavior," said Clark. That's a line many politicians use in speeches. But it's a tough line to enforce when the people you call to account are the most powerful in government. Clark has the guts to say what many people are thinking. It would be tragic if the costs and humiliation of Iraq were to come and go without accountability.

What I've recounted here does little justice to the power of Clark's own words. Listen to them yourself. And pass them on to the presidential candidates of your choosing, pressing them to incorporate these views as their own.

[FrenchieCat]

29. bears repeating!

"We have to hold our leaders to high standards of behavior," said Clark.

That's a line many politicians use in speeches. But it's a tough line to enforce when the people you call to account are the most powerful in government.

Clark has the guts to say what many people are thinking.

It would be tragic if the costs and humiliation of Iraq were to come and go without accountability.

[Donna Zen]

32. Any bets on how long he'll have to wait?

My comments are not meant to be snarky nor should they be viewed as an opportunity to bash anyone; however, since I've listened to Clark for a long time, I know that given time, what he has to say will be heard coming out of the mouths of many. Wes Clark insists that his purpose is to spread his ideas. Well fine. That's great. But just once, I'd like to hear a politico give credit where credit is due. You know, just a little: "...as General Clark says..." They'll tout republican generals. No problem. Mostly they just present the ideas as if a stray lightening bolt sent specifically to them from God hit them in some moment of glorious brilliance of thought. And so I would say to the writer of this:

What I've recounted here does little justice to the power of Clark's own words. Listen to them yourself. And pass them on to the presidential candidates of your choosing, pressing them to incorporate these views as their own.

Don't worry...be happy...it is bound to happen. Although I don't know how the candidate(s) who have gone on record saying that we don't want to relitigate how this war started, will spin it. Maybe their pollsters will tell them.

And then was the Sunday moment when Dodd told CNN: "as I like to say, 'we need a surge of diplomacy!'" I agreed with Dodd; just as I'd agreed with Wes Clark when the term appeared two weeks earlier in the title of his op ed.

Having listened to this week's speech, I would just to say that Wes Clark makes it easy to support him.

[Karenina]

28. And he is CORRECT.

:kick:

[judy from nj]

30. I really appreciate

his call for accountability. From Vietnam to now, noone has been held accountable.

[Totally Committed]

31. K & R

:kick:

TC

[Wesin04]

33. I'm listening now

Oh my goodness. What a speech-full of truth and insight like you haven't heard from any of our other leaders or presidential candidates. They couldn't carry Clark's water.

[Norrin Radd]

34. kick

[wiley]

35. The only person who I know I can always trust for the facts

and an incredible presentation. Both you and Wes, Frenchie!