Wes Clark on Ed Schultz today!! Transcript!

[capi888]

I thought I would post this over on DU....



Submitted by Ruth on June 18, 2007 - 1:38pm.
Wesley Clark Ed Shultz

http://audio.wegoted.com/podcasting/061807ClarkWesley.mp3

ED: General, great to have you back with us.

WES: Nice to be with you, Ed.

ED: General Petraeus says stabilizing Iraq could take as long as a decade. Um, do you agree with that?

WES: Yes. I do. I think it could. And that's only if we do the kind of diplomacy and political work that needs to be done. And we can resolve the issue of Iran and the Palestinians and the Israelis. And all that is interconnected and basically bubbling along out of control.

ED: Well then, this surge talk, was really window dressing. General, is that fair to say?

WES: The surge talk was about troops and tactics and what we should have been talking about was strategy and policy. And it's the administrations continuing effort to rely excessively on the military, to want to talk about troops and tactics as though there's some magic there in the military that makes all other problems disappear. It's not so. Any general will tell you that you've got to have the full balance of the strategy. You've got to have the right diplomacy in the region. You've got to have the right politics on the ground to succeed. And the trouble is we haven't had that in Iraq. We've been saying it for over four years. We don't have it yet.

ED: General Wesley Clark here on the Ed Schultz Show. The website is securingamerica.com.

ED: General Clark if things won't improve by September this means that the Congress is going to have to go back and fund, continually fund these operations. Is that correct?

WES: Well, I think even if it does improve in Sept. the Congress is going to continue to have to fund the operations.

ED: We're going to have this vote all over again then aren't we?

WES: We are going to have this vote for the next few years unless something catastrophic happens that causes us to reconsider and pull the plug on the whole operation.

ED: If we were to do that, pull the plug on the whole operation, what is your prediction on what would happen, General Clark?

WES: We would have a hard time disengaging from the region, Ed. We've got security responsibilities to the Gulf States. We've got security interests with Israel. We've got friends in Lebanon. We've got many different issues that are affected by the outcome in Iraq. So, if we pull the plug on the operation you could probably physically remove the troops in 6 to 8 months in good order. If you saw a larger war go ---would you want to be back in? How about if you saw Al Qaeda taking over provinces? How about if you saw the collapse in the West Bank and aid flowing in through Syria from Iran and a quarter being cut across Iran, across Ira, by the Iranians to facilitate that. And you saw widespread deployment of let's say Iranian Revolutionary Guards inside Iraq, would you want to be back in at that point? And so, there's so many unpredictable in this that--- I'm one of those who has counseled against just getting frustrated and pulling the plug. I wouldn't have gone in in the first place. It was a HUGE strategic mistake. We have to find the right way to back out of this.

ED: In doing that, is almost impossible, in your opinion. We're in it and we've got to make the best of it somehow and the best thing we can have happen is for the Iraqi's to accept what's going on governmentally and get involved in the process. And American's are feeling like that is a pipe dream at this point. How could we have gotten this all wrong? And I'm just hearing you General say that we're into this so thick there are just few options that we have at this point.

WES: And with each succeeding month the options diminish. The people that we could talk to on the ground in Iraq are compromised. The leverage that we hold over Iran erodes. The strength of the Israeli position weakens. With each successive month we've been getting weaker. Now, the Saudi's put in a good strategic effort over the last eight months to try to salvage this. It hasn't worked.

ED: What about arming Sunni insurgents to fight AQ? Is that a good idea?

WES: Well, that's one of the issues. Certainly, if we can strengthen localities inside Iraq and if we can be sure they are fighting AQ, that's a good thing. But what if, in doing that, they are bring AQ in and not simply strengthening the resistance to AQ? That's what we don't know about.

Apparently some of the weapons that were, I'm told that some of the weapons ended up in the refugee camps in Lebanon that the Lebanese Army has been fighting against because some of the weapons were being used by AQ in Lebanon. Those weapons were paid for as part of the Saudi initiative to arm the Sunni's to fight against Iran.

ED: What a mess. What an absolute mess.

WES: It is a mess. It's a really difficult set of issues.

ED: Joe Lieberman, the Senator from CT made some interesting comments about Iran and I believe you responded saying they were irresponsible. Do you stand by that?

WES: Oh, of course. There is nothing to be gained at this point by saber-rattling. What the U.S. needs to do with respect to Iran is talk to Iran. We may have some interests we can work on together. It may not be too late. It may be too late. And we're going to be coming up soon on the horrible question of whether we live with Iranian's with this government with a nuclear weapon or whether we try to take military action to try to stop them from acquiring such a weapon.

ED: So, we're nearing a crossroads with the Iranian's.

WES: Within 12 months, according to the intelligence, unclassified intelligence that I'm reading, yes.

ED: That's a big statement.

WES: It's a very dangerous time coming up. And many people in Washington believe we're over the hump on this because the president has done so poorly in Iraq that he couldn't possibly imagine taking action against Iran. But there is still a strong group in the Whitehouse that is pushing for that very action.

ED: General Clark, so many people revere your opinion when you are on this program, the response that we get. Are you going to jump in the race for president? I mean the general response we get back is that the only person that has really spoken any consistent sense is Wesley Clark.

WES: Ed, I really appreciate that. I haven't said I won't run but I haven't made that decision yet.

ED: It's still an option.

WES: It's still an option.

ED: General, great to have you on. I appreciate your time so much and I know our audience does too. And thank you for the sobering message as to what we're living with.

WES: Well, I wish I had a better message but I'll tell you this Ed, that there is a way with the right leadership for the U.S. to maneuver its way out of the jaws of the trap that we're in in the Middle East. It can be done with different leadership in Washington.

ED: securingamerica.com is the website. General Wesley Clark with us here on the Ed Shultz Show. General, thanks so much.

WES: Thank you.

[snowbear]

1. Thanks for the recap!

I completely forgot about him going on there and didn't think about tuning in today..

It's good that Big Eddie keeps asking him about the potential for still jumping in.. Knowing Ed though, he's doing it to please his listeners because he's #100 behind HRC (and he never lets you forget it)

So kudos to him for continuing to bring on the General!!

It's also nice to hear Gen. Clark say something other than ..."I haven't said I'm not running" and has changed it to "it's still an option" ~~~~

Thanks for sharing that capi !!

~ ~

[capi888]

15. Your Welcome Larissa

I think all voices must be heard. I know Gen Clark, will do whatever it takes to stop this insanity! Whether he runs or not, he will continue to serve his country and the world, in whatever capacity that most effective.

[jenmarie]

2. thanks, capi888!

I can tell you now, this is not going to go over well with the OUT NOW crowd. It doesn't sound so great to me, either, but Clark is right. Unfortunate, but I trust him. He has been right too many times, on too many issues to be discounted. Everything he "predicted" would happen if we attacked Iraq has happened.

The scariest part is if Clark doesn't run, who the hell has the competence and experience to get us out of the mess we've created? Oh, things are such a horrible, horrible mess and so many are dying and suffering because of us... I remember Clark saying back in 2002 that it would be like opening Pandora's Box if we attacked Iraq.

Well, I am still convinced he will run, and that he's still not saying "no" is a real comfort to me. I think he knows none of the current candidates have what it's going to take to straighten this out. I actually don't know if anyone can, but if anyone can, it's Clark.

[capi888]

3. I agree Jenmarie....

He has been saying this from the beginning. Even when he was the military analyist on "CNN" where I found him again (after the war in Kosovo), way before the "Iraq war", and decided he knew what he was talking about. I was part of the draft movement...and IF only we would have listened then....we wouldn't be in the MESS we are in now.
If people will just read and understand, what he said on Eddie's show, they would know how difficult it will be to pull our troops out 1-2-3...its just not that easy...he explained it all...
Oh well, I know that Wes has been working with our allies for a long time, and he knows how to deal with the people of the ME, with the RIGHT LEADERSHIP, we can get out of this mess, as he said on the radio..
As far as everyone and support to remove troops immediately...not that easy!! Sorry to say..it ain't gonna happen, no matter WHO is saying what...NONE of the people in the top 3 of both parties, have the experience to handle what is happening in Iraq OR IRAN...only Clark!

[Sparkly]

8. It's not what people want to hear.

It's not what people want to consider. There are NO good options -- none.

I, too, hope he runs; but I'm not sure most people can take the honest, hard truth. "End the war" from the Democrats (as if everything will settle down and "end" on its own if our forces abruptly leave) and "Fight and win" from the Republicans (as if there's something to "win" or someone to defeat) are the two simplistic polarities people want to buy into.

I have been wondering what his "preconditions" are for running, and I can only imagine it's about one of the frontrunners stumbling... I've wondered if he's in line for a key cabinet position or even VP with one of them, but the things they say are so different from what he says.

It's hard to feel optimistic about any of this, on any level, any way I look at it.

[Cameron27]

10. It's so damned complicated.

He brought up very good points though, and I wonder how the candidates would respond:

"So, if we pull the plug on the operation you could probably physically remove the troops in 6 to 8 months in good order."

"If you saw a larger war go ---would you want to be back in? How about if you saw Al Qaeda taking over provinces?"

"How about if you saw the collapse in the West Bank and aid flowing in through Syria from Iran and a quarter being cut across Iran, across Ira, by the Iranians to facilitate that. And you saw widespread deployment of let's say Iranian Revolutionary Guards inside Iraq, would you want to be back in at that point?"

[madfloridian]

19. I have never been part of the "OUT NOW" crowd.....until very recently.

When there is nothing we can do but kill and be killed then a party should do everything it can to get us out.

Period. Bottom line.

[calteacherguy]

34. There is more we can do than kill and be killed.

We can still help to stabilize the country.

I was just reading a National Geographic today from December, 2006. It had an article about soldiers injured in the war, and traumatic brain injuries. It was a heartbreaking article. I do remember one part in the article in particular, however, a caption where an American nurse said she didn't think people realized how many more Iraqis the Americans treat than Americans. There was a picture of an Iraqi child with Americans tending to the child's injuries in Iraq.

There are many unknowns, but what I feel almost certain of is that were we to simply "pull the plug," there would be a lot more dead, traumatized, injured, suffering Iraqi children.

I can't accept that, and I can't accept those who simply say "pull the plug."

[madfloridian]

35. How do we stabilize? How many more troops?

How many more bombing runs? Draft?

This is sounding just like Vietnam.

[calteacherguy]

37. We don't need more troops there, or more bombing runs.

Neither will solve the problem.

[madfloridian]

4. So we just keep on funding it forever and ever amen? I so disagree.

"ED: General Clark if things won't improve by September this means that the Congress is going to have to go back and fund, continually fund these operations. Is that correct?

WES: Well, I think even if it does improve in Sept. the Congress is going to continue to have to fund the operations.

ED: We're going to have this vote all over again then aren't we?

WES: We are going to have this vote for the next few years unless something catastrophic happens that causes us to reconsider and pull the plug on the whole operation.

ED: If we were to do that, pull the plug on the whole operation, what is your prediction on what would happen, General Clark?

WES: We would have a hard time disengaging from the region, Ed. We've got security responsibilities to the Gulf States. We've got security interests with Israel. We've got friends in Lebanon. We've got many different issues that are affected by the outcome in Iraq. So, if we pull the plug on the operation you could probably physically remove the troops in 6 to 8 months in good order. If you saw a larger war go ---would you want to be back in? How about if you saw Al Qaeda taking over provinces? How about if you saw the collapse in the West Bank and aid flowing in through Syria from Iran and a quarter being cut across Iran, across Ira, by the Iranians to facilitate that. And you saw widespread deployment of let's say Iranian Revolutionary Guards inside Iraq, would you want to be back in at that point? And so, there's so many unpredictable in this that--- I'm one of those who has counseled against just getting frustrated and pulling the plug. I wouldn't have gone in in the first place. It was a HUGE strategic mistake. We have to find the right way to back out of this."

[snowbear]

6. I dunno M/Florida..

I asked about it today and was slammed by "Orange County Democrat" with an incredibly nasty response. Thankfully, a good-hearted moderator seems to have removed that second response of his and only left the first one..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3324557&mesg_id=3324557

No one here seems to want to talk about what happens come September on here.

If it's not a "bashing/trashing/my candidate is ahead of yours" thread, you could wind up receiving comments so vile they have to delete them.

Sheez Louise..

[madfloridian]

5. We really are not ever going to leave Iraq...

Clark says we are not, and I think he has been advising the congressional leadership a lot on this.

Hillary says we are not.

The DLC's Harold Ford and others in the group say we can not leave there.

So why worry?

Why don't we just get happy with all of it, and cheer and shout when we head into Iran??

So much easier that way.

[Donna Zen]

7. This is a very short read:

Thus, I think you can do better than that. At no point does Clark say that we should stay there forever, nor does he believe that we should head to Iran. In fact, he is very much opposed to military action in Iran. Just as he opposed to permanent bases in Iraq. Historically insurgencies last about 10 years before they burn themselves out. That's fact.

Clark wrote a letter in support of the original Iraq bill, and he opposed the one they passed.

Will congress defund Iraq? What's your guess? I doubt that they will and this has nothing to do with bush's vetos.

I noticed that unread as Clark points out: "We have to find the right way to back out of this."

Clark not only wants to leave Iraq, he advised many candidates including some who now yammer on about saying "oops" I made a mistake, not to give bush a blank check. Clark told them the truth, and he's telling you the truth now. Can you handle it?

[capi888]

11. Very well said Donna!

All the advice WKC gave, from the beginning, has come to fruition. No one listened, now we have a mess beyond all mess in the ME. Just to pull out overnight is NOT an option. Why don't people understand that. We just sent 30,000 more troops there! We all know it was wrong...but without enough votes in Congress to pass bills and override the Bush veto..what to do...we NEED MORE DEMS in Congress as the rule of 67 votes (pug agenda) to override anything the Pugs want. But , we have to blame someone..NOW can we get the VOTES in Sept. to defund this WAR..I don't think so!!! Bush will threaten his R Senators and Congressmen...just my thoughts...

[tblue37]

21. And they have to be real Dems, not turncoats like

Lieberman.

[madfloridian]

17. Am I willing to listen? I did not get us into Iraq.

You sound like you think we should stay.

I disagree.

I am tired of people talking like Clark wants us out, when he said we needed to keep funding.

There was the Daily Kos post of the advice he gave the Senate retreat. It is still there, but the post at Securing America was deleted and my thread here was deleted after I was called many many names. I was told it was recriminatory and it was deleted.

Now Clark is saying it openly and you guys are still denying it.
So go ahead and alert on me just like last time and they can delete this post also.

Many warned it would be hard to get out. However things are so bad that the only way we stay is to kill more Iraqis, probably what we are going to do anyway.

Hey, but what the hell, are are 3500 American lives and 600,000 plus Iraqis lives?? Nothing. We always figured we would keep bombing them.

If we stay in Iraq our country will never recover from our immoral actions.

[Donna Zen]

22. Excuse me

Did you actually write that "you sound as if you think we should stay"?

I won't ask you how you ever came up with that. I will tell you: stop...just stop trying to speak for me.

Wes Clark opposed the surge and wrote an op ed to that effect. He's been calling for diplomacy for nearly forever. If you are against diplomacy, then I guess that explains you anger.

He's saying that the congress will not defund the troops. I think he is correct considering the their inability to create a better plan than their last one. Clark has always believed that the way out was through regional diplomacy and the internal politics of Iraq. Although today he sounded a cautionary note that each day our options grow more limited.

Now I can read. I'm reading that you believe that if we just call out the logistics experts, they will pack it all up and march out. True. While you didn't state what you think will happen next, I'm wondering what you think? Do you think that killing will stop for the Iraqi people? Do you think that the now tipped balance of the region will suddenly right itself?

I think there are no good options, not for us, not for them. All wars are political and thus, the solution to ending the war will be political. Whatever hope of quieting of the now violent "mess" lies in the future, it will only be found through dialog. The congress, for what it's worth, needs to pressure bush into that position. Today Iran has called for additional talks focused on bringing stability to Iraq. Clark said that only a change in the WHouse can make the changes needed. I hope that congress can prove him wrong.

Now I pay very close attention to this war, and I try to make sense of whatever news I can find. Since I was against this war before it began, my search is for a way out. So save your snark. The cheap emotional accusations you've made are degrade the gravity of the issue. This debate deserves a better conversation.

[madfloridian]

23. Oh, my cheap "snark" you say? How dare you. "cheap emotional accusations"??

I have paid just as much attention to this evil war as anyone. I have wept over it, thrown things over it, turned off the TV over and over.

I have always said we won't leave. I have written about it.

I am very emotional over it. Why aren't you? Why are we cheerleading remarks that we will have to keep voting on the funding year after year...that is what he said.

We will not get back our soul as a country while we are still sitting back and enabling.

The killing will continue, you know it and I know it.

Don't ever accuse me of "cheap emotional accusations". Not ever.

You said:
"The cheap emotional accusations you've made are degrade the gravity of the issue. This debate deserves a better conversation."

And while we converse how many will die for the lies?

I agree with Clark that we will not be leaving. Our party has too many who don't have the courage to fight for what we should do.

So we will stay.

[IA_Seth]

25. What is that you think we should do?

Cut off funding and evacuate post haste? Then what?

What would happen when we left? Would things be better in Iraq? Do you think the region would stabilize itself? If not, who do you think would take that active role?

[madfloridian]

26. What will happen if we stay? What good thing will come of it?

How will just our few control a whole country of what...25 million now?

Well, one way is to bomb the hell out of their cities as we did in Fallujah or as we are perhaps doing in Sadr City with 2 million people. But we won't have to know about all the deaths because the media is not telling us.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1325

If we stay, we need thousands more...just like in Vietnam. 58,000 died there while we kept ignoring facts.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/746

"I've seen this before in my life. This is the same situation we had in Vietnam. Everybody then kept saying, 'just another year, just stay the course, we'll have a victory.' Well, we didn't have a victory, and this policy cost the lives of an additional 25,000 troops because we were too stubborn to recognize what was happening."

So you tell me what will be better if we stay and stay and stay?

[calteacherguy]

29. This isn't like Vietnam in the way you are impying.

Clark is not calling for more troops. More troops will not solve the problem, and he has been quite clear that "staying the course" will not solve the problem.

The goal is a stabilized Iraq, which will take many more years. Neither withdrawing all troops now nor keeping all troops there indefinitely and continuing the present policy will solve the problem.

[madfloridian]

30. Harry Reid was on Ed Schultz....he said we would stay to "protect our interests"

That seems to be talking points lately. We all know what those interests are.

[calteacherguy]

31. We have an interest in not having the entire Middle East engulfed in war and chaos.

What the neocons have done cannot be easily remedied by simplistic, easy answers like "withdraw 50,000 troops." That's not even a strategy, it's just a cheap campaign slogan. Increasing or decreasing troop levels in isolation from other changes of policy will not solve the problem. You can't simply change the number of troops on the ground and arrive at solution.

There is no easy solution to this, but it has to be a diplomatic and political solution, and we had been start talking to our "enemies" before it's too late.

[madfloridian]

32. We are setting up bases and a sickeningly huge embassy...

we will stay. That has been the intention all along. They have been stringing us along.

[calteacherguy]

33. Well, we need to stand firm absolutely against any permanent bases.

We are not neocons, after all.

[IA_Seth]

39. Staying the course?

No one is saying "stay the course"..the course we are on now is the problem. No one is saying that our military should try to 'control' Iraq. The Bush Admin continues to try to use our military to do what needs to be done politically - and it will never work. What we need is to engage ALL of the involved parties in the ME, and realize that compromise is a necessary component of diplomacy. This is what Clark is calling for.

I don't think it's in anyone's interests (except perhaps the militant factions) for us to pull out without at least beginning to lay the groundwork for a political solution or replacement of the US troops by UN peacekeepers (which will never likely happen).

Look, of course this situation isn't a good thing. Of course we should have never attempted what he have. At the same time, it DID happen and now we must do the best we can to contain what we've unleashed.

[calteacherguy]

28. BS.

Have you signed the petition at stopiranwar.com yet?

[judy from nj]

9. He sounds really pessimistic

I don't like the fact that he thinks the neocons are still pushing to attack Iran. But you can hear their propaganda everywhere. We so need to get rid of these people. I don't think we can afford to have them in office until Jan 09. Chaney is just crazy enough to start another war.

[capi888]

13. WKC knows what should be done and how...he said it at the end

We are between a Rock and a hard place. WE need to change the Leadership in the WH. Simple as that. The WH is running this war with the LEAST capable people in history. These people need to GO is correct Judy. WE NEED THE RIGHT KIND OF LEADERSHIP, HERE AND ABROAD TO ACCOMPLISH THIS. The hearings we are having will hopefully, bring your statement to fruition...I HOPE!
I don't know if he is pessimistic, or really frustrated, that he can't do more. He certainly has been abroad alot, talking and speaking..trying to hold the leaders of countries together, explaining the American people are not the problem...its the leadership in the WH..

[bonito]

16. I see that as well

Chaney is motivated by profit for solution, wiser minds in Israel prevail I wold like to think, but they packed the wrong horse this time, and were all fucked on this ride.

[bonito]

12. Clark speaks the truth here

All involved would listen to what he has to say, for a way out of this mess, we all need to bite the bullet to pull through this.

[madfloridian]

18. Yes. we all need to "bite the bullet" as you say. Chins up..

Just send more over with the mindset to kill.

:sarcasm:

[bonito]

24. That was not my point, I hope you realize.

[TacticalPeek]

14. K&R

:kick:

[Dinger]

20. K & R!

WES: Ed, I really appreciate that. I haven't said I won't run but I haven't made that decision yet.

ED: It's still an option.

WES: It's still an option.

[calteacherguy]

27. Clark doesn't play politics. He tells it like it is.

The diaster the neocons got us into cannot be solved by simply pulling the plug and leaving, as so many pandering, irresponsible politicians would want your vote would like you to believe.

[madfloridian]

36. That's what I said. Pushing to get out is useless.

Because we are not getting out

[calteacherguy]

38. Depends what you mean by "getting out."

Do you mean:

A) Get out "NOW!" (so to speak)
B) Get all troops out by__________________(pick your favorite day and year).
C) Decrease and redeploy troops according to conditions on the ground as strong diplomatic/political efforts stabilize the country, which may take as long as a decade, and commit to no permanent bases and military presence in Iraq