I've never seen Clark look so concerned.

[calteacherguy]

On July 12, 2007, General Clark testified before the House Armed Services' Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee



"These questions are in no way the material of abstract, hypothetical musings. Just about everyone in public life has now formed strong opinions, and certainly the American public has, also. By strong majorities they believe the war is unwinnable, and want the strategy changed. They also want the troops brought home - and taken good care of when they return here - but they don't want to lose. And so the public debate has increasingly turned on the consequences of a withdrawal for Iraq, our friends in the region, and for ourselves - with a "precipitous withdrawal" being the one which leads to increased violence.

You can receive the testimonies of the generals and state Department experts that can discuss every tribe, militia and province. I don't propose to do that today. But what I would like to do is offer my perspective on the region, and then propose a course of action which could prove to be the "least worst" of the choices available.

The United States is today engaged in a four-fold struggle in the Middle East, and each of the struggles is interconnected with the others. At the most benign level, the US is in hot competition economically, to capture its share of oil exports and earnings, and to sell its share of goods and services. Our long term dependability has been a winning factor in building enduring US influence and commercial penetration in the region. Second, the US works to assure to security and safety of the state of Israel, within the broader interest of seeking to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and helping Israel assure its long term survival and success within the region. Third, the United States is engaged in a three-decades long struggle against Iranian extremism, which has manifested itself through terror bombing against US forces, harassment of oil shipping lanes, the pursuit of a long range, nuclear strike capability, Iranian interference in Lebanon, and, of course, assisted by our topping of Saddam Hussein, within Iraq itself. Finally, the US is caught up in the almost ten-year-old struggle against Al Qaeda.

These struggles help frame the ongoing conflict in Iraq, circumscribing the options and weighting the alternatives. The US will not and cannot abandon the region, nor our friends and interests there. The analogy with the US withdrawal from South Vietnam ought therefore to be unthinkable. US interests require continuing engagement in this region. But neither can the US make mincemeat of the fragile and artificially created states in the region, nor the governments that rule them, however much we should disagree with their policies and principles, for any of these existing governments is, if not a bulwark against a stronger Al Qaeda presence, then at least a regional actor which may be held accountable in some sense. We don't need any more failed states in the region, whether in Gaza or in Iran. Yet over the next twelve-to-eighteen months the Iranian nuclear effort is likely to culminate in the credible capability of significant uranium enrichment, and, absent a real diplomatic initiative from the Bush Administration, either this Administration or the next will be forced to acquiesce in an Iranian nuclear capability - with all the risk that entails - or execute a series of air and naval strikes to delay or destroy that capability - with the risks of further aggravating tensions and terrorist activities as well as disrupting global markets and flows.

So, the issue isn't troop strength in Iraq, but rather US national strategy in the region. As of now, it is not too late for that strategy to be significantly altered. The US would have to renounce its aims and efforts of regime changes, pull back such forceful advocacy of democratization, engage in sustained diplomatic dialogue with governments in the region, including Syria and Iran, heed the advice of regional friends and allies like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the Emirates and Qatar, and work not to isolate Hamas but to reshape it. This new strategic approach to the region must be linked to a deeper, more effective political effort within Iraq to align interests and structures, in order to produce the kinds of compromises necessary to end the civil war there. The tactics, principles and techniques of such a shift in strategy are no mystery. I and many others have for years called for such changes. But it seems all too clear that the leaders in the White House today have not, thus far, even seriously considered such change. They persist in seeking a largely military solution, focusing on troop strength and tactics, and have had the temerity to label a 20% increase in US troops as a "new strategy," when all along it has been obvious that we have needed perhaps three times the on-the-ground troop presence they directed.

Consequently the "surge" strategy has produced no miracles: some local progress in Baghdad neighborhoods, perhaps, and an accompanying effort, perhaps underwritten by our Saudi friends, against Al Qaeda in Anbar. But the political agreements expected to emerge, miraculously, from the presence of a few more thousand US troops in Baghdad haven't.

The deeper truth is that we are engaged in a civil war inside Iraq aided and abetted by outside powers. It is not at all clear that the "surge" will, even were it to succeed in reducing the violence, bring this war to a successful conclusion. We are playing on others "home court." They own porous borders, language skills, long term relationships inside Iraq, and sufficient means to ratchet-up resistance and encourage divisiveness when and where it suits their purpose.

When well-trained and equipped troops are thrown into stabilization missions, they normally do succeed in temporarily tamping down violence. This is the historical record of occupying armies, from Europe to Asia. Local opponents watch for vulnerabilities, redeploy to elude the occupier’s grasp, and deepen their structures in preparation for the resumption of hostilities. But unless mechanisms for political reconciliation take hold, violence seems inevitably to resume and escalate as aggrieved parties find ways and means to pursue their aims despite the presence of an occupying force.

In the case of Iraq, these tendencies are exacerbated by the competitive struggle between Iran and its Shia surrogates, and the Saudi and Jordanian support for the Sunni's. The Iraqi government itself lacks the legitimacy and capability to resolve this struggle, whatever its "legality.". And so, no matter the vicissitudes in civilian deaths, or car-bombings, or disappearances in Baghdad, the underlying dynamics of the struggle continue. This Administration has refused to address their strategic causes and has left our brave soldiers and Marines hostage to a regional power struggle.

For this reason, I believe the time has come for the Congress to demand that the Administration begin the redeployment of American ground forces and state publicly and clearly that there will be no permanent US bases in Iraq. At best, this underscores the seriousness of the American people and helps incentivize Iraqi leaders themselves work to stop the conflict through suitable dialogue and compromise. Thus far, this has been notably lacking among the Iraqi's. At the very least, the redeployment will provide immediate relief for overstretched US ground forces.

These initial redeployments would be modest in scope, designed to stimulate internal Iraqi political dialogue, incentivize more intensive Iraqi efforts at accommodation, and underscore to the region that the United States will not be held hostage. I would like to see the withdrawal of two brigades over the next six months.

But this should be coupled with legislation compelling the Administration to address to Congress its strategy and regional efforts within sixty days. Pending suitable modifications to the Administration strategy to encompass full diplomatic and political efforts in the region and within Iraq, and assuming continual recommendations by military commanders to retain the enhanced troop levels, then Congress should support the "current less two brigades" force through March, 2008, after which the US forces should begin a twelve-month transition out of direct combat operations, except against Al Qaeda, with a residual training, security, and counter-terrorism force sized in the 50-80,000 range, which will gradually phase out.

This is the force which would effectively under gird US diplomacy, assist the Iraqi's, maintain US capabilities against terrorists, and provide sufficient relief for the US to regain strategic military maneuverability.

However, if the Administration refuses to change its strategy appropriately, then I would see the need for a more rapid withdrawal of US forces, commensurate with reduced chances of success and the greater likelihood of having to reengage militarily within the region at a later time.

To underscore the obvious, the struggle in Iraq can certainly be lost militarily, but it cannot be won militarily, and certainly not with the limited US forces currently deployed. The hour is late, but not yet too late, to leave behind an integral, developing, and stable Iraq. But it is also true that the Administration has demonstrated its incompetence in designing and carrying out a strategy for success. And so I appeal to members of this committee to do your duty: help save our military, and help rescue our nation from the perilous consequences of our strategic blunders."

http://securingamerica.com/node/2552


www.votevets.org
www.stopiranwar.com

[AtomicKitten]

1. General Clark has good reason to be concerned

considering our best option is the "least worse" choice available.

[Old and In the Way]

2. It blows my mind that strategic thinkers, like Clark, who have the

intellectual horsepower and gravitas to lead this country, are on the outside watching the Nincompoop and his sidekick, Dick Warprofiteer, calling the shots. This country is screwed.

[calteacherguy]

3. It is mind-blowing.

But at least we still have a Congress, feeble as it is. I'm hope many in Congress will listen to what Clark is saying. He is proposing a strategy that perhaps has some hope of gaining bipartisan support, if the Congress will put politics aside.

But the hour is, indeed, getting late. How can you force a President to use diplomacy effectively? Try and get 67 votes to override a veto, and hope for the best?

Yeah, Clark has reason to be very concerned. We all do.

[Donna Zen]

6. He blows my mind

Wes Clark makes it easy to support him. No permanent bases....music.

During the Q & A, the General made it very clear that the congress has the power to move out the two brigades by Christmas. Leaders lead.

[NCarolinawoman]

18. But, you see, the American people wanted to have a beer with President Nincompoop.

They wanted to have a beer with President Nincompoop for eight loooonnnng years. I guess we get what we deserve. :dunce:

Except not ALL of us really DID deserve it. :(

[yardwork]

52. The nincompoop probably actually lost both elections

We have the corporations and corporate-owned media to thank for the mess we're in, I think. They allowed a complete moran to get within shouting distance of the presidency twice, and the bushco crime family took it from there.

Edited to add - I absolutely agree with you about the millions of Americans who voted for the asshole. They deserve him. The rest of us don't.

[Raster]

71. shrubuya and darth cheney were NEVER, NEVER legally and lawfully elected!

Oh we went through the motions all right, but that's about it. We now know FOR A FACT that without the ILLEGAL interference of the partisan, biased United States Supreme Court, this pathetic joke of a presidency would never be sitting at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. And as more information is released and the results examined, we find that sElection 2004 was as dirty as they come. We the people did not elect bush*/cheney*. Their corporate masters did. Thanks to the Texas-American Petroleum Cartel and the Military-Industrial Complex we teeter on the edge of national ruin.

Wake Up America!

[KansDem]

63. Wait! You forgot about the "charm offensive?"

Don't you remember that Cokie Roberts and NPR reported on the "charm offensive" of George W. Bush during Campaign2000 and how he would use it to get things done in DC?

And don't forget the "nickname giving" that Bush excelled at; we Americans love to get nicknames and Bush was the guy to do it!

So it must have been a combination of "want to have a beer with," "charm offensive," and "nickname giving" that gave Bush humongous power over the American people!

[NCarolinawoman]

105. Yes, I rember that now and three other very "important" criteria:

Who do you want to go to a barbecue with; Who do you want to sit next to on a long plane ride; and which candidate would stop and help you if your car broke down?

The media filled in the answer.... it had to be Bush!

And here's another; Joe Scarborough asked, "would a woman alone rather have Kerry or Bush sitting on the front porch with a shotgun protecting her from the bad guys?"

DRUM-ROLL.........the answer was Bush!!! Bush would protect her! Any woman with sense woukd know that. No doubt about it! (this was the question thrown out right after that Bin Laden tape appeared about a week before the election).

[NCarolinawoman]

106. I forgot to add that back in the primaries Evan Thomas of NEWSWEEK

declared on the Imus show, that he would NOT want to have a beer with Clark because Clark was "too serious and intense".

[MADem]

64. Who wants to have a beer with an alcoholic nincompoop?

I think it's unfair to tarnish "the American People" with that take. The corporate media, which is owned by the guys who suck billions out of the US government every year, shopped that theme. Slightly more than half of us wanted nothing to do with the asswipe.

[merh]

29. as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words

(it looks like that is the World Series of Poker on the tv screen in the back ground)

:argh:

[ClintonTyree]

39. So THAT'S where Bush got his "strategery" for Iraq.

From watching the World Series of Poker. :rofl: Bush has gone "all in" and is wagering his legacy, the respect of our country, the Treasury and the lives of thousands upon thousands of Americans and Iraqis. The really troubling aspect is that he's holding a hand that should have been folded long ago. But he's going to bluff, and win, right? :eyes: As horrible a poker player as he is a pResident.

[TrogL]

59. It's more likely a teleconference

and that looks more like a craps table than poker.

[merh]

61. That's the way a poker table looks these days

like a craps table (oblong with padding)

[Harry Monroe]

68. Actually, I think it is an episode of the "Sopranos"

The guys sitting around having lunch in the back room of Satriale's Pork Store. And Bush also gets his "management" skills here as well, by watching how Tony Soprano does it.

[AX10]

84. I felt that way ever since * was installed.

:(

[IndianaGreen]

4. "that there will be no permanent US bases in Iraq." Tell that to Hillary, General!

I believe the time has come for the Congress to demand that the Administration begin the redeployment of American ground forces and state publicly and clearly that there will be no permanent US bases in Iraq.

Hillary repeated today her assertion that US needs a residual force in Iraq well beyond 2009. I suppose that includes our new embassy in Iraq, which rivals the Vatican in square footage.

I hope Clark reads today's Guardian article about Cheney winning the Iran war argument over Condi Rice and Bob Gates. In the article, Bush is said to realize that the next President, whether Republican or Democrat, is not likely to attack Iran. This is why there is increasing pressure for Bush to bomb Iran before his term ends.

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. Clark gave us all early warning on this

I remember last fall Clark giving a speech where he said that Cheney was pushing hard for war with Iran and that the only person still standing in his way at that point was Condi Rice, God help us. He thought then that war with Iran would most likely already have started by now if Democrats didn't manage to retake at least one house of Congress to enable them to put an investigative spot light on Bush and company. Even with a Democratic takeover, he figured the odds were still roughly 50/50 for war with Iran during Bush's term of office.

[calteacherguy]

9. Clark gave a radio interview today and the Gaurdian article was brought up.

Like I said, I've never seen Clark look or sound so somber and concerned; to me, that gives credence to the assertion the Guardian article is making.

He may have heard similar stories from connections he has, something like "Wes! Everybody is saying he's listing to Cheney again, they are going to do it!"

Speculation on my part, of course.

[CarolNYC]

17. Wes sounded just totally, utterly frustrated in that interview...

He's trying so hard but there's only so much he can do....Not enough people listened to him before the Iraq War and now it's happening all over again....We'll soon find ourselves at War with Iran and then everyone can run around apologizing for not doing more to stop it. Arghhh!!!! Stop the vicious cycle, I want to get off!!

I did like, when the host brought up Bush saying give General Patreus a chance, how Wes said you don't hear the President talking about US Ambassador Ryan Crocker. "Why don't we give Ambassador Crocker a chance?" Why don't we indeed?

Link to audio of the raido interview is here: http://securingamerica.com/node/2550

[The Wizard]

51. Let's hope

Clark still has connections in the military who will stand up to the criminal Bush Administration and say they don't have the resources and can't attack another country.
The Bush Administration must be stopped by any means necessary, even a................

[leveymg]

57. Just as the " I-word" is gaining wide usage, so is the "C-word" in different circles.

Nothing is off the table. Nothing.

[kimmerspixelated]

89. That might be our only hope.

Those that will say no to dropping bombs!

[Donna Zen]

23. Yes he mentioned the article in an interview this morning.

It's opened on my desktop. I'll have to listen to it again for his answer. I believe that he called for REAL diplomacy.

[paulk]

49. better tell that to Clark, too

from the same article, which you apparently didn't even bother to read in your usual rush to say something bad about Clinton...

"But this should be coupled with legislation compelling the Administration to address to Congress its strategy and regional efforts within sixty days. Pending suitable modifications to the Administration strategy to encompass full diplomatic and political efforts in the region and within Iraq, and assuming continual recommendations by military commanders to retain the enhanced troop levels, then Congress should support the "current less two brigades" force through March, 2008, after which the US forces should begin a twelve-month transition out of direct combat operations, except against Al Qaeda, with a residual training, security, and counter-terrorism force sized in the 50-80,000 range, which will gradually phase out."

Oh, and btw, HRC does not support permanent bases -

"we do not plan a permanent occupation or permanent bases, but there may be a continuing mission to protect America's vital interests, and to support an Iraqi government that we hope to be an ally going forward, assuming they are acting responsibly. So, the bottom line for me is that we will begin re-deploying our troops as soon as I am President, and we will do so in as expeditious a manner as possible, as few troops as necessary with no permanent occupation, and no permanent bases."

from the moveon town hall meeting April, 2007.


Do you ever check your facts before you post your attacks?

[Tom Rinaldo]

77. Two important points

Clark stated some preconditions to that particular piece of advice about a possible reduced and lingering American deployment. The first one is critical; Absolutely renouncing any intention whatsoever to establish any permanent American bases inside of Iraq. The U.S. must be clear with the people of Iraq that we seek no permanent foothold within their nation. It is critical that the U.S. be seen as on our way completely out of Iraq.

The second point is just as critical, and only by achieving the second point can the U.S. hope to convince the Iraqi people of our sincerity regarding point one. The advice that you quote from above is taken, out of the context, from what Clark considers the least worst case scenario - the strategy that he actually advocates for. What you cite in your post was Clark's advice advice ONLY IF the U.S. also changes our overall strategy and objectives in the Middle East - which he talks about in some detail elsewhere in his statement. Following the section you quote from Clark goes on to say this:

"However, if the Administration refuses to change its strategy appropriately, then I would see the need for a more rapid withdrawal of US forces, commensurate with reduced chances of success and the greater likelihood of having to reengage militarily within the region at a later time." In other words the U.S. military can not fulfill any useful mission, even a smaller and narrowly defined one, inside Iraq without wholesale changes in America's current stance toward the entire region. Failing that, Clark advises "a more rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces".

That "greater likelihood" of later having to "reengage" which Clark alludes to has a lot to do with why his appearance was so solemn. If some combination of the following comes to pass as a result of chaos spreading from a failed Iraq, we will all be facing some very difficult choices: If regional war erupts between Shiite and Sunni populations that put world oil supplies in jeopardy (it's not only the U.S.which is currently dependent of Middle Eastern Oil); if Israel's most basic national security becomes gravely threatened; and/or if a stronger Al Qaeda emerges with secure territorial enclaves inside Iraq from which large scale terrorist attacks on the U.S. on the scale of 9/11 are launched.

[disndat]

79. H.C. weasel words

She owes more than any other candidates to health corporations, Iraq war interests, Rupert Murdoch and the likes. If her plans for Iraq is followed through, she will most likely need to initiate a national draft, for a start. Notice she doesn't call for international control of post-war Iraq and fair distribution of the oil wealth to the Iraqis and international peace forces. If only the U.S. controls post-war Iraq, we will in essence still be imperialistic occupiers and the Iraqis will fight on.

[Captain Hilts]

5. He's certainly got his game face on there. He's my guy! nt

[mzmolly]

7. I'm supporting Clark for VP or Secretary of State.

I think he'll be on the Dem ticket?

[Wesin04]

15. He ought to be on the ticket

At the top. Where he belongs and where we so badly need him.

[Dinger]

35. Ding, Ding, Ding, We Have A Winner!!! n/t

[ewagner]

47. I second that Dinger!

We need a statesman like Wes Clark as opposed to another "triangulating politician".

[colorado_ufo]

58. Agree!

But we need him in any capacity he would be gracious enough to serve. Clark is an exceptional human being in every way, and his service is a gift that should be coveted by all the citizens of this nation. It is rare that someone of his intellectual stature can so relate to the average soldier, the average citizen. If only this nation would wake up and elect someone who could actually get the job done! If only our congress would wake up enough to put their personal agendas aside and listen to the one who can pull this country out of the quagmire!

I would not only have a beer with Clark, I would buy the round.

[Auntie Bush]

90. Yes, The question should be...Who would you like to buy a beer for?

Not many people would want to buy a beer for bush. Many would love to buy one for Clark...even if it's only to pick his brains...after they have indulged/feasted their eyes on that gorgeous face for a couple hours and had him whispering sweet nothings in their ears (about how to get out of this war, of course). Am I projecting?

[colorado_ufo]

104. LOL! Project away!

It is TOTALLY understandable!

[LittleClarkie]

10. The people who should be running for prez are too busy doing the things a president should do

Ironic. I suppose he's not running now.

I hope both he and Kerry have a place in the next Dem administration

[calteacherguy]

14. He may have calculated that if he runs to win the nomination, he'd have to abandoned his best advice

for what was politically expedient to win the nomination.

He would have to believe that he could win the nomination without turning his policy recommendations into some kind of a political football.

Clark is not the kind of man who is going to look at opinion polls to figure out what to say next.

[CarolNYC]

19. LittleC, I haven't totally given up on Clark running yet...

but when I see the things he's doing now and contrast it with what goes on on the campaign trail, I can understand why he'd be hesitant to run. So much of what the candidates are involved with seems so trivial. And then, as he says, everything he said would be seen through a political lens if he were a candidate.

Thank goodness there are guys like Wes and Senator Kerry who truly care about trying to save this country and the world....too busy doing the things a president should do...Yes, ironic.

[Cameron27]

99. I haven't given up either Carol,

I'm sure he realizes that his voice is stronger now, as a non-candidate, and his testimony is an important message for the Democratic Congress. But by September either our side overrides Bush, or it doesn't, and I can definitely see him announcing then.

[abburdlen]

11. It wasn't that long ago

when every time Clark spoke he gave some glimmer of hope, some reason to be concerned but not despair.

"I appeal to members of this committee to do your duty: help save our military, and help rescue our nation from the perilous consequences of our strategic blunders."

It's heart wrenching to see the damage this administration has done.

[Cameron27]

12. He's giving the administration an ultimatum

with two outcomes:

"These initial redeployments would be modest in scope, designed to stimulate internal Iraqi political dialogue, incentivize more intensive Iraqi efforts at accommodation, and underscore to the region that the United States will not be held hostage. I would like to see the withdrawal of two brigades over the next six months."

..."But this should be coupled with legislation compelling the Administration to address to Congress its strategy and regional efforts within sixty days."

..."However, if the Administration refuses to change its strategy appropriately, then I would see the need for a more rapid withdrawal of US forces, commensurate with reduced chances of success and the greater likelihood of having to reengage militarily within the region at a later time."

I think it's brilliant.

[TacticalPeek]

13. K&R

:kick:

[nevergiveup]

16. I am confused

as to how the Clinton's feel about Clark but I don't think there is much doubt about him playing a big role in either an Obama or Edwards Administration. The man is a genius as far as I am concerned.

[Donna Zen]

25. Sen. Clinton has found herself a new general

Gen. Jim Jones

I've listened to him, and find him likely to hedge; however, reading between the weasel words, he sounded like a very knowledgeable subtle imperialist. Clinton's foreign policy team comes from the beefy side of the line. I consider them old thinkers from the NYC council of foreign policy clique. They agreed with the policy of invading Iraq.

Obama's team is lead by Tony Lake. I don't know much about his philosophy, and Obama's style is not to reveal much hard info.

Edwards is currently surrounded by the hawkish element of the foreign policy school Dems.

The short story: I do not see any of those three turning to Wes Clark except to lift his ideas when time proves him correct. Yes, Clark is a genius...a real one.

[NCarolinawoman]

26. ...

:(

[Texas_Kat]

28. HC never listened to WKC before the IWR

She certainly hasn't been listening to him these days and their positions are quite different re: Iran.

Clark won't be a VP candidate with Hillary. Why would he want to....Whoever follows Cheney will be relegated to that 'undisclosed location". The next president can't been seen to be AT ALL 'run by the VP'.

Wes should be at the top of the ticket. I'm content to wait.

[Kat 333]

34. What Clark has said about Clinton ...

General Salutes 'Clinton-Clark' Ticket

February 02, 2007 4:44 PM

ABC News' Teddy Davis Reports: On the same day that he was the only Democrat allowed to speak to members of the Democratic National Committee without making his 2008 intentions known, Gen. Wesley Clark raised speculation as to whether he is angling to be Sen. Hillary Clinton's, D-N.Y., running mate.

"I'm a great admirer of Senator Clinton. I think she's terrific," Clark told ABC News with a sly smile when asked if he shared a former aide's assessment that "a Clinton-Clark ticket has a nice ring to it."

<snip>

Back in September of 2003, the New York Times reported that former President Clinton told a gathering of big campaign donors in Chappaqua, N.Y. that the Democratic Party has "two stars": his wife and Clark, the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander.

Moments before talking to ABC News, Clark stopped himself before getting on an elevator at the Washington Hilton hotel where the D.N.C. winter meeting was taking place so that he could greet D.N.C. member and Clinton confidant Harold Ickes.

"I've got to say hello to Harold Ickes," said a beaming Clark.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/02/general_salutes.html

[Adelante]

41. "I'm a great admirer of Senator Clinton. I think she's terrific"

Means he "salutes a Clinton-Clark ticket" :rofl:

They make shit up.

[Kat 333]

74. Oh I see ...

Among those flocking to his campaign are Clinton veteran gutter fighters Mark Fabiani, Bruce Lindsey, Bill Oldaker, Vanessa Weaver, George Bruno, Skip Rutherford, Peter Knight, Ron Klain and perhaps even former Clinton deputy chief of staff Harold Ickes, among others.

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2003/09/17/16463311.php



Clark's Campaign Manager Quits in Feud Over Direction of Presidential Bid
by Ron Fournier

WASHINGTON - Wesley Clark's campaign manager quit Tuesday in a dispute over the direction of the Democratic presidential bid, exposing a rift between the former general's Washington-based advisers and his 3-week-old Arkansas campaign team.

<snip>

Fowler has been at odds with communications adviser Mark Fabiani of California and policy adviser Ron Klain of Washington. All three are veterans of Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign, part of a large group of Clinton-Gore activists hired by Clark as he entered the race Sept. 17.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1007-10.htm



The fact his campaign was run by the same "pals" of the Clinton's just made me assume that statement wasn't entirely without merit.

My Bad.

[Texas_Kat]

76. Yep, your bad

A couple from your list were pretty good.... some were terrible. How many of them are working for Hillary? Only one.

As noted in the article, there were as many Gore veterans as Clinton veterans.

[Kat 333]

78. Who specified Hillary ?

Except you.

"The fact his campaign was run by the same "pals" of the Clinton's just made me assume that statement wasn't entirely without merit".


I bet most of Bill's pals are Hillary's pals too ?

[FrenchieCat]

80. The fact is that Clark came in without ever having ran a campaign for office

back in 2003. He hired who were left who had previous "experience" and considering that there were 10 other candidates, I'm sure that the list was relatively short. Many of the aides that you listed that ended up working for Clark's campaign also worked on the Gore Campaign in 2000.

I think that context is appropriate here, and that it is a no-brainer that Clark would have hired those who had worked on a winning campaign in the past if they were available. I don't find what you say to be evidence of some "conspiracy" that would the lead one to say that Clark was nefariously linked to the Clintons.

Beyond that, if the Clintons were so gunho on Clark, they would have endorsed him....and neither of them did. In fact, if the Clintons were so rooting for Clark, they could have put the squeeze on some of their media mavens to cover Clark who was ignored summarily from Late October of 2003 until the Michael Moore "he's a deserter" dust up in where Clark was smeared and held accountable for Moore's words......and McAuliff (friends of the Clintons) was unable to find a way to in any manner defend Clark against the negative media offensive that followed.....

[Tom Rinaldo]

81. ...though McAuliff had absolutely no trouble

trying to use the exact same line of attack against George Bush that Moore pioneered, once he thought that John Kerry would be the one benefiting from it. But in the critical days before the NH primary McAuliff played along with the media lynch mob that was trying to get Wes Clark to disown Michael Moore, which Clark refused to do.

[Kat 333]

88. "conspiracy" ?

"I don't find what you say to be evidence of some "conspiracy" that would the lead one to say that Clark was nefariously linked to the Clintons."

Good for you. Because that wasn't, at all, what I was saying.

[FrenchieCat]

94. Excellent! Unfortunately, many have said it.....even if they weren't you.....

and have used naming those who worked on his campaign as evidence.......so, I'm just clearing the air a bit. :shrug:

[Adelante]

82. Almost every 2004 campaign

Had one or more Clinton people, Gore people, Gephardt people, Graham people, and so forth. Clark's was one of them. You're making something out of very, very little.

[Tom Rinaldo]

83. Bottom line for me...

Clark has strongly and consistently advocated policies and positions very different than Hillary's. And not just on Iraq. Clark has taken a very different line on Iran also, and Clark is on public record saying that the U.S. needs to move toward offering a single payer health insurance plan for all Americans. You won't find Hillary saying that.

[Kat 333]

87. Exactly What Point Is It ...

That you seem to think I'm trying to make ?

My first reply simply referenced an abc article, in reply to another poster, who said they were unsure on where the Clinton's stood on Clark ...


General Salutes 'Clinton-Clark' Ticket

February 02, 2007 4:44 PM

ABC News' Teddy Davis Reports: On the same day that he was the only Democrat allowed to speak to members of the Democratic National Committee without making his 2008 intentions known, Gen. Wesley Clark raised speculation as to whether he is angling to be Sen. Hillary Clinton's, D-N.Y., running mate.

"I'm a great admirer of Senator Clinton. I think she's terrific," Clark told ABC News with a sly smile when asked if he shared a former aide's assessment that "a Clinton-Clark ticket has a nice ring to it."

<snip>

Back in September of 2003, the New York Times reported that former President Clinton told a gathering of big campaign donors in Chappaqua, N.Y. that the Democratic Party has "two stars": his wife and Clark, the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander.

Moments before talking to ABC News, Clark stopped himself before getting on an elevator at the Washington Hilton hotel where the D.N.C. winter meeting was taking place so that he could greet D.N.C. member and Clinton confidant Harold Ickes.

"I've got to say hello to Harold Ickes," said a beaming Clark.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/02/general...



Your reply to that was "They make shit up."



Then I posted excerpts from another article that pointed out the fact that Clark, when running for president, had on board many of the same people who worked on Bill Clinton's campaign assuming that, in itself, may indicate he (Clark) must have, at least, a mutual respect for the Clinton's ...


Clark's Campaign Manager Quits in Feud Over Direction of Presidential Bid
by Ron Fournier

WASHINGTON - Wesley Clark's campaign manager quit Tuesday in a dispute over the direction of the Democratic presidential bid, exposing a rift between the former general's Washington-based advisers and his 3-week-old Arkansas campaign team.

<snip>

Fowler has been at odds with communications adviser Mark Fabiani of California and policy adviser Ron Klain of Washington. All three are veterans of Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign, part of a large group of Clinton-Gore activists hired by Clark as he entered the race Sept. 17.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1007-10.htm


Then another poster replied "How many of them are working for Hillary? Only one" when, in fact, I never specified which Clinton. Also I never said anything positive or negative about the Clinton's or Clark. Was just joining in the conversation and supporting responses with links. Which, so far, you have had none. With that being said ... I'm totally unclear on what point you are trying to make ?

Edited for spelling and, mistakenly, referring to another posters reply as one of yours.

[Texas_Kat]

93. Perhaps you just need practice

Your first post to the question about how the Clinton's feel about Clark was immaterial -- since the article you posted was in reference to ABC's take on how Clark supposedly feels about the Clinton's. (A bogusly spun article using modifiers that were completely ABC-subjective, BTW)

Your second post refererenced some political pros who had variously worked for Clinton and/or Gore (who in the 90's in politics HADN'T worked for one or the other?) plus some sort of reference to Donnie Fowler's departure in the first 3 weeks of Clark's neophyte campaign as though that was some indication that .... What? I didn't get the point of that one at all... except to try to tie the Clintons to Clark. "The friend of my employee is my friend....?" That's a stretch.

Your third post seemed to indicate that you weren't talking about Hillary at all -- REMINDER: BIll isn't running in 08 -- and you threw in a references to Hill/Bill-y's 'pals' for some reason. (Yes, it's possible to have a more positive acquaintance with one or the other Clinton but not both.)

[Kat 333]

96. Perhaps You Doth Protest Too Much ...

In the first article, I posted, Clark was quoted as saying "I'm a great admirer of Senator Clinton. I think she's terrific,"

The same article offered another direct Quote from Clark - "I've got to say hello to Harold Ickes."

As far as the comments made by the writer of the piece such as ...
"Moments before talking to ABC News, Clark stopped himself before getting on an elevator at the Washington Hilton hotel where the D.N.C. winter meeting was taking place so that he could greet D.N.C. member and Clinton confidant Harold Ickes." and the bit about a sly smile who really gives a shit ?

It was CLARK'S QUOTES (get it) that was the point of posting the article. It was in response to another poster who made the statement "I am confused as to how the Clinton's feel about Clark".

Now ... until you can show me a link where he refutes saying these things I can only assume that it's you who is "making shit up".

[Jai4WKC08]

110. You must be a real media novice

If you think any quote can be taken at face value if the alleged speaker isn't given the opportunity to refute or explain it in context.

That said, I'm not doubting that Clark said what ABC quoted. As I said earlier, he's said similar things about other leading Democrats. It's just ABC's (and your) interpretation that's absurd.

[Kat 333]

98. btw

Your statement ...

"Your first post to the question about how the Clinton's feel about Clark was immaterial -- since the article you posted was in reference to ABC's take on how Clark supposedly feels about the Clinton's.


I realize it must be awfully confusing for you but it actually Did address how former President Clinton felt about Clark.
(See below).

<snip>

Back in September of 2003, the New York Times reported that former President Clinton told a gathering of big campaign donors in Chappaqua, N.Y. that the Democratic Party has "two stars": his wife and Clark, the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/02/general_salutes.html


And before you feel the need to remind me, once again, that It's Hillary that is a presidential candidate I will remind you, once again, that the post was in reply to the question "as to how the Clinton's feel about Clark". The poster didn't specify which Clinton.

[Jai4WKC08]

43. He's said similar things about most of the other Democratic leaders

I specifically recall Kerry, Dean, and Feingold, just to name a few.

But hey, if ABC says "she's terrific" it means Clark would like to be Clinton's running mate, it must be true.
:sarcasm:

[Kat 333]

103. ABC said no such thing. Clark did.

Maybe try reading the article so you have some clue what the hell you're talking about.
And that is said with No "SARCASM" ... Just pure reality.

[Jai4WKC08]

109. Calm down. Just a typo.

I know perfectly well Clark said, "she's terrific." It was the ABC idiot who said such a compliment means Clark would like to be Clinton's VP. And that's complete bullshit. Maybe he would, maybe not (I'd bet money not), but saying something nice about another leading Democrat is hardly any indication.

Ya know, I'll admit I had an errant pronoun in my sentence. But was it really that hard to figure out?

[Texas_Kat]

55. Apparently I know more about what he said than you (or ABC) do

Most of the story you referenced is ABC's characterization of his attitude and his remarks -- look at the adjectives: "....with a sly smile" and " ... beaming ...."

I know a bit of the backstory.... and ABC was spinning it way out of reality based on their own biases.

The truth was more like:

"... with a bemused smile" (since he was getting asked the same idiotic question every time he was accosted by a reporter during February) and

"....said a preoccupied Clark." (since he had several major issues on his mind -- none of which involved Hillary and her ambitions).

The 'former aide" was Chris Lehane who is a friend of Hillary. That should speak volumes....

[Cameron27]

60. ROFL, boy you really nailed it

they absolutely used adjectives to spin the story. How clever, but completely disingenuous.

/spelling

[Texas_Kat]

69. Straight out of Lehane's playbook

...

[FrenchieCat]

20. He looks weary.....and so he should. He's been prothetically ahead of the curve for years......

and he get so little credit!

Even his attempt to head off a disaster in Iran have been summarily ignored by most.

What a backward country we are!

[Auntie Bush]

22. Yes, we are a backward stupid country. Everyone... Dem or Rethug

should be demanding he run for president and vote him into office. Is everyone blind? Can't they see we NEED him for our very own survival.
I can't believe he's sooo intelligent...what a well thought out presentation! Let's hope someone is listening.

[windbreeze]

21. Hear Hear!! General Clark....

and Thank you...brilliant as always...and yes, he certainly looks concerned...which in turn worries me...
windbreeze

[iconocrastic]

24. He's just tired

Hard working guy.

[1932]

27. "At the most benign level, the US is in hot competition economically..."

"...to capture its share of oil exports and earnings, and to sell its share of goods and services. Our long term dependability has been a winning factor in building enduring US influence and commercial penetration in the region. Second, the US works to assure to security and safety of the state of Israel, within the broader interest of seeking to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and helping Israel assure its long term survival and success within the region. Third, the United States is engaged in a three-decades long struggle against Iranian extremism, which has manifested itself through terror bombing against US forces, harassment of oil shipping lanes, the pursuit of a long range, nuclear strike capability, Iranian interference in Lebanon, and, of course, assisted by our topping of Saddam Hussein, within Iraq itself. Finally, the US is caught up in the almost ten-year-old struggle against Al Qaeda."

The author of the book in my signature line has a very different take on the things Clark describes in this paragraph.

[calteacherguy]

30. Please tell me exactly what part of that paragraph you most disagree with.

Let's take it a sentence or phrase at time.

[Amonester]

46. first: "...to capture its share of oil exports and earnings"

1. How big is "its" share?

Last I heard, "its" share was nearing 80% of Iraq's oil ("free")...

[calteacherguy]

66. Let's put things back in context.

The United States is today engaged in a four-fold struggle in the Middle East, and each of the struggles is interconnected with the others. At the most benign level, the US is in hot competition economically, to capture its share of oil exports and earnings, and to sell its share of goods and services. Our long term dependability has been a winning factor in building enduring US influence and commercial penetration in the region.

Clark is emphasizing Iraq is part of a larger regional dynamic, and merely stating the obvious: The U.S. IS in "hot competion economically...in the region." Whether one likes that reality or not, that's the reality. He is giving an historical perpective. That is the most "benign" level because it does not involve armed conflict.

As for how Clark feels about Iraqis and their oil:

"Most important, oil revenues should be declared the property of the central government, not the provinces" 12/6/05

http://securingamerica.com/oped/nyt/2005-12-06

The purpose of Clark's testimony was to offer "the least worst" of the choices available at the present moment, which requires acknowledging the reality of our influence and economic ties in the region, whether one agrees with those ties and how we came to have them or not.

[Tom Rinaldo]

70. Yes, but Clark gave an overview of interests generally accepted as legitimate

As one of the world's major economic powers the United States will continue to consume large amounts of oil for the immediate forseeable future, even if we do move strongly toward conservation and renewable resourses as Clark and many other Democrats advocate strongly for.

So the question of relative legitimacy hinges on the definition of "its share", who is using that term and what their true agenda is. The United States under President Thompson would seek to insure that it was able to get it's share of Middle East oil. And so would the United States under President Edwards. When mom serves apple pie after dinner no one would argue that every kid shouldn't get their share. It might be a different story though if one kid thought his share was 90% and he threatened to beat up anyone who touched "his share."

Clark was reviewing a relatively constant and widely accepted late 20th century/early 21st century definition list of basic American interests in the Middle East. He was commenting at the meta level there, not getting down to the level of strategic policy. That's where the major differences lie. For example it might be the policy of a President Edwards to enter into fair and mutually respectful contracts with Middle Eastern nations to purchase oil that is essential to our economy at fair market values, while working to reduce our dependency on oil. It might be the policy of a President Thompson to extort Middle Eastern nations into giving American firms sweetheart deals which allow them to control and profit from their oil resourses, while undermining domestic efforts inside the United States to develop alternatives to Middle Eastern Oil.

[Adelante]

73. I think it's important to note

Clark has always insisted that oil revenues be under the complete control of the Iraqis.

[1932]

100. "At the most benign level"

According to the book below in my sig line, only confused Americans would see the US role in the ME since the '50s as being on a scale that begins at benign. Exploitative or repressive would be good starting points. Violent is a good starting point. Contrary to the best interests of the people in that region -- I would also think of that as an apt characterization.

"hot competition economically"
Competition is a very generous characterization for what we're doing in the ME.

"to capture its share of oil exports and earnings"
What are they doing with our oil under their sand? How would Americans feel if Iraqis thought of Iowa wheat as belonging to them? What if they came over here with some "hot competion" to get "their share" of it?

"and to sell its share of goods and services."
Read the book. It explains what that's all about (protecting the dollar) and we don't so much sell them these things as we force them to buy them with a not-so-veiled threat of either economic sabotage or, if that doesn't work, by violence (whether by our armies or by assassins).

"Our long term dependability has been a winning factor in building enduring US influence and commercial penetration in the region."
Not so much "dependability" as it is "reliability" and what they can rely on us to do is subvert either covertly or with our army any government that doesn't play ball.

"Second, the US works to assure the security and safety of the state of Israel, within the broader interest of seeking to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and helping Israel assure its long term survival and success within the region."
The book has a lot to say about how people in the ME perceive this one. It is perceived as having more to do with supporting Israel so that there's a destabilizing force in the ME which helps the US, how should we say, "pursue its share through hot competition".

"Third, the United States is engaged in a three-decades long struggle against Iranian extremism, which has manifested itself through terror bombing against US forces, harassment of oil shipping lanes, the pursuit of a long range, nuclear strike capability, Iranian interference in Lebanon, and, of course, assisted by our topping of Saddam Hussein, within Iraq itself."
Why start at three decades? Why not go back five decades? Oops, because that would capture the true cause of Iranian instability -- the fact that we ruined their one chance at a real democracy because it would have interfered with the US getting "our share" of what's under their sand.

"Finally, the US is caught up in the almost ten-year-old struggle against Al Qaeda."
Ok.

[FrenchieCat]

101. I believe that Clark understands very well,

"We've encouraged Saddam Hussein and supported him as he attacked against Iran in an effort to prevent Iranian destabilization of the Gulf. That came back and bit us when Saddam Hussein then moved against Kuwait. We encouraged the Saudis and the Pakistanis to work with the Afghans and build an army of God, the mujahaddin, to oppose the Soviets in Afghanistan. Now we have released tens of thousands of these Holy warriors, some of whom have turned against us and formed Al Qaida.

My French friends constantly remind me that these are problems that we had a hand in creating. So when it comes to creating another strategy, which is built around the intrusion into the region by U.S. forces, all the warning signs should be flashing. There are unintended consequences when force is used. Use it as a last resort. Use it multilaterally if you can. Use it unilaterally only if you must." - Wes Clark
9/26/02
Addressing the Armed Force Committee in testimony

--------------------

"During 2002 and early 2003, Bush administration officials put forth a shifting series of arguments for why we needed to invade Iraq. Nearly every one of these has been belied by subsequent events. We have yet to find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; assuming that they exist at all, they obviously never presented an imminent threat. Saddam's alleged connections to al Qaeda turned out to be tenuous at best and clearly had nothing to do with September 11. The terrorists now in Iraq have largely arrived because we are there, and Saddam's security forces aren't. And peace between Israel and the Palestinians, which prominent hawks argued could be achieved "only through Baghdad," seems further away than ever.

President Bush's approach to Iraq and to the Middle East in general has been greatly influenced by a group of foreign-policy thinkers whose defining experience was as hawkish advisors to President Reagan and the first President Bush, and who in the last few years have made an explicit comparison between Middle Eastern regimes and the Soviet Union. These neoconservatives looked at the nest of problems caused by Middle East tyranny and argued that a morally unequivocal stance and tough military action could topple those regimes and transform the region as surely as they believed that Reagan's aggressive rhetoric and military posture brought down the Soviet Union.

This dream of engineering events in the Middle East to follow those of the Soviet Union has led to an almost unprecedented geostrategic blunder. One crucial reason things went wrong, I believe, is that the neoconservatives misunderstood how and why the Soviet Union fell and what the West did to contribute to that fall. They radically overestimated the role of military assertiveness while underestimating the value of other, subtler measures. They then applied those theories to the Middle East, a region with very different political and cultural conditions. The truth is this: It took four decades of patient engagement to bring down the Iron Curtain, and 10 years of deft diplomacy to turn chaotic, post-Soviet states into stable, pro-Western democracies. To achieve the same in the Middle East will require similar engagement, patience, and luck." --Wes Clark, May 2004
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.clark.html


"WHILE the Bush administration and its critics escalated the debate last week over how long our troops should stay in Iraq, I was able to see the issue through the eyes of America's friends in the Persian Gulf region. The Arab states agree on one thing: Iran is emerging as the big winner of the American invasion, and both President Bush's new strategy and the Democratic responses to it dangerously miss the point. It's a devastating critique. And, unfortunately, it is correct.

While American troops have been fighting, and dying, against the Sunni rebels and foreign jihadists, the Shiite clerics in Iraq have achieved fundamental political goals: capturing oil revenues, strengthening the role of Islam in the state, and building up formidable militias that will defend their gains and advance their causes as the Americans draw down and leave. Iraq's neighbors, then, see it evolving into a Shiite-dominated, Iranian buffer state that will strengthen Tehran's power in the Persian Gulf just as it is seeks nuclear weapons and intensifies its rhetoric against Israel.

The American approach shows little sense of Middle Eastern history and politics. As one prominent Kuwaiti academic explained to me, in the Muslim world the best way to deal with your enemies has always been to assimilate them - you never succeed in killing them all, and by trying to do so you just make more enemies. Instead, you must woo them to rejoin society and the government. Military pressure should be used in a calibrated way, to help in the wooing." --Wes Clark, 12/06/05
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/06/opinion/06clark.html?ei=5090&en=54d89019ebc70bb2&ex=1291525200&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

[1932]

102. What about Clark's sense of US entitlement to a share of ME'ern wealth?

What about his interpretation of the US activities as benign "hot competition"? What about the idea that it's US "dependability" that helped the US "penetrate" ME markets, and not the US's willingness to subvert (and invade) governments that don't play ball?

Incidentally, your second quote sounds like it's endorsement of sublte subversions, your third quote doesn't seem relevant to these issues, and you first quote is much too narrow. US culpability for the state of the ME is not limited to those things.

[Jai4WKC08]

108. No such thing -- you're making that up... again

Clark has never said anything at all to imply that the US is "entitled" to any other nation's resources.

What I want to know is why you single out Clark for criticism. Even by your definition, he is absolutely less imperialistic than Clinton or Edwards, and probably Obama (I don't recall that Obama has ever spoken on the subject either way).

[Tom Rinaldo]

111. This is nonsense 1932

I just did a rough count. The entire text you are trying to dissect and somehow blow up into a manifesto of Clark's personal beliefs comes to approximately 150 words. They were written in the context of examining what U.S. options relative to Iraq currently are. Those 150 words are an extremely cursorary overview of the primary U.S. national interests that essentially every member of Congress concedes currently requires a degree of American attention in the Middle East. That overview was given to provide a context for Clark making the argument that American interests are regional, they are not confined to what happens next inside Iraq, and therefor efforts to resolve the disasterous American occupation of Iraq should also take larger regional issues into consideration also, because ALL of the players, not just the U.S., including factions inside Iraq and all of Iraq's neighbors, have regional interests at stake also. Enough of hiding our head in the sand and pretending that what is going on inside Iraq is confined to a problem created by Al Qaeda.

And you are playing with words again for God knows what purpose since I never see you do this with anything said by any other Democrat about the Middle East. Granted most other Democrats rarely say anything of substance about the Middle East, maybe because if you keep your mouth shut no one can attack you for what you say. But OK, if you insist:

Clark wrote; "At the most benign level, the US is in hot competition economically to capture its share of oil exports and earnings, and to sell its share of goods and services." Clark never interpreted all U.S. activities as benign hot competition, did he? That is your spin on Clark's words. Clark said "at the most benign level..." which to me directly implies that there are less benign levels also, since you can only have a most bengn level if there also are other levels that are less benign. In so many words Clark said here that right now, as matters stand, the U.S. economy needs access to large amounts of Middle East Oil so as not to go into a depression. He didn't advocate invading nations to steal their oil. He didn't advocate bribing fledling dependent governments into giving sweetheart deals to American energy corporations. He didn't advocate policies that keep the United States dependent on Middle Eastern Oil reserves. He stated a fact. Do you disagree with that fact? Do you think the U.S. economy could withstand a cut off of oil from the Middle East without serious harm?

Overall what Clark was doing here is rattling off a check list of the Middle East issues that most Americans acknowledge that America has some type of legitimate concern regarding. Again, this is a side bar to the heart of his presentation which was about Iraq, but Clark used his testimony to repeatedly point out that decisions America makes about Iraq and our relatios to Iraq's neighbors including Iran relative to their stance regarding Iraq, should not be viewed in a vacuum. He was not laying out a defense of an ideology, and it is disingenuous of you to twist his comments now in that fashion.

So lets go back to Clark words and how you spun them, becasue I think it is damn ugly and you should know and write better than that. The post I am replying to created a straw man set of beliefs that you force onto Clark. Here is your subject line:

"What about Clark's sense of US entitlement to a share of ME'ern wealth?" That's absolute bullshit 1932. I suppose you construct that Clark has a sense of U.S. entitlement from this phrase; "to capture its share of oil exports and earnings" but you ignore the next phrase which gives a clear indication of how Clark was actually using the term "share"; which of course is "market share" which has nothing whatsoever to do with "entitlement", it is a basic measurement of trade in both directions. Clark's next phrase was; "and to sell its share of goods and services". Wake up and smell the coffee 1932, we live in a Capitalist nation. The last time I looked none of the Democratic candidates running for President were Marxists, certainly not your boy John Edwards who just earned half a million advising a Hedge Fund and attended the Bilderberg conference: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F05E3DA103BF932A25754C0A9629C8B63

Every company wants to hold onto or expand "it's share of the market", this is basic economic language, not necesarilly a theory involving some kind of divine entitlement. Clark was not speaking at an afternoon long session at some confernence devoted to the means by which major nation states pursue national objectives. He stated basic facts. The American people do not want the supply of oil that the U.S. now receives from the Middle East to be suddenly and dramatically restricted 1932, trust me on that one. I have enough faith in most American's basic sense of fair play to add that I doubt most Americans want us to steal oil either, but they do want America to acquire it as long as we need it. And there is competition for oil contracts. China, for example, is moving aggressively (which is not the same as ruthlessly) to lock up future access to strategic oil, and so is Western Europe even though they are "our friends".

As for your question about US "dependability" that helped the US "penetrate" ME markets and not the US's willingness to subvert (and invade) governments that don't play ball; may I remind you that you are supporting a candidate for President who not only voted for the IWR (and co-sponsored it) but one who actually agreed with George Bush that Iraq NEEDED TO BE INVADED, and later stood by that assessment supporting the invasion of Iraq for months ATER the American occupation of Iraq began, even AFTER it was discovered that Iraq had no WMD's. Do you perhaps have a double standard going here?

Clark's comments were in the context of reminding Congress that the U.S. had a consistent policy toward the Middle East for several decades under Presidents of both Parties. In specific, although we always guarenteed Israel's existence and maintained close ties with Israel, we also were able to be just objective enough to play a role as a peace broker between Israel and it's Arab neighbors because until George W. Bush, the U.S. periodically was willing to apply economic and military pressure (by witholding arms) to Israel when that nation acted in a manner against U.S. forein policy interests. Oil rich nation's in the Gulf beleived that their concerns in tbat regard would at least be given serious consideration and that the U.S. State Department was not tucked safely into the back pocket of Likud.

Here are the words Clark said: "Our long term dependability has been a winning factor in building enduring US influence and commercial penetration in the region". Note the phrase "winning factor". Again, Clark did not rule out other factors at play, he stressed the factor that was relevent to the reason for his testimony before Congress, whcih was an exploration of the policy choices facing America right now and how that impacts on the situation in Iraq. Under George W. Bush the American stance toward Israel has taken a hard right turn, and yes, that may well end up endangering our access to Middle Eastern Oil supplies.

Kindly point me to the comments of your preferred candidate for President where he attacks American imperialist aims inside the Middle East and the history of American intimidation that allowed American energy corporations to rape that region of it's oil. I have already read his comments advocating an American invasion of a middle Eastern nation when there still was a chance to stop it.

[1932]

115. First question:

have you read either of John Perkins' two most recent books?

[Tom Rinaldo]

117. Actually no

though I am generally aware of Perkins. "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" was one of the most touted books at the Clark Community Network Book Club. It was just edged out by "Hostile Takeover" in polling for the book most urgent to read at the time:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/7297

I at no point have argued that the U.S. is sweetness and light in it's dealings with other nations. It hasn't been dating back to the Monroe Doctrine. On this thread my point is that you are using brief comments made for a very specific purpose out of context in a distorted manner, not that there is not truth to the larger issues you are concerned about. That truth however can be thrown in the faces of all leading members of America's political class including all of the Democrats currently running for President with only a partial exception for Denis Kucinich. The most important political debate now bubbling up in America is whether or not the U.S. should attack Iran to stop them from getting nuclear weapons, not whether the early 50's C.I.A. backed coup in Iran was immoral. I suggest we focus for the moment on getting the U.S. out of one war and preventing it from starting another.

[1932]

118. So, can we talk about this after you've read one or both of them?

And I'd also love to see WelshTerrier2's Table for One exchange with Clark again, because I think it supports what I am arguing here.

[Tom Rinaldo]

121. Sure, if we can discuss the views of other leading Democrats also.

And I always welcome exchanges with WelshTerrier2, we've had many good ones in the past. I am open to having productive exchanges with you also. Feel free to PM me in a month or so to ask if I've read one of those books yet, if I haven't it would serve as a good reminder.

[1932]

123. If only we had two long books written by the other candidates

and repeated statements and interviews restating the same message over and over again, as we do for Clark. (And just because we don't, doesn't mean we're not allowed to comment on Clark's world view -- don't you agree?)

And, incidentally, I think Clark's world view is pretty clear. He thinks that everything else the US has done up to invasion in order to pursue US economic interests in the Middle East is legitimate and has worked, and that it is benign (with the aberration of the response to the Cold War, which were justified by what was at stake during the Cold War). And, even if he constructs his argument in a way that implies that it is some third party who might call it benign, I think it's fair to attribute to Clark the view that the US role in the ME is, in his opinion, benign.

People like John Perkins have written books convincingly arguing that things like the invasion of Iraq are just the third step in a very consistent 3-step intimidation process that the US has applied all over the globe since the Eisenhower administration. You can read Stephen Kinzer's book Overthrow, or his book All the Shah's Men, or any of Chalmers Johnson's books, or Graham Greene's book about Omar Torrijos, or Richard Gott's books about Cuba and Venezuela, which give a very different perspective on the nature and consequences of America's hot competition for other countries' natural resources.

And, for now, I just have to point out that the thing that I think is so obvious about the core issue in all these statements by Clark (and especially in the exchange with WelshTerrier2 at Table for One), is not the *availability* of oil (or any other resource) to the US, but who profits from it. Clark in all these statements takes as a given the legitimacy of an American strategy that results not in AMERICANS getting cheap oil, but in American corporations getting cheap oil (which they then sell to American consumers for whatever price the market can bear). (After all, if anyone were worried about the American consumer getting cheap oil, she'd probably be talking about nationalizing the oil industry so that we could take out the profit component.) The alternative world where the US does not manipulate governments and doesn't use its web of economic oppression is not one in which American consumers pay more for oil (because we will always pay what the market bears). It is a world in which American corporations make lower profits on oil (or whatever resource less powerful countries have). Even your lecture above about the nature of capitalism is, I think, a dodge of this issue which most all of the books I'm citing take head on as the central issue in American post-WW2 foreign policy.

Incidentally, here's a quote from Clark that I think is hard to believe after reading the books I mention in this post:

But the American way was not to rely on coercion and hard pressure, but on persuasion and shared vision. To an unprecedented extent, the United States had been benign and magnanimous as a victor of World War II. Sharing international power through the United Nations system, deeply involved in assisting the reconstruction of the German, Japanese, and Korean economies, hosting foreign students and encouraging exchange programs, speaking out against the old colonial empires, receiving immigrants, the United States became a model for nations around the world. American principles expressed in the Bill of Rights inspired others around the world. We were palpably uninterested in classical empire-our motives were consistent with those of dozens of struggling freedom movements around the world. For our potential competitors in the developed world, the combination of U.S. economic strength and American ideals was difficult to oppose. For two-thirds of a century the United States was generally viewed as the most admired nation in the world. To an important degree, American power in the 20th century was what Joseph Nye, dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, calls "soft power," the power to persuade, based on American values. It gave us an influence far beyond the hard edge of traditional balance-of-power politics, based less on physically occupying countries and imposing laws and institutions, or even on wielding our enormous economic and military strength, as old colonialists might have done, and more on leading by example, on transparency, and outreach.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0311.clark.html

Incidentally, there's that word "benign" again. I think that, in this case, we can definitely attribute that opinion about American (virtual) Empire to Clark, wouldn't you agree? And which countries around the world do you think feel that US influence on their governments has been benign post WW2? I suppose Germany and Japan could say that, but their comparison is to having he shit bombed out of them. Which Latin American country would say that? Would Indonesia say that? Would East Timor say that? Would Iran say that?

Oh, by the way, "sharing power through the U.N. system"? Really? I think it's Chalmers Johnson who catalogs all the examples of the U.S. ignoring the U.N. when it tried to hold the U.S. accountable for abuses of power or insisted on actions that contradicted U.S. interests.

Incidentally, the next paragraph after the quote above is pretty interesting. Clark acknowledges some of the oppressive tactics used by the U.S. gov't (how could you not?), but he attributes them to having to fight the Cold War and says "The end of the Cold War removed the source of these contradictions in U.S. policy, leaving the United States free not only to expound principles but also to encourage more directly those that aligned with our values."

Who here at DU really believes (1) that the Cold War was the real reason the U.S. did things like supported a coup against Allende?, and (2) that after the USSR fell apart, the motivation evaporated?

I think it is pretty obvious that with many (if not all) of the governments the US undermined, the US knew that there was no real Soviet threat. The US does what it does because the profits of US corporations are threatened by any kind of government not on board with Washington Consensus economic policy, and we can see clearly that that motivation continues to exist after the fall of the USSR, and continues to drive US foreign policy, and continues to undermine its "morality", as it has for 55 years. (For historical perspective: Gott's book on Cuba covers this issue in relation to to Cuba, and you can read The Pinochet File if you have any questions about Chile; for contemporary perspective, just read the newspaper -- but Venezuela offers a great example).

If Clark's argument is (and I think it clearly is) that the US needs to get back on the foreign policy trajectory the US has been on since the 50s, that Bush interrupted after 2001, then the core problem is not going to be solved. The trajectory of increasing the power of the US at the cost of other countries having their own sovereignty, dignity and self-sustaining, wealth-producing economies is going perpetuate all the problems you'd expect polarization of power causes.

The US needs to be honest about what American foreign policy has achieved over the last 5 decades and needs to talk about a different path, and not getting back on the same path.

[Tom Rinaldo]

124. I want to make one thing clear from the start

I absolutely reject the logic of your statement:

"If only we had two long books written by the other candidates and repeated statements and interviews restating the same message over and over again, as we do for Clark. (And just because we don't, doesn't mean we're not allowed to comment on Clark's world view -- don't you agree?)"

The implication from that is "Aw shucks, we just have no way of knowing what the people who don't write books really believe in - so we can't discuss their views on matters like this." I turn your logic around; the people who you refer to who "have not written books" for the most part are people who came to the public and asked for their trust to represent them in government. They are people who served in Congress; they are people who vote on the budget every year for all of the programs that the United States participates in. They fund the United Nations. They pay for the military. They enact the tax codes with corporate loopholes. They are the ones who sit in on the closed hearings and confidential briefings. They are the people who confirm presidential appointments to executive offices. They are people who sit in the hearings on issues big and small and decide what matters warrent legislative attention and which ones don't. The are the people who are directly accountable for how the United States government has or has not operated over the last several decades either through their action or their inaction.

People who have served in Federal government during whatever time period you chose to focus on are the ones who have direct accountability for what they either allowed to happen or not happen during their watch in government. And when their power to bring about fundemental change fell short of that needed to accomplish noble and necessary goals, they are the people who have always had a platform to speak out from in protest, as duly elected Senators and Congressional Representatives with tax payer paid offices and staff on their payroll, and mailing privildeges and travel budgets to reach out directly to the public, not to mention direct access to the media.

So I start out with an assumption then that Democrats who have been elected to federal offices ARE on record about all of this. If they did not actively oppose the overall thrust of American involvement in the world that so concerns you then they were party to it. Actions speak louder than words. In a representative Democracy we the people handed them our proxy votes to steer our nation through this world. Even if they didn't write books they actually voted on the budgets, they held the hearings, they vetted federal appointments, and they ran on platforms. If the issues that concern you were not chosen as campaign issues to speak up on when these people asked us for our votes, than their silence on them speaks louder than written words, because these are the people who got to vote on what is best for America. I tire, 1932, of your compulsion to pin the evils of American capitalism on a man who never has never had the power to investigate and change them, contrasted by your frequent silence regarding Democrats who we elected to positions of power where they were and are duty sworn to safeguard our liberties and represent our true values in the world.

It is not for a personal dislike of John Edwards that I indirectly referenced him in an earlier post to you on this thread. There is much that is admirable about John Edwards, as there is much that is admirable about Wes Clark. Yet you came onto this Clark themed thread to call into question his judgement and committment to values that many here on DU hold dear. You pin the tail of imperialism on a Wes Clark donkey and argue that he furthers negative ends using sentances like this one to frame your argument:

"People like John Perkins have written books convincingly arguing that things like the invasion of Iraq are just the third step in a very consistent 3-step intimidation process that the US has applied all over the globe since the Eisenhower administration."

And yet, 1932, it was not Wes Clark who sponsored the resolution that opened the doors for an invasion of Iraq. It was not Wes Clark whose passionate arguments about the need to confront Hussein in Iraq got featured on George Bush's White House Web Site. It was not Wes Clark who literally supported invading Iraq when and how we did for the reasons articualted by George Bush. It was not Wes Clark who appeared on Hardball three months into the literal American occupation of Iraq, knowing then that no WMD's had been found in Iraq, to unflinchingly reaffirm his belief that the invasion of Iraq was justified. Yet you have no harsh judgement for the person who did all of those things. Instead you support him for President.I find that to be, at the very least, intellectually inconsistent and perhaps worse.

So no, I will not be confined by you to a discussion that limits itself to arguments over the interpretation of passages in two books to the exclusion of the record in government of those who we have elected to represent us there.

As to your repeated references to WelchTerrier2's short written exchange with Clark at Table for One, I am no more willing to non critically except your version of what was said and what was implied there than I was to accept your version of what Clark said and what he implied in his Congressional testimony that is the subject of this thread. I went to the trouble to confront you line by line with the ways I felt you twisted Clark's words in that case and it's as if that effort fell on deaf ears. Why do I bother some might ask? I believe you are intelligent with much to offer 1932, I believe you hold true progressive values, but you continually have infuriated me with the way you take liberty with words, and it is a pain staking effort to deconstruct your claims and point our exactly how your read is a subjective version of the truth that you may well subscribe to but which is not objectively supported by those words. So when I actually go to the effort, and you respond by switching the subject, like you have here by asking me if I had read Perkin's books, it is very very frustrating.

I was on that site when the exchange you reference with WT2 took place, and I strongly dispute your read on what was actually said. If one is bold enough to write two entire books on a complex subject, it is not hard for an adversary to find selected passages that can be wripped out of the context of the whole work and reframed in a negative light. But you are capable of doing the same with virtually any snippet of a statement that Clark makes. You did that earlier on this thread and I took you on regarding that. It is time consuming to repeatedly do this 1932, and if your interest in attacking American imperialism continues to seemingly begin and end with your negative critique of Republicans, Right Wing Democrats, and Wesley Clark, I won't play that game with you. I am trying to be honest with you here. These are my true feelings.

The critique you make applies to at least 95% of the Democratic party 1932 at the level of elected officials. Stop passing it off as some unique slam on Wes Clark and we can talk about it intelligently. Admit that, like it or not, what Clark writes about is highly representative of the views of the vast majority of Democratics who now hold or have held office, except for those conservative Democrats who think the U.S. should lead more with our military, and then our discussion can become interesting. But as long as our discussion takes the form of an endless attempt of "Gotcha" regarding Clark, I have more productive things to do with my time. And if you want to have an honest discussion, rather than simply lay a series of rhetorical intellectual traps to try to catch Wes Clark in, then you might want to read more about why I support Clark. I can point you directly to those writings.

You can start with the introduction to my own blog: "A Left Turn FOR CLARK" which you will find here:
http://www.aleftturnforclark.com/2006/10/more_about_me_and_this_blog.html#more

[1932]

125. ..and I want to make one thing clear

people should read those books I listed and, if they feel persuaded by them to advocate for a new direction in American politics, they should feel comfortable doing so in whatever forum they come accross.

[Tom Rinaldo]

126. Fair enough, and no doubt good advice. n/t

[ConsAreLiars]

127. Tom, I agree with 1932 that you (we, everyone) should read those books, and I suspect that Clark

already knows a lot of what is contained in them. It seems when he talks about America he talks of the ideal of America, the Jeffersonian "anti-imperialist" ideal. The reality, as 1932 points out, is far from that ideal, and so his words seem, in that sense, to be debatable.

But even if more reading is a bit hard to fit in your schedule, it is well worth a part of an hour to listen to Perkins on Democracy Now! - http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/09/1526251 . Watch the video rather than just reading the transcript, since it gives more cues about the meaning behind the words. As I said, I suspect Clark understands that history, if not in full detail, and speaks more about what should be, rather than what has been, America's role in the world.

[Tom Rinaldo]

128. I strongly suspect the same, ConsAreLiars

Clark is a man who studies the art of getting from here to there, there is no such thing as "should be" in war. Either you find a path to reach your objective or you remain pinned down where you are. I believe that Clark believes summoning up the image of an ideal America is one of the most powerful tools available to bridge the gap between where we find ourselves now and becoming an America that consistently behaves in that manner. That is a call that a braod cross section of Americans instinctively can relate and respond to, a much broader cross section than the anti-American policy critiques which the left tends to produce seems capable of reaching. Clark, in my opinion, seeks the strongest foundation possible to build an American initiative for fundemental change upon, and in regards to foreign policy that is the semi-mythical Jeffersonian "anti-imperialist" ideal rooted in the American sub conscious. So he speaks in that language, and he frames using those ideals.

It is part of the psychological mechanism by which Clark suceeds at being a stealth progressive, able to to win support from mainstream even conservative Americans who don't view him as a radical, because he walks the walk and talks the talk of an American patriot. The fact that the patriots who Clark often conjurs up tend to be men like Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson doesn't trigger any alarms for most Americans because we all have been taught in school to have reverence for men like Thomas Paine and Thomas Jerfferson. Michael Moore does some of this also in his films. Sicko is full of references to a love of America and the generosity of spirit of the American people. It emotionally opens up and hooks in his knee jerk detractors sitting in the theater watching the film. Suddenly Moore isn't against them, he is one of them. Suddenly Moore isn't anti-American, it's those insureance companies who are anti-American

I will quote from some of the writing that I linked to above for 1932 to read because it speaks to the theme you touch on:

"A moment I will never forget took place in, I think, late 1969 (OK, obviously I forget the exact time, lol). I was living on Long Island New York attending College. I was swept up back then in the sense that everything was possible, never doubting: "we can change the world" (anyone remember Thunderclap Newman?). I had watched from afar as old France almost dissolved with the French Student Workers "revolt" in 1968. Woodstock Nation still seemed likely, maybe even inevitable.

For some reason I was in Queens County that day (a part of New York City) in a very gritty urban environment. I stood in the middle of a main commercial district, with swarms of people crossing streets holding shopping bags, not fancy ones mind you, just groceries and the like. Lot's of massive Apartment buildings, buses spewing out black exhaust. No hip clothing in sight, no hippies either, in fact no “youth culture” of any sort, really, to speak of. Just a lot of older folks mostly, a lot of ethnic diversity, and not so much money.

Back on campus students had been discussing for over a year how social and political upheavals had brought us to the brink of a Second American Revolution. But I looked around that day and thought to myself, what kind of Revolution will touch all of this? It was as they say a sobering moment. Looking back on it now, there was no cohesive strategy from the student Left to reach that neighborhood in Queens. “Power to the people”? These were the people, and they weren’t hearing our chants...

...And this is where I diverge from some of my fellow leftists who say; focus on the system, because the system is at fault. I agree with the blame, but not the focus. I say focus on the people, because without the people, the system will never change. It’s that day in Queens that never left me. In some ways old radicals like me look out now on the worst of both worlds. Most people still don’t hear our revolutionary cries, and the fires that blaze threaten to engulf us all. We have to deal with the present, we have to deal with the future, and we need an effective place to start.

I’ve been doing this long enough by now to see that a solution without a strategy solves nothing. To change America, to change the world, requires both a political and psychological strategy that can actually be effective...

...Wes Clark never rails against America, and that puts some leftists off. How can anyone be blind to the sins of our past and present? There is much to attack about America as we know it, and leftists are superb at doing just that. They excelled at that in the 60’s also. I remember, I was them. Its 40 years and thousands of demonstrations later, and big problems remain with how America relates to the world, and injustice at home continues. One thing I know for certain is, that’s not because the more sordid truths about America have not been told and told repeatedly.

I know, I hear it and read it repeatedly, but that's only because I don't change the channel or put down a newspaper when I hear or see it said. I’m looking for that information, I want to know it all, I don’t filter it out, but hundreds of millions of other Americans do. If I wasn’t prepared to see and hear the full truth about today's America, I doubt I would. Speaking the truth isn't enough when ears aren't open to hearing it. Being progressive isn’t enough if being progressive doesn't change what is wrong with America and the world. Lives are lost in practice, not in theory.

No, Wesley Clark doesn’t rail against America. Wes Clark approaches the challenges differently. If you listen to Clark you will hear him summon Americans to greatness by reminding us of what is great about America, and then asking us to live up to that great standard. Martin Luther King Jr. understood that psychological dynamic well. He repeatedly called Whites to greatness while he fought against White oppression. When Wes Clark talks about an idealistic America he is telling a half truth, not an untruth, because Clark summons up a true vision of America, one with roots dating back hundreds of years to Thomas Paine and "Common Sense”, one that has literally inspired millions of true Patriots and idealists for all the many decades ever since.

I think that’s a political and psychological strategy that can actually be effective, and it’s particularly effective coming from a man like General Clark, who is listened to with respect by a very broad range of Americans, and who, in turn, listens back. Most progressives know that Democrats have to retake the White House in 2008. What is wrong in today's world is deadly serious and must be dealt with now. It can not be delayed until some theoretical mass reeducation movement gets through peoples denial and remolds American self awareness to feel sufficient shame and anger for things our government does in the world and to fellow Americans. We can’t wait for a moment when Americans rise up and demand radical change. I already waited 40 years for that to happen. How long have you waited?

In my experience I find it true that the left is excellent at analyzing where we stand today, and visioning where we should be tomorrow. Where the Left gets lost is on the journey from here to there. I believe that electing Wes Clark President in 2008 is a significant and very doable strategic step forward, in getting us from here to there. I can’t explain all my reasons for believing that in a single written piece. If I could I wouldn’t need an ongoing blog, I would just write it once and repost it constantly. But that’s what “A Left Turn FOR CLARK” is all about...
http://www.aleftturnforclark.com/2006/10/more_about_me_and_this_blog.html#more



Thank you for the link to Perkins on Democracy Now. I will watch it.

[ConsAreLiars]

129. That approach is pragmatic, unifying and uplifting.

Not just flowery moralizing, or blunt-force attacks on the non-human monsters who cause wars (my inclination), but an expression of the common sense of who "we" are (the inclusive form of "we") that gave rise to all of the progressive movements for peace and justice. In my case, I came to some degree of political awareness only because I believed in the ideal America and saw that naive assumption of a just world be proven false by the events around me. But the ideals remain, and I believe they are widely held.

(delete extra word)

[welshTerrier2]

131. thanks, Tom ...

here's an excellent link to a DemocracyNow interview that Amy Goodman did recently with John Perkins: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/05/149254&mode=thread&tid=25

you can watch the video or read the transcript ...

[welshTerrier2]

130. link to my exchange with General Clark

here's the link you requested: http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/8/29/94325/1284#comment-39347

[1932]

107. When you said "let's take it a sentence...at a time"

I had the impression that you were going to participate in this discussion.

Any comments on my comments?

[FrenchieCat]

112. Wimping out, 1932?

It appears that Tom clearly responded to your original "I'll tell you what Clark is saying...although I made it up" Post, and added more to boot.

Your response? A one liner saying absolutely nothing of any substance. How revealing and triste! :(

[1932]

116. Read the post order Frenchie.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

40. Excellent book, excellent point.

MKJ

[ArkySue]

31. K & R

:kick:

[Apollo11]

32. I think Wes Clark will enter the race for 2008

And if Al Gore stays out, I think Clark stands a very strong chance of winning the Democratic nomination. Maybe with Obama as his VP.

Wes told the New York Times that he thinks about it every day (NYT Magazine, July 1st).

I'm sure it's not too late for someone with Clark's resumé to enter the field.

Plus we know he will bring out this book on September 4th:

[Auntie Bush]

44. So September 4th is the date many of us are waiting for. That's when

I'll open up my wallet. Haven't spent a penny yet on any other Candidate...so will have ALL my funds available for Clark.

If he doesn't announce by that date...I'll give up all hope for a Clark presidency. Please Clark...enter by the 4th of September!

[Norrin Radd]

33. k+r

[Dinger]

36. Was Or Will This Be Televised?

Or will it be "kept quiet," for fear of too many people knowing that he is a national treasure?

[cassiepriam]

37. Something is up. Something bad. Many repugs alarmed as well.

Wonder what they are not telling us?

[Pooka Fey]

38. K&R

[Divine Discontent]

42. I have

the video a guy recorded of him in Iowa last year, that I edited down then put into 2 vids, show his voice being angered, his words are forewarning, and he sounds like lil boots is intent on going into Iran. I so respect this man - he should be leading, or in the top panel of leaders we have and it's shocking he's not. If lil boots cared about this country's FUTURE Clark would've been asked to be the Sec. of Def., but we all know what * cares about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_iG-IBG7h4

www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<--- top '08 items & antib*sh stickers!

[frogcycle]

45. All together now...

Assault on Reason

That this man is semi-marginalized while the jackals yammer about haircuts and whose "faith" is more genuine is such a condemnation of the American people. We the people buy these magazines, watch these stupid so-called news programs. Kudos to MSNBC for hiring Wes; he has a bit of a forum there. But until he gets a position in the government (the higher the better) he should have his own program, just to talk to us. To educate us. To put it in perspective for us. That would bbe journalism at its finest.

What about a 1-hour program broken into four 15-minute segments where Wes, Rachel Maddow, Thom Hartman, etc get to basically do an op/ed piece? Of course they have outlets in print, blogosphere, radio, but TV is so influential, and is so terrible when it comes to really thoughtful - and thought-provoking - discussion.

[jlayson]

48. Wes Clark

[Adelante]

50. Wes Clark with his DU bumper sticker

:D

[BootinUp]

65. proof

that this man could never be elected President. ;)

Hope I am wrong though.

[Cameron27]

72. Wow!

I never saw that, I'm stealing it right now lol.

[Voltaire99]

53. More war. More Vietnamization. More meddling in the Middle East.

Clark is where liberal warmongers turn to feel less guilty about their closet Cheneyism.

[calteacherguy]

67. Please explain what part of Clark's testimony you disagree with. nt

[Auntie Bush]

91. By any chance are you related to a vulture?

I think of those disgusting creatures every time I see/read one of your posts. Just wondering.

[pork medley]

113. i agree

"protecting the United States' vital interests in the middle east" = euphemism for plunder

[Tom Rinaldo]

114. The U.S. has an alliance with Israel

Do you think the U.S. will honor our treaty obligations to Israel if Israel comes under sustained attack, lets say from Iran after Iran is attacked either by Israel or the U.S.? Keep in mind that there are reports that Iran has already drawn up a long list of Israel targets they will attack with their long range rockets if they get attacked first. I'm not even asking you if we should or should not defend Israel, just whether we will. I think Yes. So I think it is in our national interest to attemnpt to resolve tensions in the middle east fed by the Palistinean Israel conflict before the U.S. gets drawn into war there.

[pork medley]

119. the US has no interest in resolving tensions between israel & palestine

when they and their forebears, great britain, helped create the very conditions in which violent conflict was made possible

what planet do you live on anyway? the one in which the US seeks to stabilize Iraq? the one in which "the united states' vital interests" is no different from PEACE?

[Tom Rinaldo]

120. I live on the same planet as U.S. President Jimmy Carter n/t

[John Q. Citizen]

54. Notice this part about the bases?

"For this reason, I believe the time has come for the Congress to demand that the Administration begin the redeployment of American ground forces and state publicly and clearly that there will be no permanent US bases in Iraq."




Clark and Kucinich are in agreement.

So far I know of none of the other candidates or rumored candidated who have publicly stated that the US must renounce permanent bases in Iraq.

[alfredo]

56. Why at my core, I am a Clarkie.

[AX10]

85. Same here.

[alfredo]

97. I hope he is offered a position in the Democratic administration.

[19jet54]

62. Gen. Clark

:yourock: :patriot:

[Sooz]

75. Please cross-post this to kos

Thanks.

[Pierre.Suave]

86. I will read the whole thing

in a few minutes, right now I am listening to Wait, Wait Don't Tell Me.

[maximusveritas]

92. This won't please the "Withdraw everyone immediately" crowd

but I like it. Sounds like a very sensible plan.

[Martin Eden]

95. "if the Administration refuses to change its strategy appropriately"

General Clark, I believe that is a given.

In order to implement the strategy you have outlined, we will have to replace the current administration or wait for it to leave office.

[MODemocrat]

122. Clark is handsome and intelligent, very unusual combination

Wish he'd run for president! :thumbsup: :patriot: