Wes Clark on Countdown with Keith Olbermann

[CarolNYC]

Run time: 06:49 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJ_yMkK1OCM   Posted on YouTube: June 21, 2007 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: June 21, 2007 By DU Member: CarolNYC Views on DU: 2337

 
Keith Olbermann is honored and proud to have Wes Clark on as a guest for the first time as the new MSNBC military analyst.

[eagler]

1. I have a massive amount of respect General Clark but I

would have trouble supporting him for President after he said that we really cannot pull the troops out of Iraq on the Ed schultz show yesterday. That's simply not acceptable.

[Texas_Kat]

2. One thing to keep in mind

Clark will never lie to you -- even when it's not something you want to hear. Of course, pretty lies are easier to swallow than hard truths.

He sounded like he didn't want to say it either. I've rarely heard him sound more grim.

[Texifornia]

3. He has been right about damn near everything

I remember in Feb. of 2003 when CNN a bimbette (I think Zaun) asked him point blank: "Do you think the President is taking the country to war in Iraq under false pretenses?" and he gave an unequivocal "Yes". I nearly hit the floor. Of course, Clark was fired from CNN shortly thereafter.

You will get truth from Clark, no matter how unpopular.

FWIW, my take on the Shultz interview is that Clark insists that there must be diplomatic, economic and political work before the troops can even safely and responsibly be withdrawn. This work should have already been completed by now, pity it hasn't started.

[Tom Rinaldo]

4. I think you have the thrust right here but

I think it's a real mistake to assume that Clark would resisting removing most U.S. troops from Iraq regardless of the then status of negotiations with other regional powers. Keep in mind Clark's other comments in this same interview, about the negative effects that the perception of a long term U.S. occupation of a nation in that region brings with it. So even under many scenarios that assume continued major unrest inside Iraq, Clark could very well support withrawing U.S. troops from that nation, because a continuing American presence of the magnitude that currently exists inside Iraq could be more destabalizing than the alternatives. The least dangerous choice might be a significant but not yet total withdrawal for example.

After studying all of the real time, real life options then open to us at the point when Wes Clark became President (my favorite scenario), I don't know exactly what he would advise, but whatever it was Clark would level with the American people about exactly what it was and why he advocated it. AND Wes Clark would not be afraid to talk with anyone, without preconditions, in the pursuit of genuine peace. Clark continues to strongly hold that the lack of real open ended and open minded American diplomacy in the Middle East with all of the nation states effected is what locks in the current deteriorating regional security situation.

[xkenx]

5. Clark has repeatedly said that we should be pulling back to

a position of border security, training Iraqis, hunting Al Qaeda as a complement to the general anti-terror efforts in the region. He has never said we need to continue on the current path. He wants to quickly get our troops out of harms way re the civil war/insurgency. And this is a politically wise move against the Republicans as well. Buchco got us into this mess, but we have to be smart about getting out. We would immediately reduce our casualties in a major way. If all we did was pull out--lock,stock,and barrel, the chaos would make a Dem. President very vulnerable, and rightly so. And, we ARE talking about the next President, 'cause no way is Bush pulling out.

[latinjum]

6. He didn't say we "cannot" . . .

He said we could pull all the troops out in 6-8 months if the decision was made to do that, but that we had better have thought through all the consequences and be prepared to live with whatever they were. Also, neither Biden, nor Clinton, nor Dodd, nor Edwards, nor Obama call for pulling all the troops out of Iraq - they all talk about a process of withdrawing and redeploying troops, with the word "troops" usually prefaced by the word "combat", and that's deliberate, because it leaves all of them with wiggle room to deal with the situation on the ground as it develops. Also, they all talk about leaving some troops to provide security to U.S. personnel, i.e. Embassy staff, to continue to train the Iraqi Army, AND to chase and fight terrorists - although, I have to admit that I'm not sure exactly which classification of troops would chase and fight terrorists if all "combat" troops have been withdrawn. Maybe people should start asking these candidates very specific questions about their Iraq plans, because otherwise I think a lot of people are going to be very surprised by what each and every one of these candidates will actually do if elected President.

[elleng]

11. I agree with latinjum,

and I'd LOVE to hear ALL candidates asked, 'In light of what General Clark has said about need for <...>, how would YOU deal with the issue of when and how to withdraw troops?'

[colorado_ufo]

8. I respect his intelligence, experience, and integrity so much

that I would usually support his ideas in place of my own on many things.

[Divine Discontent]

10. I agree!

but I also state that knowingly bombing to kingdom come 7 kids to get a target is vehemently evil

[The Wes Clark Army]

12. Iraq

If we pull out of Iraq the region will fall into a regional war with Iran suporting the Shia and Syria and Saudi Arabi backing the Sunni. Unfortunately, We started this and to completely pull out of the region is irresponsible.

What we need is effective diplomacy not only among the Iraqi's but with everyone in the region. This we have not done. We need to work towards brokering peace in the region. If we do not and we pull out we will be forced back in when regional war errupts. There will be a lot more American Servicemen killed in that war than by staying in Iraq.

[RiverStone]

7. What - the military now says killing 7 kids was worth the risk?!

As Keith pointed out, this is different than what we heard yesterday.

Is there not some basic rules of engagement?

This seems very wrong! Of course, the whole damn war is very wrong --- yet that the US would knowingly bomb a target with children inside is beyond crazy!!!

Is this story getting MSM airtime?

[L0oniX]

9. Baby killers!

:grr: