Wesley Clark Sketches an Exit Plan for Iraq (meets with Sheehan)

[sabra]

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0539,fergusonclar,68194,2.html

Wesley Clark Sketches an Exit Plan for Iraq
Meanwhile, Charles Rangel talks impeachment

...

On Friday, Sheehan appeared on a Congressional Black Caucus breakfast panel with General Wesley Clark, the former NATO commander and presidential hopeful, who was there to address the issue of whether the U.S. can “win” the war in Iraq.

“We’re involved in a war that we didn’t have to fight. That’s the simple truth,” Clark said. “Now it’s in trouble, deep trouble. I wish it was just as simple as saying, Mr. President, you made a mistake, get those troops out now."

The trouble is, he continued, that the Islamic extremists “really do want to attack us. Getting out of Iraq will be a great defeat for us unless we do it in the right way.”

Clark said the anti-war movement should demand that Bush establish a “regional dialogue with other Arab states, including people we don’t like, like Syria and Iran,” and focus on “changing the minds and cutting off the recruiting” of those now blowing up tanks and buses in Iraq.

[goclark]

1. Love General Clark

But he is asking for a Dummy to do what is expected of a PRESIDENT. it ain't going to happen.

Bush would probably place his mother, the diplomat, in charge of the "regional dialogue."


Bush establish a “regional dialogue with other Arab states, including people we don’t like, like Syria and Iran,” and focus on “changing the minds and cutting off the recruiting” of those now blowing up tanks and buses in Iraq.

The good part, IMO, is that Clark, Gore, Kerry, Edwards, Dean would have a chance in hell of making it happen.

GW is not up to any task as delicate as this one.

[billbuckhead]

2. Why can't this guy be president?

I sure wish Americans would choose the smart guy more often.

[Mz Pip]

3. But he voted for Reagan!!!

that disqualified him from the get go with so many who are more concerned about ideological purity than about what works for the here and now.

He's not a politician and, sorry to say, that means he has no chance with the powers that be in the Democratic Party. They'll promote an insider who will lose over an outsider who might actually win.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[Quixote1818]

11. So what, Ronald Reagan was once a Democrat yet Republicans

accepted him. Are Republicans more tolerant of people who have switched sides than Dem's? I don't think so and Clark has proved himself to be a genuine Democrat to the left of most Democrats.

Buy the way, Hillary Clinton use to work for Berry Goldwater! So I guess she is out as well?

[Clark2008]

59. She's being sarcastic, Quixote.

:)

Mz. Pip is a Clark fan. She's just mimicking the silliness that can be some Democrats, ie. "We can't vote for someone who voted for a Republican a zillion years ago when most of us couldn't even vote or weren't even born."

:hi:

[FrenchieCat]

31. Mz. Zip......hello there!

:hi:

You forgot this within your post! --------> :sarcasm:

I know you did, cause we've met!

[Quixote1818]

39. Whoops, my sarcasm meter was off

I just read your post again and got the sarcasm. Sorry.

[Orangepeel]

54. it wasn't that he voted for Reagan, it was that he came out of nowhere*

evidence of his true political ideology -- that is, more than what he said in speeches -- was slight. All politicians do things, hold opinions and vote in ways that I disagree with, but there was no way in the world that I was going to support some guy with no political experience and no political history to be the Democratic candidate for president. I wouldn't support somebody who had been a successful business person or celebrity either, if he/she didn't have some history with the party.

However, I do have to say that I would be considerably less concerned next time in regard to Clark. Now, he does have a political history. After dropping out of the primary, he stuck around and worked hard for the Democratic party.

*on edit, "nowhere" politically speaking. General, NATO, like being the governor of a state, blah, blah.

[Zodiak]

61. That's where I am on Clark

He has "made his bones" as a Democrat, and that was the ONLY thing preventing me from supporting him more in the primaries. I do not support completely unknown quantities with a questionable history (ala Roberts), but once the quantity is known, that no longer serves as an excuse.

I do not speak for all "extremist lefties", but I can say that this "extremist" does not play by ideological purity rules. It is a matter of percentage and effect, and Clark passes both of those tests, as well.

Now about his strategy.

His strategy is sound, but it cannot be done by Bush or any of his ideological peers. The only way his vision would become reality is a massive Democratic victory in both chambers of Congress in 2006. In 2007, we can start to enact the plan. That is a lot of blood from now until then. 2009 is unthinkable...it will really be "too late" by then.

Until then, we (the grassroots) should push for withdrawal in order to put pressure on our own "stay the course" Democrats (to sharply define our party) as well as the neocons. From there, we can use the Clark plan as a "level-headed compromise". We cannot enact Clark's plan if we come to the table with it...the pukes will do their level best to ensure we leave the table with less than we came with. We need to come to the table with "immediate withdrawal" to put ourselves in the right negotiating position for a compromise.

[Delphinus]

58. I voted for Ford over Carter.

Of course, I was only 18.

Here, on the local level, there was more than once I pulled the lever for a Republican Mayor over what the Democratic Party offered, yet I still consider myself a Democrat.

[javadu]

75. So did I and I Double

damn gaurantee you that you are not more liberal than I am today.

[Maple]

4. Is he able to do anything?

I don't know what position he holds now, so even if he has a guaranteed brilliant plan, is there anything he's able to do?

[FrenchieCat]

42. Bush won't listen.....

so then Wes Clark says......then we will be justified in getting out...and then the Republicans can't blame the Dems for not having come up with an alternate plan.....

We didn't want to cut and run, we wanted diplomacy and a change in the horrible direction we were going in, but Bush didn't want to listen.

Excellent framing for 2006, if you ask me. This could help us win back the congress, and if nothing else, gives us our reasoned debate line to be had with the Republicans who's position is "stay the course" same as Bush's.

Good to see the Anti Iraq movement coming together....against Bush's policy. This could move the clamor for a change in the course or get out into the real mainstream! and that's what we want.

[Peace Patriot]

78. The anti-Iraq war position IS the "mainstream," and has been all along.

58% of the American people opposed the Iraq war BEFORE the invasion-- before all the lies were exposed, before the full horror and costs of it were known. Feb. '03. Across the board in all polls. 58%! I'll never forget that stat.

That number dipped only once, in the few weeks of the invasion with U.S. troops at max risk, then went right back up to nearly 60%, where it stayed throughout the election. It's over 70% today.

About half of that 58% opposed the war outright; the other half opposed unilateral preemptive war by Bush (would only support a UN peacekeeping mission--that is, world consensus, or at least consensus of the Security Council, which did not occur).

The question is, with such a big majority against this war--a war that became more and more obviously crazy and ill-planned and WRONG as it proceeded--how could the government do it anyway, and why wasn't the Bush Cartel thrown out of the White House because of it?

The answer to both questions is that Bushite corporations, Diebold and ES&S, were all set up to "tabulate" the 2004 vote with SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code--code so secret that not even our secretaries of state are permitted to review it. Bipartisan corruption in the $4 billion electronic voting boondoggle had enabled that to happen--seeming suicide for the Democrats, yet Democratic election officials also signed off on contracts for these new electronic voting machines with "trade secret," proprietary vote tabulation written in. The ultimate in corporatization, I guess. (You wonder how bad the DLC is? THAT bad!).

Thus, the Bush Cartel never had anything to worry about, as to the 2004 election. (A friend of mine commented on that, at the time--he said they were acting like they didn't have a care. He was so right.)

Diebold's and ES&S's "result" is the only evidence there is of a Bush win. Everything else points to a Bush loss, including the war profiteering corporate news monopolies' national and state exit polls (which Kerry won--but whose results were doctored, on election night, to "fit" the "official result" derived by Diebold's and ES&S's secret formulae).

The evidence points to a big Kerry win--and a big rejection of the Iraq war. (The antiwar votes were given no place else to go, but to Kerry, who wasn't antiwar but who would have been beholden to a big antiwar grass roots constituency.)

The fiddling of the vote is intimately connected to the Iraq war. That war simply could not have received approval from the American people. (And if you're thinking that other issues might have prevailed, think again, because the overwhelming evidence--looking at the issue polls over the last year--is that the great majority of Americans disagree with every major Bush policy, foreign and domestic, way up in the 60% to 70% range--the Iraq war, torture policy, the deficit, Social Security, women's rights, you name it.)

We ARE the "mainstream." And the so-called "mainstream media" is way off course from the heart and soul of America, which never wanted this war and hates it now, in huge numbers.

-------

As for Wesley Clarke, much as I admire his continued opposition to the Iraq war throughout, I don't like the sound of what he's saying now. I think the wrongness and illegality of the war--and the Bush Cartel's defiance of American public opinion--should be stated upfront; I think we owe the Iraqis and the world an apology; I think we need to SAY that we have no business there whatsoever; and THEN request the world to help us out in withdrawing. I agree that it's a complicated situation, but I am extremely fearful of ANY statement, by any potential presidential candidate, that smells of continued occupation.

But it may be that since Diebold and ES&S will not permit any but a War Democrat to be nominated or elected, we'll have to go on character, not on what is said.

[anotherdrew]

66. maybe not now, but Democrats should form a policy working group

clark and others need to fully develop a plan and be ready to implement it. they shouldn't disclose too many details I think before taking over but they need to let people know they have a plan to turn things around ready to go...

[ShockediSay]

5. He's no chicken hawk.

Honestly, I don't see how we can elect as our next President, someone w/out real combat experience. Bush has just destabilized too much.

McCain is out because he still thinks this war of choice was a good idea from the get-go.

[FrenchieCat]

38. In the article, Wes gives this recommendation to Ms. Sheehan

and other Veteran families.....in reference to the planned marches tomorrow....

“march with the flag, because this is about the future of America.” :patriot:

I think that he is right on this advice!

[ShockediSay]

71. Also resonates well with the 'strong on defense crowd'

AND HE DOES NOT PULL HIS PUNCHES when it comes to things that are dead wrong:

a) he tells it like it really is over there, one of the few who does;

b) I saw him way pre-'04 election talking about the built in costs engendered by the Pentagon (many of whom are without their little fiefdoms if their particular weapons procurement programs are reduced or canceled)
AND without a job to jump to in the defense industry (witness the latest scandals in Boeing)

AND the incentives the lobbyists have for the defense industry

AND the defense industry which thrives on this kind of Pork a lot of which could be reduced if not eliminated

AND ditto the Congressmen/women who feel the need to bring Pork back to their districts.


His final point was "I know the games that are played throughout the Pentagon system and the built in biases that can be shut down if you know where to start" or words to that effect.

That alone is good enough for my vote!

[bklyncowgirl]

79. At the Peace Rally Gold Star Families gave out little American Flags

Maybe they were listening to the General.

[Gregorian]

6. Wes- I want to trust you. But trust is getting more difficult these days.

War. Put down the guns. Period. It's that simple. Just stop. I've been saying that since Bush's dad invaded. But it was really uncool back then. So again, it's never too early to leave. Like now.

[Larkspur]

7. So basically, Clark is saying "Stay the course" but recruit Arab nations

to send it troops to do the dirty work US troops are doing now.

And Cindy's reply to Clark's idea is
When it was her turn to speak, Sheehan stuck to her demand that we get out now. “Yes, there are people who want to kill us. But they want to kill us because we’re killing innocent Arabs and Muslims," she said. "I’m afraid we’re creating enemies that are going to endanger my grandchildren. That’s why I do what I do.

I think that our strategy has to shift from "staying the course in Iraq" to "get out and work to contain the chaos in Iraq from spreading." We have lost Iraq. Bush screwed it up and there is nothing the Dems or Clark can do to put Iraq back together again unless they want to commit genocide.

[Gloria]

9. Cyndy needs to get the full picture of what Clark has suggested...

including how, if Bush won't change his approach (and he won't) then the public has a full right to demand immediate withdrawal..

Too bad they didn't get on the same page before the meeting....

[FrenchieCat]

41. Actually, I think that Cindy has a better picture of what Clark said

than Larkspur does.

She's talking about us Killing INNOCENT ARABS, and Clark is talking about BRINGING ARAB NATIONS on board. Sounds like that more in sinc then some might want to admit.

[countmyvote4real]

12. Sounds like you agree with W Clarke.

[FrenchieCat]

37. It certainly does....which is kinda of weird....

when someone actually agrees with someone whom they are saying they disagree with. kinda strange! :shrug:

[1932]

13. Imperialism never succeeds. It has never succeeded anywhere.

We didn't lose Vietnam because we didn't try hard enough. We lost it because imperialism always fails.

We held out for 50 years in the Phillipines. A lot of people died. A LOT of people died, and the country is still a mess 55 years later because of what we did for those fifty years. And we never really made it to day one of occupation in Vietnam. That's the full range of possible outcomes, and neither end of the spectrum is a victory, nor is anything in between.

So long as we're trying to impose President Halliburton and VP Bechtel on Iraq, it's not going to work out.

The American corporatocracy is going to have to realize that the world is more stable with a world full of Venezuelas and not with a world full of Vietnams, Philippines, Iraqs, etc.

[Gronk Groks]

30. Imperial Adventure goes bust...

...we blew it in Iraq. Containment is probably the best we can hope for, (un)civil war in Iraq is almost guaranteed now.

Considering that Iraq was created at the end of WWI from three provinces of the Ottoman Empire, it is not surprising that it is trying to disintegrate once the iron hand of Saddam has been removed.

We broke it and we are going to end up paying for in more ways than one.

[FrenchieCat]

40. If only Clark's plan could have be the one used.....

once we stoopidly invaded!

Wes Clark's strategy in Iraq numero Uno bulletpoint:
http://www.clark04.com/issues/iraqstrategy/

End the American monopoly. From the beginning, the Administration has insisted on exclusive control of the Iraqi reconstruction and occupation. This has cost us the financial and military support of other nations and made America a bigger target for terrorists. Ending the American monopoly will change the way this enterprise is viewed-in Iraq and throughout the world.

[1932]

63. Virtual Empire isn't much better,

But while a powerful military has been vital, the chief means of our influence has been an interlocking web of international institutions and arrangements, from NATO to the World Bank to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. This network of mutual interdependence, though marginalized by the Bush administration, was largely devised by America, which has also been its chief beneficiary. It is, for all practical purposes, a kind of empire--but to use a contemporary term, a virtual one. Properly used and expanded, it can be the secret to a secure and prosperous future.

{snip}

For decades, the United States has been at the hub of this network of mutual interdependence, sometimes called "globalization." Heavily influenced--some might say dominated--by us, globalization reflected the American values of free-market economics and popular democracy. Enabled by modern communications and transportation, this network facilitated access to markets and investment opportunities abroad, assisted the flow of talent and intellectual property, and fostered the spread of market forces and democratic processes around the world. The major beneficiary of all of this was the United States itself. In short, this "globalization" was the new American empire.

{snip}

But this shift {by the Bush administration to military agression in Iraq}--rather than promoting the emergence of the new American empire--put all that we gained with "soft power" and the virtual American empire at risk.

{snip}

But if leadership is defined as "persuading the other fellow to want to do what you want him to do," as Eisenhower put it, then American leadership is failing. We simply aren't persuading others to align with our interests--we are coercing and pressuring.

-Wes Clark (Winning Modern Wars, Chapter 6)

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

Working with other countries, if it means using the sort of soft empire techniques for "persuassion" that Clark lauds, is no better then military imperialism if your goal is peace and prosperity all over the world.

Since WW2, wealth has polarized not only within the US but between poor and wealthy nations around the world (the poorest nation in the world is poorer today than the poorest nation 150 years ago and there's probably a very close link between domestic polarizations of wealth and international polarizations of wealth).

We've seen the destabilizing consequences of wealth polarization all over the world. Post WW2 virtual empire is not a success story if measured by any statistic other than its ability to make a few people very wealthy.

It is intertesting to read Clark's arguments about post WW2 foreign policy and then read John Perkins' Confessions of An Economic Hit Man. To Clark, Bush is betraying America's post WW2 tradition of using virtual empire to get what we want. To Perkins, Iraq is part of the same tradition, which started after Kermit Roosevelt helped depose Mossadegh in Iran. After that, the US deicided it had to take its fingerprints off their anti-democratic, imperialist actions, so they turned to the economic hitman -- the "web of international institutions" Clark describes.

Perkins says that we've always had this three step process: (1) the Hit Men get the countries on the hook with insupportable debt; (2) if the countries dont' give the US the collateral for the loans (oil fields and privatization of industry), then we send in the jackals to subvert democracy; and (3) if that doesnt' work, we send in the military, like we did in Grenada, Panama, the Gulf, and Afghanistan.

I find Perkins' interpretation of post-WW2 history more compelling, especially after reading that Galbraith biography which shows how the seeds of vitual empire were sown after WW2, and identifies some of the competing ideologies and the financial interests trying to control the kinds of economic development we'd see over the next 50 years. And then, if you're curious about the ramifications of the path we embarked upon, and if Clark's history of the last 50 years rings hollow, more compelling arguments can be found in Joe Stiglitiz's Globalization and its Discontents, Amartya Sen's Development as Freedom, and The Health of Nations: Why Inequality is Harmful to Your Health by Ichiro Kawachi and Bruce P. Kennedy.

[FrenchieCat]

64. Persuasion aka is what many call soft power....aka Virtual empire

is what many call "Western influence" as it relates to culture, democracy, and yes economic prosperity....and it is your analysis that rings hollow.

Whether we are talking about Iranians wearing Jeans and listening to American Music, that is the virtual empire of which Clark speaks; of third World countries wanting what the US has, a population that experiences a relative better standard of living (or did) then they could hope for and still hope for. Of Foreigners wanting their children to come to America to be educated and in so doing, the virtual power of what America was supposed to stand would spread.

I know....because as an immigrant, Ican speak clearly of the reasons that I came to America; Education, opportunity, and the standard of living. That was the power of America after WWII; that other countries would want to have what America had....not that America was perfect, mind you.

Negative corhersive activities to attempt to manipulate, profit and control other countries is not part of the virtual empire parcel of which Clark speaks of, although those methods have existed alongside soft power for even longer than WWII. You attempting to put everything ever done by the United States that was a negative since WWII and including it as part of activities promoted by a "virtual Empire" doesn't make them so. Soft power working in example would be the way that the Old Soviet Union finally came to an end. It was western influence...the soft power....alongside Detente that was most effective. People rising up and clamoring for Democracy as opposed to totalitarian Communist rule was based on what they wanted for themselves. that is Soft power......

You can think that there is anyone advocating that we scrape everything and start anew, but that would put you in the "idealist" mindset that is so counterproductive when attempting to find real workable solutions to problems....because it means wipping the slate clean, and that will never happen, so yours is just "talk" when you try to hold politicians and leaders to the impossible standard of thinking just like you and the excerpts that you gleem from various books.

You should ask John Edwards,the politician that you support, and who met at Bildeberg last year with the corporatists, if he supports what you are advocating...that we have been wrong all of this time, Since WWII and that we need to just start over. Let me know what he says.

Your approach is of one that advocates that we should hate America because it has never done anything right. YOu look at the dark view of issues, and you never balance anything out. Makes you a defeatist or as some would put it, one of the "I hate America and all it stands for" minority.

You see, I know about how powerful and how positive a "Virtual Empire" can be....because I myself wanted those things the Virtual empire had to offer....which is why I live in America today.

[1932]

67. So much immigration to the US wasn't so much caused by the draw of

a great America as it was due to the fact that neoliberalism impoverished countries which we "persuaded" and extracted so much of their wealth the only place to go for a job was to America, which is where their nation's wealth went.

That's not a recipe for a peaceful, just world.

[FrenchieCat]

69. As an immigrant, I disagree with your statement.....

You can disagree with my and my families' experience, and many that we know.

We came from France......so "Jobs" wasn't "it".

Of course, I agree that "job opportunity" is one of the reasons that many people come here...but don't fool yourself if you think that is the only reason why they have emigrated here since WWII. That would mean that you underestimate the popularity of America until not long ago. I think that you are better informed than that and if not, you should be.

Your theory as to other's motivations just falls short. That's all there is to it.

Your problem is that you can never agree with anyone that supports Clark or agree with Wes Clark either no matter what....even if they are right. That's sad, and makes debating you not an enjoyable experience.

[1932]

70. The great post-WW2 exodus from France to the US isn't the most common

immigrant experience.

Los Angeles, New York, Boston, Miami -- do any of these cities have a "Little France" part of town?

I'm not discrediting your personal experience. But I'm saying that Clark lauds the post WW2 "virtual empire" version of American foreign policy. You say that you came to the US during that period because of what America stood for. I'm saying that a lot more people came to America because of the DAMAGE post WW2 virtual empire has caused around the globe. They're chasing the wealth that was extracted from their home countries thanks to virtual empire.

Incidentally, I agreed with that one Clark supporter than my post about Adlai Stevenson was interesting.

[FrenchieCat]

72. I came to the United States in 1970....

And I KNOW that immigrants have come here because of various opportunity...not just a job or money, as you so narrowly have decided. A chance for a better life is what most will tell you. For a better education, for more freedoms, for what America has represented to many over the years. You want to boil it down to wealth.....and so you have. Doesn't make you right, although there is usually about an ounce of truth in what you say. However, your ounce does not add up to a pound nor do you have all of the answers.....you just don't.

In addition, people from many countries didn't immigrate and still had a lot of respect and love for Americans. You may not remember such a time, but I do.

Maybe your problem is that you boil everything down to help you rationalize your stilted point of view....always anti-whatever Clark said.

You see I love America and what it could be again....which is why I am a political activist. No one is saying that America has been perfect....my blackness tells me that. But America had been a whole lot better than a lot of other places for a long time. Maybe Not now, but it will be again.

[1932]

74. Why did the US offer a better life than Vietnam? Or the Philippines?

Or Korea? Or China? Or Jamaica? Or Haiti? Or Cuba? Or the Dominican Republic?

The very fact that there hasn't been an exodus from France to the US, but there has been from some of those other countries should tell you something about huge differences in the sorts of lives people have and you should wonder what policies lead to those differentials, and you should wonder if virtual empire has anything to do with that.

Why did Algerians emigrate to France? Because the colonial experience made life miserable for Algerians in order to make life better for people in France, and it was better to be a janitor or garbage collector in Paris than to be poor and starving in the Casbah.

Exploitation, whether virtual or military, might make a lot of people want to follow the money to the land of relatively better opportunity. However, it's painfully obvious that doesn't justify exploitation.

I also love America. I love the America of FDR, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and Thomas Paine -- the America that fought for the little guy against empire. I think America's greatest days are ahead of us too, but we're pushing them farther into the future if we don't reject exploitation and if we don't start fighting for the little guy, no matter how much discomfort that causes the wealthy and the powerful.

[Quixote1818]

17. Clark is absolutely right

Those local Arab countries have a tremendous amount of political power and influence on what happens in Iraq and with the insurgency. They are the KEY to getting the insurgency to settle down and pull up a chair at the table. If you can't beat them then at least try to negotiate with them. Clark has an intellectual approach to this very difficult situation and before you just walk in lock step with Sheehan you should open up your mind and listen to what Clark has to say.

We need to at least be drawing up an exit strategy even if that strategy is not public. It would look really bad if we just cut and run as Sheehan is suggesting and their is absolutely NO WAY IN HELL Bush will go for pulling out now because he is nuts and has too much invested in this war. The US has to work out some kind of a deal with the local Iraq Gov and do as Clark has suggested and find the least clumsy looking way out. We need to most certainly start drawing down troops and consolidate the ones that are their into green zones where they can't be harmed as easily, then slowly pull out. The pull out must start AFTER we have worked out deals with surrounding countries which have influence on the insurgency. Pulling out all at once would cause the US to be the laughing stock of the Arab world, terrorists and the rest of the world. We would be a joke!

Bush sure has left us in a big mess and a lose lose situation every way you look at it! YUCK! Clark has the ONLY plausible solution to the problem that may give us a chance at saving face and shutting down the violence then getting out shortly their after. In the end the Iraq Gov. will have little American influence but at least they may respect us if we are negotiating with them and the other Arab country's in the region. Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the other country's have a tremendous amount at stake with the outcome of Iraq! They are the key and Clark recognizes this! He is one smart man that few people understand really knows how to play chess and work out difficult problems in diplomatic ways.

[Gloria]

20. The countries of the region are already interested in meeting

to think about what can be done in Iraq...imagine if we had a leader and policy that could capitalize on that impulse???

This story came out almost exactly at the same time that Clark published this idea in the WaPo....coincidence? I think not....

[Gronk Groks]

26. Trouble is we don't have a leader...

that can capitalize on the policy, we've got shrub.

Clark is probably right. However the pResident idiot will never admit to making that big a mistake, so we are screwed.

Rangel is right...

[Clark2008]

60. Of course they're correct

All three of them.

If pResident Shrub-bucket would implement Clark's plan, then we could ease out with some dignity.

If not - and we know Shrubbie won't - then we are justified with the cut and run, even though it WILL mean, of course, that we left another country in the hands of thugs (like Afghanistan) who will hate our people and continue to reak havoc.

[Larkspur]

65. Iran is already legally helping the Shiite majority

So we already have one Muslim nation involved in helping Iraq without our blessing.

Iran was approached for help in defense and economic development by the ruling Shiite majority. What is Clark's take on that?

[Gronk Groks]

19. Self Deleted

[FrenchieCat]

33. I TOTALLY disagree with your take, Larkspur.....

Because I read it this way....

Sheehan speaking here....""If there’s one thing we as a peace movement have to agree on, it's that we have to get out of Iraq now, as soon as possible"

As soon as possible is a caveat that Sheehan herself speaks of...because she does understand the header of the article as well as the next person.... But in calling for an immediate withdrawal, the peace movement can’t duck a central question: Just how do we leave?

Plus, Wes Clark said exactly what Cindy Sheehan is quoted as saying BEFORE she said it!

This is not World War Two, said General Wesley Clark (Ret.), former commander of NATO and former presidential candidate. When we kill people we make enemies all over the world.
http://www.radicalmiddle.com/x_terror_conf.htm

[ShockediSay]

8. deleted dupe n/t

[ecoflame]

10. O'Reilly had Gen. Clark

on his show tonight and was blasting Clark for even meeting with Cindy Sheehan. Clark said to argue the message not the messenger.

[rodeodance]

27. good for him!!

[CarolNYC]

55. I also like how he said

that Cindy loved her country enough to support her son fighting for it while "I can tell you there's a lot of people who wear that American flag pin who wouldn't let their children serve in the armed forces."

[ecoflame]

80. Yeah...the parting shot...

"I can tell you there's a lot of people who wear that American flag pin who wouldn't let their children serve in the armed forces."

[Rex]

14. To late General.

Caesar fucked it up way beyond fixing. You should have said something in 2004. Maybe Clark & Carter should give it a run in 2008...not that it will matter.

[CarolNYC]

53. He did....

He said lots of things in 2004...and 2003...and 2002....In fact, he testified before the HASC in September '02 to try to keep us out of this mess in the first place. Transcript is here:

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/security/has269000.000/has269000_0f.htm

You know, I don't know about 2006 positioning and all of that stuff but, in listening to the General's interview with Alan Colmes a couple of weeks ago, it struck me that one of the reasons that General Clark still believes that something can actually be done is because he knows, from his experience at the Dayton Accords, that it is possible to get impossibly opposed sides to come to some sort of agreement, even if it's not perfect. It's not like the sides in that conflict were all ready and willing to come to agreement with the others. There were deep seated, long held prejudices and hatreds to contend with there also. They didn't come up with a perfect situation but it's better than had those people been left to kill each other off. It must be killing him to watch this mess get bigger and bigger when he knows, with the right people and the right process, something just might be able to be done.

Unfortunately, I'm not as tenacious or optimistic as General Clark and, with Bush in there, I just don't see how anything good will come of this mess.

I think that Gen Clark sees the possibilities for the nightmare that can happen if we were to just pull out now a little more clearly than a lot of us do, just by virtue of his vast experience. That he is so concerned that he still continues to try to do whatever he can to make something happen there frightens me as to what the future holds whatever we do.

Also, in one of his replies when he was guest blogging on TPM a few weeks ago, he mentioned how all of the people in Iraq who are now working with the US, who are seen as allied with us, will be put in danger if we just pull out with the country still in chaos. He worries that many would be executed and so, although there are people who do want us gone, there are others who will be left in a very dangerous situation when we leave. The whole thing is just such a mess no matter which way we turn....

BTW, a very good book about the Dayton Peace Accords is Richard Holbrooke's "To End a War". Highly recommended if you have any interest in what went on there.

[Jersey Devil]

15. So basically Clark is saying the same thing as Hillary

or maybe Nixon's "peace with honor" would be appropriate.

I like Clark but on this issue show me the difference between him and Hillary.

[Quixote1818]

21. Take some time and read what Clark has actually proposed

and look at some of the posts above in response to the same remark you made. I am not familiar with the complex details of what Hillary wants to do but Clark has many diplomatic details and he has gone into great detail as to why they are so important to the region. Iraq has influence from many country's from the US to all the surrounding Arab country's. Our ONLY way to make headway it to negotiate with country's like Iran, Syria etc as they have incredible influence on the Iraq insurgency. Clark has a very diplomatic, complex, intellectual angel he wants to institute before we just cut and run and look like the laughing stock of the world.

[Gloria]

22. No...Clark says that if in about 6 months Bush isn't doing anything

to figure things out, then Americans have a full right to demand withdrawal from Iraq....

That is not stay the course. Clark has laid out a plan that provides enough rope for Bush to hang himself with...He knows damned well that Bush won't change anything. Which means Dems, if they grok in fullness what Clark is saying, can go on the attack. Clark's the man for laying out the plan...the basics of the plan are the platform from which Bush can be attacked...

That's why it's important that Democrats get behind one approach and are ready to drop the hammer...

As for impeachment....Clark knows that it would just be a call from Dems, not Republicans--it would look partisan and we'd lose before we even got started. It's a non-starter at this point. Clark knows we have to build wider consensus against Bush and note how he calls for former military people to march in DC...He's calling for a widening of opposition to Bush, much broader than what Dems could do on impeachment.

While Rangel, his buddy in Congress demands impeachment, Clark is working the other angle...and looking pretty Presidential, at the same time...

[Quixote1818]

23. Thanks You for that!

nt

[Gronk Groks]

32. Clark is looking to the other side of the 2006 elections...

...while Cindy is building the anti-war movement NOW.

Both are necessary in their own way. Clark is being the strategic planner he learned as a General. Cindy is fighting on the ground today.

We are all impatient. For good reason. Remember they are BOTH on our side, keep your sites trained on the reThugs. Impeachment IS the answer, the question is when.

[Jersey Devil]

56. Basically the same as what Hillary has said

Neither want out of Iraq NOW. The only difference is that Hillary has not set a timetable. In fact, if you listen to what she has been saying, she is pointing to significant progress that has been promised as a result of the Iraqi constitution and upcoming elections. If that is a flop (as it shows every sign of becoming) then she has implied that she would want an accelerated pullout from Iraq.

Dems seem to be on the same page on this one. It's just a matter of when. Cindy, in the forefront, says NOW and the Dem contenders say to give it a little more time but not unlimited by any means.

I am not criticizing Clark, just pointing out that Hillary is not alone and should not be singled out for scorn.

[shance]

16. "Including people we don't like, like Syria and Iran"

What kind of statement is that?

People we "don't like"?

This isn't high school and its not cowboys and indians.

That's sounds like something George W. would say.

[Gloria]

28. It's talking in the way O'Reilly and his dumbass audience can

understand.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

57. Isn't that the truth! Clark seems to be able to walk that fine line of

simplifying the message, without sounding dumbed down.

I have nothing against Kerry, and campaigned for him, but that eruidite speaking manner didn't work in today's "sound bite" environment.

He would say something like, "we should have dialogues with those foreign entities with whom we have fundamental ideological and geopolitical differences, to assist in the assimiliation of the current status of Iraq" or some such thing and I would cringe...

I would know what he was saying, but I also knew that the talking points MSM and the jingoist slogan crazed base of the repubs would ignore it.

And they did. MKJ

[FrenchieCat]

47. I think if you took a poll of American attitude toward

Iran and Syria after the months and months of PR blitz against them, you would find that a majority of Americans don't particularily care for Iran and Syria.

That being what it may, Clark is only stating the obvious...that we don't have to love or like them to talk to them. An excellent point about diplomacy, from where I sit.

[struggle4progress]

18. “I’ve been here 35 years, and I know impeachment when I see it,”

<said Rangel>

Now THAT sounds like an exit plan ...

[rodeodance]

24. Kerry is saying basically the same thing. START talking!

......Clark said the anti-war movement should demand that Bush establish a “regional dialogue with other Arab states, including people we don’t like, like Syria and Iran,” and focus on “changing the minds and cutting off the recruiting” of those now blowing up tanks and buses in Iraq......

[Gloria]

29. Yeah, but it depends on Republicans and they won't do it....so

while Rangel can keep people "up" by talking like this, it's the broadening of the case against Bush in terms of his REJECTING any change of plans in Iraq that is what we have to lay out and then hit him with.

Please recall that Rangel endorsed Clark for President and Clark was the featured guest at Rangel's birthday party....they are tight; they are working on this together, IMHO...it's not as adversarial as you might think....

If Clark can get the Dems to finally get behind a single strategy to corner Bush, he deserves our eternal gratitude. Let's hope the "traction" he mentioned on O'Reilly really does pan out.....and someone should clue Cyndy in on this....

[struggle4progress]

36. In every real fight I ever won, the general starting attitude was ..

.. "this can't be done."

Now, you might really be right, and of course I've lost a lot of fights, too.

But ... In my (not overly humble) opinion, "talking impeachment" has a big upside: at the very least, it's a great way to organize talking points. And it's a great way to draw bright lines: "Gasp! Why won't So-and-so CONDEMN this behavior?"

[FrenchieCat]

45. Clark and Rangel are definitely together on all of this.....

and Ms. Sheehan may be in on it as well.

Rangel invited Clark to speak to the CBC. He knows Clark's views well and didn't just invite him willy nilly.

THe fact that Cindy is repeating what Clark has been saying about Killing people only makes more enemies, I don't think is a "coincidence".

The caveat added to Cindy's words is "As soon as possible"...which is not as immediate as immediate.

This is fucking brilliant!

Ms. Sheehan give us the reason to want to go.
Gen. Clark gives us the way to get out.
Rep. Rangel gives us something to look forward to, at the end-Impeachment!

I'm estatic!

[kerrygoddess]

44. Um Rangel endorsed Clark in the Primaries you mean?

Fact is as pointed out that Kerry has been talking about this for sometime. More importnat than the who Clark is "tight" with, is that the more who talk about it the better. Don't you think?

[FrenchieCat]

46. I think the point of Clark and Charlie's tightness was to

squelch the idea that what each was saying was not orchestrated or had not been discussed beforehand..... because I believe that theere is a strategy at play here.

It was not about anything else, as far as I can see, KerryGoddess! :shrug:

[rodeodance]

25. nominated

[The_Casual_Observer]

34. The only exit plan is to put a bad-assed non-secular Sunni

in charge and subdue the ethnic in-fighting with no-nonsense secret police. Sound familiar?

[FrenchieCat]

35. I wrote this letter in response to this article....

Dear Editors,

I read the article, "Wesley Clark Sketches an Exit Plan for Iraq--Meanwhile, Charles Rangel talks impeachment " with great pride!

To read of Clark, Rangel and Sheehan coming together against the Bush policies in Iraq as a lethal trio gives me great hope. Whether they agree on everything is not as important as the fact that they all agree on working together in changing the present disastrous course to another. Mrs. Sheehan gives us the reason to leave; Wes Clark gives us a way out; and Wonderful Charlie Rangel gives us something to look forward to.

Ironically, these three represent the Military at its highest rank, a 35 year Congressional veteran, and a mother who has lost her son to a trumped up optional war that has cost lives and billions!

If America doesn't take those three seriously, than all is lost!

Respectfully,
XXX XXXXX

[yellerpup]

43. This is such a good letter.

Thanks for writing it. Wes Clark can take red states like no other
Democrat -- and I am a yellow dog dem who lived in beautiful blue NY for 25 years -- Oklahomans turned out for him which is the reddest of the red. IMHO. I'll vote for him. I'll work for him. Wouldn't it be great to have a smart guy in the Oval Office again>

[FrenchieCat]

62. I'm glad you like it.....

I do feel that it will be more effective if Dems come together on a frontal assault against Bush's war in Iraq. That is the only way that the course can be changed.....if there is enough support shown on a united front.

[dhinojosa]

48. Here is a copy General Clark's sketch here from news.yahoo (Image)

[FrenchieCat]

49. Do you have

a link for that?
That looks like a Freeper's drawing, don't you think? Elementary and totally backwards! :rofl:

[dhinojosa]

50. Hahaha. I drew it up myself....

It's late I felt like having fun.

[FrenchieCat]

51. It was funny!

You should draw one where he's coming in as the fucking calvary towards Iraq! That would be good! Doncha think? ;)

[farmbo]

52. Clark sticks it to Rove, while other Dems quiver

Remember Rove's statement about Cindy and the antiwar movement last week:

On The Anti-War Movement: Cindy Sheehan is a clown. There is no real anti-war movement. No serious politician, with anything to do with anything, would show his face at an anti-war rally...

Meanwhile, Clinton (both), Kerry, Edwards and Bayh seem to have gotten Rove's memo and are avoiding Cindy like she's a leper.

Clark is only potential Democratic candidate who is showing any vestige of leadership.

[Gronk Groks]

73. Hold on a minute, Conyers is there too...

...How about Clark and Conyers for '08???

[hollowdweller]

68. Vietnam was a great defeat too. I hope we don't stay in Iraq that long

[1932]

76. Vietnam wasn't winnable. The American defeat was in invading.

My showed our moral and political weakness not by pulling out but by going in.

[mdelaguna2000]

77. Yep. Iraq too.

Sometimes failure is from the get go. Iraq is a failure, never should have gone, not going to fix it by staying there. Ever. My opinion.