Wes Clark on Fox this morning - Transcript re Bush speech yesterday

[Adelante]

This was transcribed by Melange for her CCN blog:

Clark on Fox and Friends, 8:15 am 11/12
Posted by Melange on November 12, 2005 - 9:58am.

(footage of Bu$h speech from Veteran's Day)

Kiran Chetry (Fox anchor): Alright, that was the president speaking at a Veteran's Day speech yesterday about the War on Terror, Iraq and of course critics of the war. Our next guest has made no secret about the fact that he also has a lot of criticism for the war in Iraq and he says he has a plan for Iraq that would send the right signal to our troops. Joining us now is former NATO Commander and Fox News Military Analyst retired General Wesley Clark. Good to have you with us, thanks for being here, General.

WC: Thanks, good to be here.

KC: Ah, you heard the president's speech yesterday and there were many who said it's about time he came out and just answered to a lot of what's been going on lately, which has been not criticism for what's happening in Iraq but for what happened before we went to war. Your thoughts?

WC: Well, I think he, ah, there's a lot to answer for because the intelligence that was available was hyped. I was one of many people who had seen previous intelligence that said the best judgment of the intelligence community was there might be weapons of mass destruction, some materials were unaccounted for. But the talk about mushroom clouds that Secretary Cheney was certain they were going to get a nuclear device fairly soon and so forth; it was irresponsible, it was ungrounded in the facts and the Congress that voted on the resolution never had the chance to see all the dissenting opinions within the intelligence community so I think there's a lot to be looked at here. I think strategically, though, we can see now, four years after 9/11, that going into Iraq in a way to fight the war on terror was a strategic blunder. Al Qaeda <crosstalk> is in Iraq right now because there is not strong control over Iraq.

KC: But let me ask you this. There seems to be two different things going on. One is a lot of the people who are the toughest critics right now of the president did vote to authorize the war, and we're talking about Senator Kennedy and we're talking about Senator Kerry, ah, Senator Clinton et cetera. But my question is if things had gone better, let's say things went a little bit differently than they have been, there's no doubt we've had challenges in Iraq. Would all of this 'I told you so's' be coming out right now? It seems we're debating two different things - how Iraq's going now versus what we did before we got there.

WC: Well I think it's inevitable in democracy that if things start to go bad, the voters and their representatives want to hold responsible or accountable the people who got it bad and got it wrong. So that's why this is going on. There's nothing wrong with that, it's the way democracies work. But I do think we've got to keep our eye on the ball. We've got three things going on in Iraq. First we've got the effort to put an Iraqi government together and a stable country that doesn't fall apart, disintegrate into civil war or threaten its neighbors. Secondly we've got a real problem with terrorism which is now rooted in Iraq and you see by what's happened in Jordan, it's expanding in the region. And third, we've got other regional issues like Iran's quest for nuclear weapons. So we've got to craft an Iraq policy that addresses all three of these concerns. That's why I'm against those who call for a quick timelined pullout. We have to redeploy forces eventually from Iraq. I don't think we want to stay there but what we've got to do is train the Iraqi military, get the government in place, establish a rule of law, protect the borders, <crosstalk> there's a whole lot of things that could be done.

KC: Which is happening.

WC: But the problem with the administration's approach is that they've had tunnel vision on the military inside Iraq instead of looking at the whole region and using all the assets of the US government including diplomatica leverage.

KC: Well, let me just ask you this. Why aren't we getting more help from the outside community, from the world community, from the United Nations. The United States is not alone in seeing the outcome and bearing the brunt of Islamic fundamentalism and terror.

WC: Because of the way the United States has treated the United Nations and other agencies. We've had a belief that our men and women in uniform could do this job all by themselves with the help of the British military. And, you know, that makes good sense to some people in the Unites States who may not have been in the region and don't understand the dynamics, but the truth is this is a regional problem. Iran and Syria are deeply involved in what's going on in Iraq. They're part of the problem. We have to use diplomacy to make them part of the solution.

KC: I just want to ask you one quick question before we leave. The Silberman/Robb Commission that came out, the former commission of the intelligence capabilities regarding weapons of mass destruction said in their report that they issued to Congress "we conclude there was no political pressure that caused anyone to skew or alter their analytical judgments. Your response?

WC: They never looked at whether the administration distorted the information that was available in its approach to the public and they specifically said they weren't authorized to do that. That's what has to be looked at by this <crosstalk> Senate committee and they haven't done so.

KC: Alright, we're going to talk more about that but we're out of time. General Wesley Clark, thank you.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/2434#comment-39167



Note to mods: posted with permission

[Sparkly]

1. Thanks, WesDem!!!

I was hoping to hear something from the General on this!!

(Did he really say "Secretary Cheney?" lol)

:hi:

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

2. Great response from Clark! n/t

[bucknaked]

3. He nailed it with that last statement!

It's about time somebody scuttled that RW talking-point.

BTW...

"...And third, we've got other regional issues like Iran's quest for nuclear weapons. So we've got to craft an Iraq policy that addresses all three of these concerns. That's why I'm against those who call for a quick timelined pullout. We have to redeploy forces eventually from Iraq. I don't think we want to stay there but what we've got to do is train the Iraqi military, get the government in place, establish a rule of law, protect the borders, <crosstalk> there's a whole lot of things that could be done.

KC: Which is happening."

lol!

They don't even try to hide their bias anymore.

[ROakes1019]

4. kennedy

I've heard Kennedy did not vote to invade Iraq and yet a charge like this is made without a challenge. I had great faith in Clark when he entered the presidential race last year, but it became evident he was a little slow with his arguments. We shouldn't put forth as one of our champions someone who doesn't know political history inside and out.

[Sparkly]

12. "doesn't know political history"

I'm sure he knows. There were so many inaccuracies in the interviewer's questions, if he corrected them all he wouldn't have been able to make any other points. You may disagree and think he should have corrected the misstatement about Kennedy -- fine. But it doesn't mean he "doesn't know political history" and it doesn't mean he didn't answer the questions well with what he did say.

[Jai4WKC08]

14. Oh fer cryin' out loud

Clark had a message to deliver to the Fox audience. It would have been a distraction, not to mention a stupid waste of what little time he had, to argue over such a minor point.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

39. Even if he doesn't know how every Democratic Senator voted on this

particular vote, or any and/or all votes, it's no big deal IMO.

With 100 total Senators at a given time and many roll call votes, there is no need to know them all when you can look them up.

With Faux news a person could make a full time job of correcting their errors, lie, misstatements.

If he did know, you can see by the transcript that he only gets a small amount of time to make his point. Any distraction would take up a large chunk of that time.

[AlinPA]

5. "Fox News Military Analyst retired General Wesley Clark" What??

Why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why do Democrats show up on that goddamn propaganda channel? All they do is supply certification that Faux is "unbiased", "fair and balanced". If we did not play into their hands, people would see it for what it is: a bunch of dogs barking the republican line. I'm assuming Clark is on their payroll with that title. I've had it with him.

[Adelante]

9. So short-sighted

The Dem agenda is being broadcast across the land into every red state, barbershop, gas station and Quick Mart. Use your head. And yes, he gets paid and the money goes to pay his expenses as he travels everywhere raising money for Democrats and the Democratic Party. Me, I like Fox News paying to boost the Dems for a change.

Why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why should every Democrat be preaching to the choir?

[AlinPA]

28. What about my point that Faux is a propaganda channel?

[Jai4WKC08]

34. It doesn't matter

Because the people who listen to Fox don't know it and wouldn't believe it if you could tell 'em, which you can't. You sure won't convince them just by staying away.

Fox has a larger market share than all the other cable news channels combined. A large chunk of those viewers are Democrats, independents and moderate Republicans--the majority when taken together. You gonna just write those people off?

Besides, if strong, credible, and outspoken Democrats refuse to go on Fox, it's not like there will be NO Democrats on Fox. You'll just get the ones who can't get a better job, and who will cave to the right-wingers whenever they're told to. And the viewers will think those are typical Democrats. Is that what you want?

[AlinPA]

42. No, but I agree with "Because the people who listen to Fox don't know it

and wouldn't believe it if you could tell 'em"!

[Adelante]

48. Sure, it's a propoganda channel

But shouldn't right wing propoganda be answered? People are out there hearing this. They should hear our side. No?

[AlinPA]

50. Yes they should, but they don't hear because they are already converted.

No minds are going to be changed by what our guys say.

[Tom Rinaldo]

51. That is way too strong a statement IMO

For one thing, on this thread alone you can read about people who have no choice but to watch FOX because they have no control over what channel the TV is set too. Add to that spouses and housemates of those who insist on watching FOX. But far more telling than any of that, look at all of the Poll numbers about Bush and how they have changed over the last six months when more of the truth reaches more of the people.

[Texas_Kat]

52. The latest Pew survey show that the Fox audience

is made up of 21% "self-styled" Democrats and 22% Independents. IF Fox's audience is 43% non-Republicans (and that means ALL repubs, even moderates), how can we ignore the possibility that someone with Democratic values and ideology might persuade a few.

"Since 2000, the number of Americans who regularly watch Fox News has increased by nearly half from 17% to 25% while audiences for other cable outlets have been flat at best."

Talking only to those who are already persuaded is pretty pointless, unless of course we just want to give up and become a minority party forever.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=833

Clark has said that he "Loves going into the Lion's Den"

My biggest question is why aren't other strong and articulate Dems showing up on Fox too?

[AlinPA]

53. Interesting data, thanks. So 21% of Democrats are using Faux - ughh

[Texas_Kat]

54. Yeah, scary isn't it?

[Jai4WKC08]

57. Not exactly

To say that 21% of the Fox audience is Democrat is not quite the same as saying 21% of all Democrats are watching Fox.

But still, if 25% of the total adult population regularly watches Fox, for whatever reason, well, that's a whole lot of people. And if they're watching any news at all, I suspect they're an even higher percentage of the population who actually votes.

Why do they do it? Beats the hell out of me.

As others have said, some have no choice because it's on where they work. I'm thinking of the types of businesses where I see Fox on the tube--bars, restaurants, athletic clubs... lots of working class folks are practically forced to watch and they are precisely the people we need to reach with the truth.

For others, there may be a spouse who is Republican but they are not. I would think it would be very important indeed to reach these people too, because if they're only getting news thru the filter of the right-wing spouse, we could lose them when we wouldn't otherwise.

Others just probably like the big pictures, bright graphics, and tendancy to cover the more outrageous stories like Scott Peterson and Michael Jackson. Those people might not be as likely to vote as some others, but I'd hate to see us just ignore them.

But there's a final catagory of moderate to conservative Democrats and independents who watch Fox because they've been brainwashed by the right to believe that the "mainstream media" is liberal. They really do accept that Fox is "fair and balanced." It's crazy, I know, but there are a lot of people like that.

Now, you may argue that when Dems go on Fox, the reinforce the "fair and balanced" bs and I would agree. But if the alternative is that these people never hear anything but the Fox spin, I honestly believe it's more important to let them hear the Democratic side, even if it gives Fox a modicum of credibility it doesn't deserve, because these people are going to watch it anyway. It's not like anyone who knows what Fox is really about is going to suddently change their minds and start watching it. I know I don't.

[Texas_Kat]

Actually the breakout below is the most interesting, I think.

For people who watch (or could rate) the channels, 24% of those who are self-identified Democrats find Fox credible ("Believe all or most from...". Oddly, only 29% of this same category who are self-identified Republican believe what they hear on Fox. THAT's the wedge.

[AlinPA]

60. I still believe that (except people who watch it as critics such as those

in this thread) most people who prefer the Faux "News" are republicans/conservatives. Yes, there are many who get stuck in a waiting room of a car dealer, etc. who are fodder for brainwashing that it is "fair and balanced".

[Tom Rinaldo]

61. But it hasn't always been that way

A lot of those people, and/or people who fit the same demographics, used to be Democrats. They used to vote Democratic. We can go on for a long time about how things changed and why, but there is no reason to believe that the change has to be permanent. Many people have voted Republican against their own economic self interests, and I am not just talking about the Religious Right. Bush's approval ratings have dropped 20% in 18 months. Those are the reachable voters, that 20% who were approving of Bush 18 months ago. There are a whole lot of FOX viewers in that 20%.

Someone like Bush will always have a third of the electorate sown inside his pocket for the foreseeable future. Herbert Hoover had a third of the public in his pocket when he ran against FDR during the Great Depression. But people who were brainwashed do not have to remain brainwashed, if Democrats start doing something about it. Clark's made two important contributions in that direction, and there really is only so much one man can do. Clark is sweeping the floor with the FOX team of Jackals 9 out of 10 times he appears (I'll say that the other time is a draw just to inject some realism here). And Clark spearheaded the effort to counterbalance Rush Limbaugh and company by getting Ed Schultz broadcast over Armed Forces Radio.

[Clarkie1]

63. Well, you can choose to believe what you want, but facts are facts.

The fact is Clark is reaching out to a segment of FOX viewers who can be persuaded to change their views, opinions, and beliefs. That is a fact, as evidenced by the the demographic of FOX viewers posted above.

So, Clark is doing a great service to America and the Democratic Party in particular by appearing on FOX news, and he ought to be commended by all Democrats for being the one to go into the line of fire and winning.

Now, you may ask yourself, who would FOX news allow Clark to do this? I'll give you my opinion, and you can take it or leave it.

The idea of the Democrats nominating someone of Clark's stature and ability to reach out to disaffected Republicans and reshape the image of the Democratic Party terrifies them. They believe that most of the Democratic base will react reflexively just as you have reacted, turning away from Clark in part because he appears on their station.

That's what they hope will happen, but I'm betting most Dems are more politically savvy than that, and so is Clark.

However, Clark is willing to take the fall. If appearing on FOX news does destroy any chance he has of winning the Democratic nomination in 08' (which is what FOX and their cronies dearly hope), then so be it. The future of the country and the Democratic Party is more important to Clark than any personal political ambition.

Clark hasn't dedicated his life to politics, he's dedicated his life to his country.

[misternormal]

69. I like fox...

As entertainment when nothing else is on... I even put fox below beavis and butthead, when it was on. ;-)

[Adelante]

73. Wrong

Closed minds are opening every day. Look at the polls. This is golden opportunity time and the Democratic Party should be taking it and taking it wherever it lives.

[Sparkly]

10. Clark's not doing this to help Fox.

He's doing it to help Democrats. There's an audience there, and isolation doesn't help. He presents a counterpoint to their usual spin (just look at the questions he was asked, sheeeeeesh) that's important to have out there.

And in fact, he's been treated FAR far far worse on shows like Scarborough than he has been on Fox. At least the Fox talking heads let him speak.

[AlinPA]

29. My point is that they make it legitimate by appearing. They are used.

[Sparkly]

37. They're talking to people who already think it's legitimate.

There's nothing to lose here. They are using the network to reach an audience that's been told repeatedly that Democrats have no ideas, hate American, are Godless terrorist-sympathizing commies, etc...

[LandOLincoln]

45. Wes Clark being used by Fox?? Not hardly.

He's using THEM, and doing it beautifully. He's already smacked down Hannity and O'Reilly so thoroughly he's been more or less banished from prime time, but I doubt he cares much. He knows he's still reaching millions of people in any case.

(At the end of the first segment of Clark's first appearance on Falafel Boy's show, you could hear FB whining--as they cut to commercial--that WKC was "taking over" the show... :rofl: )

[Donna Zen]

15. Or if you shift your thinking:

A dose of reality delivered to fox's audience is a beautiful thing. Note: these people will never tune into Air America, and I'll wager that they have never heard of Mike Malloy.

It is our duty to call into the wingnut stations and make our case. DU is a fine place, but it is also sheltered. So, do we have the guts to take the fight to their turf?

Also, I've got some sad news for you, CNN is no better than fox and often strives to be worse. I don't get fox on my tv, but I do spend plenty of time screaming at the tube.

Leaning back in his chair and smiling, Wes Clark said: I love going into the Lion's Den.

[AlinPA]

30. My point is that they make the propaganda channel "legitimate". n/t

[LandOLincoln]

46. Millions of people already think the "propaganda channel"

is legitimate. We gain nothing whatsoever by demanding that good, tough and outspoken Democrats stay off it.

[AlinPA]

32. Agree, CNN is biased too, but not full blown like Faux has always been.

[Jai4WKC08]

36. CNN is more dangerous because it's not "full blown"

At least reasonably informed voters can see Fox for what it is. Many, even among liberal Dems, don't see bias on CNN. And believe it or not, many fall for the "CNN is liberal" bullshit the Repubs put out. Even among Democrats.

[AlinPA]

43. Agree with people can't see how biased CNN is for Bush** & Co.

[welshTerrier2]

6. how stupid is that anchor ????????????

i'm not sure i have the stomach to even read what Clark had to say ... i can't get past this anchor's incredible stupidity and her lies ...

i stopped reading after the following two statements she made:

"... there were many who said it's about time he came out and just answered to a lot of what's been going on lately, which has been not criticism for what's happening in Iraq but for what happened before we went to war."

REALLY? there has not been a lot of criticism going on lately about what's happening in Iraq????? REALLY??????? the fact that Dems are aggressively pushing for investigation of pre-war lies does NOT mean there hasn't been a steady stream of criticisms about bush's mishandling of the war!!

and then she offered this twisted little factoid:

"One is a lot of the people who are the toughest critics right now of the president did vote to authorize the war, and we're talking about Senator Kennedy ..."

REALLY? Senator Kennedy voted to authorize the war????? clearly this anchor has been watching too much of her own network ...

RFK Jr. is right; 80% of republicans would be Democrats if they only had the facts ...

[Options Remain]

7. She was downright hostile too

im being forced to watch fox here at work. (cruel and inhuman workplace) and I saw the segment. Her body language was so agressive compared to his calm it was laughable.

I thought I could hack it up until this stock market crap. OMG this is garbage.

[Donna Zen]

18. Side note:

Clark finds these segments fun, what he calls "wrestling." Telling the truth and being oh-so much smarter than your opponent, does give one the edge.

He has also said that we would be surprised at how many Democrats work at fox. They are very happy to see him when he enters the building.

[Cosmocat]

59. Also ...

I know this won't matter to a lot of people here, but this clown lumped Hillary Clinton into it ... Now, Hillary voted for the resolution, but she, as most would bemoan here, is not a critic of how the admin got the country into Iraq ...

This person either flat didn't know what he/she was talking about and just was spouting D hate ... OR, he or she knew, and was trying to put a hit on Hillary ...

[Catch22Dem]

8. He did great, as usual, but...

What amazes me (I think) is the way Kiran Chetry didn't even ATTEMPT to hide the his/her whorishness. (I don't know if it's a he or she, I don't watch it.) Is this person always this bad? Is this a Hannity-like show where they're up front about being conservative, or is this person actually trying to pretend to be balanced?

[Adelante]

11. I don't know

I don't get Fox and I never heard of this anchor before.

[Jai4WKC08]

17. It's a "she" and just par for the course

The show was "Fox and Friends" and is very typical of Fox fare.

Michelle Malkin was even a "special" guest on the show all morning. But they didn't let her ask any questions, make any comments, or dis Clark after his segment was over. I'm sure she would have liked to.

[1932]

13. What happens if the result of diplomacy is that Iraq & neighbors tell us

to get out?

How would you resolve

First we've got the effort to put an Iraqi government together and a stable country that doesn't fall apart, disintegrate into civil war or threaten its neighbors. Secondly we've got a real problem with terrorism which is now rooted in Iraq and you see by what's happened in Jordan, it's expanding in the region. And third, we've got other regional issues like Iran's quest for nuclear weapons. So we've got to craft an Iraq policy that addresses all three of these concerns. That's why I'm against those who call for a quick timelined pullout.

with

{L}ooking at the whole region and using all the assets of the US government including diplomatic leverage...We have to use diplomacy to make {Iraq's neighbors} part of the solution.

when the product of diplomacy and talking to the whole region is that they all want us gone?

Do you leave then?

[Sparkly]

16. The product of the diplomacy he's talking about wouldn't be that.

It would be to persuade other nations that it's in their best interests for Iraq to succeed as a stable country, that we are not intent on keeping a permanent presence there, that we will not use Iraq as a springboard to attack them next, that we will work with them to support stability and maintain peace.

It's a bargain that says, "Here's what's in it for you, here's what we're willing to do to help, if you'll in turn do xyz." Certainly there's a chance that may fail, but it doesn't make sense that other nations would say, "Okay, we'll keep up our part of the deal, but you don't have to keep up your part of it." :shrug:

(edited for typo! :dunce: )

[1932]

20. What if they say the only way for Iraq to be stable is for Iraq not to

appear to be a creation of the US, and for Baghdad not to be the Middle East corporate HQ for major US oil and oil service and for Monsanto, and for the Amercan private utility company that owns the Tigris-Euphrates River, and to do that, the US has to remove itself and its military from the region?

[Sparkly]

23. What if they say, "We'll do our part, you don't have to do yours?"

What if they say, "We can handle it, and we'll just trust you won't interfere later?"

Why wouldn't they just say, "No deal," in which case diplomacy failed, rather than go halfway and say "no" to bargains we can make that would AID them and protect their interests?

The deal WOULD involve taking the American face off it, pulling troops out, ensuring we would not own or control Iraq as our "creation," guaranteeing we would not seek permanent occupation there, getting Halliburton out, working in cooperation with Iraq's neighbors rather than threatening them, etc... I think the region would like to see that happen, don't you?

[Jai4WKC08]

33. What if they want us gone?

Silly question. Of course they'd say that, whether they want us to leave or not. And of course they don't want US corporations to own the oil or the river. But you're only looking at it superficially

It's not about simply contacting Damascus and Tehran and saying, "what do you want us to do?" altho that's probably part of it. Diplomacy starts with finding out what each party wants and determining where the interests intersect. And there are areas of common ground, even in Iraq. But it doesn't end there.

Clark's idea is based on what was done in the Balkans. You create a contact group. You get all the players to sit at the table. You negotiate whatever things you can find agreement on first, like maybe water or trade or travel or tourism--however small. You get the neighbors invested in the process. You give things to get things, and sweeten the deal with American concessions where you must. Ultimately, the bigger issues get worked as well, but if you don't get immediate agreement, at least you've started the talk.

I wouldn't assume the neighbors want the US military to pull out immediately. Syria, Saudi, Kuwait, and Jordan don't want a Shi'a takeover of the whole country. Iran, Syria and Turkey don't want the Kurds to break away into an independent state. I doubt any of 'em want to see civil war, altho they might rather see that than a US client state.

And while I don't think anyone wants to see US corporations "own" the oil or the river (except Bush but least of all Clark), it doesn't mean they want no US corporate involvement in the region, since they are interested in profit every bit as much as we are. Even the Iranians, for all their religious posturing.

Look, the Bushies are too ham-handed diplomatically to pull off any of what Clark proposes, and I think Clark knows that as well as anyone. They almost certainly are unwilling to try, and Clark knows that too. But it doesn't mean it couldn't or shouldn't be done, and it also benefits Democrats for voters to hear us proposing alternatives to Bush incompetence.

When the voters head to the polls in Nov 06, the Repubs will be telling them that Dems can offer nothing better. We have to convince them otherwise and that's what Clark is trying to do.

[Donna Zen]

19. Because it is not in their best interests to have a war.

All of the surrounding countries have their own internal problems, including Iran. Spending money, unstabling their populous, and chaos work against their interests.

These governments have talked to Clark, he is not just throwing this out there. Philosophically the bush administration does not believe in this approach, all they have in their tool kit is a hammer so everything looks like a nail.

Absolutely they will want us gone, but the neighbors include Kuwait, Jordan, Turkey and Saudi Arabia who also don't want the Iranians in control of Southern Iraq. Sistani knows all of this, and knows the danger of demanding too much, but the factions within the Shites community with their militias hinder his moves.

None of this can be solved with Military anything. It is a matter of statecraft and nation building. True, the bush's are completely devoid of the skills to get this done. But as I read about the stirrings in the 41 camp, I believe will see some internal pressure to "change the course."

Note: Saudi Arabia was against this war.

[1932]

22. So the options are stay and be destabilizing, or leave and destabilize?

[Sparkly]

24. Huh?

"We have to redeploy forces eventually from Iraq. I don't think we want to stay there but what we've got to do is train the Iraqi military, get the government in place, establish a rule of law, protect the borders, <crosstalk> there's a whole lot of things that could be done."

....

"Iran and Syria are deeply involved in what's going on in Iraq. They're part of the problem. We have to use diplomacy to make them part of the solution."

Where do you see "destabilizing?"

[1932]

26. Staying is destabilizing, right? We can see that happening now.

I got the impression that you argued that diplomacy will not result in a request for us to leave because that would result in war.

So, it sounds like the choice for the diplomats is that we have either violence and instability caused by an American presense or violence and instability caused by an American exit?

Clark says that the problem is that the US is not using diplomacy in the region. We are not involving the neighbors in the discussion of what to do with Iraq. What if the product of that discussion is that they say that the US is causing too much instability by remainging and that we should leave.

Saudi Arabia already had to do this with the American military, and probably will have to take some steps to reduce the American corporate and political influence over their country before their citizens are happy. So it's no inconceivable that negotiation will result in those requests, depending, of course, on with whom the US is negotiating. If we negotiate with the oligarchs, we're creating more prolbems. If we engage in diplomacy with the citizens of the countries, then we might have more luck. (And it will be the citizens who are more likely to request the US removes itself from the politics of the region, no?)

[Sparkly]

35. Think about what diplomacy does.

It's a deal. Both sides give something, both sides get something.

If we were "told to leave," then diplomacy would have failed. Our being engaged in the region, including training forces, supplying resources, brokering peace, whatever we could do and agreed to do, would be necessary. Anything short of visible, active, cooperative efforts for peace would represent a threat to these nations (and that is what we're seeing now), particularly after Chimpy's sabre-rattling.

I think it's BushCo that hopes they can make a "cut and run" exit by declaring victory, claiming Iraq is independent, and having them "ask us to leave." (Except Halliburton et al -- they'd stay.)

As for citizens deciding such things -- I'm trying not to laugh. Think about the countries we're talking about. The citizens of Iran and Syria are going to take a vote or something?!? So we shouldn't talk to their leaders? Are you kidding?

[1932]

38. And our bargaining power comes from military presence?

[Sparkly]

40. Part military, not necessarily presence

And part economic, and part political. Carrots and sticks.

[CJCRANE]

67. Yes, "talk softly and carry a big stick"

used to be the old adage for firm American diplomacy. Under * it's probably "shoot first, then holler and whine til everyone's sick of you".

[Tom Rinaldo]

44. Simple answer is, if a consensus, including Iraq, calls for U.S to leave

then the U.S. should leave. And we should immediately make it as clear as possible through both public and back channels that the United States is not seeking nor shall it maintain permanent bases in Iraq. I think that successful diplomacy would result in exactly that demand, but linked to certain milestones of stability being achieved inside of Iraq, kind of a blueprint for withdrawal rather than a strictly calender driven timeline for withdrawal. Withdrawal has to be on the table during diplomatic discussions.

Syria has had a complex relationship with the United States in the past. Syria was part of our Desert Storm coalition and contributed significant numbers of troops to that U.S. led military operation under Bush the Elder. Syria has clear security concerns regarding Iran, and also Turkey, given the ongoing issue of the Kurds and how the Kurds in Northern Iraq would react if Iraq fell any further apart, and how Turkey would then react to that.

Syria is run as a secular state, that is their Baathist legacy, so the government in Syria is no natural friend of radical jihadist Al Quada expansionist forces any more than Hussein was in Iraq. And Al Quada is an extremist Sunni movement, which is of some potential concern to Iran. Under some circumstances it is conceivable that both Syria and Iran would provide some cooperation in helping to stabilize Iraq in return for a belief that their own national interests were being addressed in return. It is conceivable that they would not demand immediate U.S. withdrawal if the government in Iraq opposed an immediate U.S. withdrawal, so long as Syria and Iran had reason to believe that the U.S. was committed to getting out of Iraq as soon as possible provided Iraq could be stabilized in the process.

Obviously, after having "installed" and promoted democracy in Iraq, if the new Iraq government calls for the U.S. to leave Iraq the U.S. must be bound to do so. That is simply a bottom line and is not a comment on how legitimately the Iraq government that will be elected in December actually represents the will of the factionalized Iraq public.

You know, I'm just sitting in upstate New York and I have no inside contacts in the region so I am never going to be able to speak with authority about what is possible and what is not. Clark is among those who do have inside contacts in the region. He is not alone in that of course, and others who do reach different conclusions than Clark. You are correct. There is no guarentee that diplomacy will work either. There are very few guarentees in that region of the world.

[Donna Zen]

27. Or...

to leave with a modicum of stabilization in some stage of development. Certain "gives to get" arrangements with the neighbors--and thus the internal Sunni-Shiite--balance of power and the rule of law, can be effected.

Believe or not, but the bush junta really believed that by installing a government in Baghdad, they would weaken Iran and Syria. Syria is weak because it is weak, but Iran is currently the big winner. Or so it seems. The problem is that the neighborhood is not about to settle for that. Thus, they will fight it out inside and outside of Iraq, or come to an agreement: what will they give up to avoid a war, and what will they get that is most important to them. This has been going on since the world began, although since bush places that date 6000 years ago, I have no faith in his reasoning.

[Auntie Bush]

47. That sounds like a good summery to me. Dammit

[TheGunslinger]

21. Damn, those FAUX anchors are such shills. Disgusting.

Giving Clark a false dichotomy about "what if things were better".


That's total bullshit.

[Tom Rinaldo]

25. Yup. But that was actually my favorite part of Clark's reply

He gave her a Civics101 course right there on her own show, what a hoot! He sat there and explained to her how Democracy works, and why that is a GOOD thing. I loved it!

[Donna Zen]

31. To quote Eric Massa

when I asked him about working for Clark: "everyday is like a PHD."

Sorry...I'm not gushing..I just loved it when he said that. I've never thought of any boss that way.

[indie_voter]

41. Thank you for posting this

I just saw a diary about this on Kos. I wondered what Clark would say after Dimson's tantrum yesterday.

The Democrats need to get Clark out in front more often.

As usual, fantastic words of reason from Clark.

[Neil Lisst]

49. I saw him and he did a good job, with Fox stepping on his lines

Fox News has handlers for the on-air talkers. Those handlers speak to the on-air talent thru their earpiece, and signal them when to interrupt and what to say when doing so. Any time a Wes Clark is on, watch how the on-air type will interrupt when he's clearly scoring points. They will either abruptly interrupt, or start stepping on the lines of the Dem.

[AndreaCG]

55. Wes shoots, he scores

It was damn smart of him to sign on with Fox, he presents an INTELLIGENT< FACTUAL rebttal to the usual BS there (unlike the wimp-ass"liberals"like Colmes.)

[TacticalPeek]

56. Thank you, Melange, for the transcript.

I very much appreciate it. And you, WesDem, for posting it.

:kick:

[mzmolly]

58. Hello Faux News - Ted Kennedy VOTED NO ON IRAQ! Proof here:

Mis-information spread by FAUX news: But let me ask you this. There seems to be two different things going on. One is a lot of the people who are the toughest critics right now of the president did vote to authorize the war, and we're talking about Senator Kennedy and we're talking about Senator Kerry, ah, Senator Clinton et cetera. But my question is if things had gone better, let's say things went a little bit differently than they have been, there's no doubt we've had challenges in Iraq. Would all of this 'I told you so's' be coming out right now? It seems we're debating two different things - how Iraq's going now versus what we did before we got there.

The correct information below:

ISSUES 2000

Ted Kennedy: Voted NO on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. H.J.Res. 114; Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. The administration would be required to report to Congress that diplomatic options have been exhausted before, or within 48 hours after military action has started. Every 60 days the president would also be required to submit a progress report to Congress.

23 Senators who voted NO

NAYs ---23
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

Faux news spreading mis-information once again.

[Disturbed]

62. Wes Clarke has more credibility than any pundit on Faux.

Thanx mzmolly for posting that list. I have been searching for it and couldn't find it.

[mzmolly]

65. You bet.

:hi: There were over 100 Dems in the house who voted against the war also.

[Sparkly]

64. Nice report at NewsHounds

http://www.newshounds.us/2005/11/12/wes_clark_intelligence_was_hyped.php

"I've been trying to analyze Clark's ability to counter spin. Part of it is emotional detachment allowing him to fix blame without passing judgement. He hands out the truth, defines the problem and offers a solution. Howard Dean has the same gift. Just imagine if either of them were in the White House right now?"

[incapsulated]

66. Yup, that's it.

It drove me nuts at first, I just wanted him to slam them like he did during the election. But he has a plan, and from what I can tell, it's having some success, winning hearts and minds. You can't do that in combat mode, as he well knows.

"Just imagine..." Indeed, but I don't need the heartache.

[rfkrfk]

68. does WC know that Kofi Annan just visited Baghdad ?

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=16544&Cr=Iraq&Cr1=


perhaps someone would like to comment about
WC's statementregarding the United Nations

[Jai4WKC08]

70. I'm sure he does

All Clark said about the UN is that they haven't done more because of the way they've been treated by the US. I don't see a connection to Annan's visit to Baghdad.

[rfkrfk]

71. what more?, would WC have the UN be doing now

IMO, the UN is eager to help diplomaticaly,
but is reluctant when ther are security concerns

[Jai4WKC08]

72. Hard to say at this point

In this specific interview, Clark was answering a question as to why the UN hasn't done more, not addressing what they should do now.

I seem to recall early on that he wanted the UN to be asked to essentially take over managing the reconstruction effort, altho the US would still provide most of the resources. He wanted to get Haliburton and the others out of it, and put a more international face on the whole operation. That's from memory--I forget the details of what he said.

I do believe Clark sees the UN, NATO, and most other international institutions as responsive to US leadership, when we bother to provide any. But he's been quite adamant that until the US learns to share the decision making (as we did in the Balkans and elsewhere), the members of those organizations are understandably unwilling to play.

I think you're right that the UN is willing to help diplomatically and probably in other ways, and that Annan's visit signals as much. You know, they did run a humanitarian effort immediately after the war, but backed off when their headquarters was bombed. I don't remember if we ever heard whether there was some failure on our part to provide adequate security that led to it.

But I still don't see what any of that has to do with what Clark said in this interview. Perhaps I am simply missing your point.

[AzDar]

74. Ahhhhh, such gravitas and intelligence...sounds Presidential to me!!