Wes Clark destroys, then Dismisses Rethug enabler Neil Cavuto

[xkenx]

THE ONE DEMOCRATIC 2008 CANDIDATE WHO CAN TAKE IT TO THE RETHUGS ON NATIONAL SECURITY.
THE ONE DEMOCRATIC 2008 CANDIDATE WHO CANNOT BE SWIFT-BOATED
THE ONE DEMOCRATIC 2008 CANDIDATE WHO CAN FLIP RED STATES WITH HIS AMERICAN HERO/AMERICAN DREAM STORY.
THE ONE DEMOCRATIC 2008 CANDIDATE WITH A PROGRESSIVE AGENDA UNDERNEATH A MILITARY GENERAL UNIFORM.

I WATCHED THIS PROGRAM; CLARK REDUCED CAVUTO TO A SPLUTTERING BLOB, AS HE ALWAYS DOES WITH THE LIKES OF BILL O'LIELLY AND SEAN HANRATITY. DON'T YOU HUNGER FOR A DEMOCRAT WHO CAN DO THAT? USUALLY THE MEDIA THUGS CUT OUR PEOPLE OFF AT THE END. CLARK TURNED THE TABLES AND "DISMISSED" CAVUTO AT THE END. PRICELESS!!......Ken
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8/29/06 - General Wes Clark on Your World with Neil Cavuto
General Wesley Clark on Fox News Dayside

August 29, 2006
Transcript by Reg NYC

Neil Cavuto: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld blasting critics of the War on Terror, comparing them to those appeased Adolph Hitler prior to World War II.

(video of Sec. Rumsfeld)
Neil Cavuto: Alright, reaction now from former Presidential candidate, Fox News military analyst, General Wesley Clark, author of Winning Modern Wars: Iraq, Terrorism and the American Empire. General, what did you think of Rumsfeld's remark?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK:: Well, I think they're, they're overdrawn and misplaced. I- no one has ignored the threat to the United States, and certainly Rumsfeld hasn't been ignored. He lead an invasion of a country that actually wasn't a sponsor of terrorism. The invasion's gone very poorly. It's been this administration's contention that it remains the center piece of the War on Terror, and what America's increasingly understanding is that the problem of Iraq is not a problem of the War on Terror. It's a problem of the Bush administration's own making.

Neil Cavuto: Alright. Still, we don't know unequivocally whether Iraq was sponsoring terror. That's a-whole-nother point, but let me ask you about what-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK:: Well, we do know, Neil, that it had nothing to do with 9/11 and that they may have used terrorism as a method, but they weren't part of the gang of terrorists that Donald Rumsfeld wants us to attack and that all Americans want to get rid of.

Neil Cavuto: Well, let's ask to the bigger point, because we could argue that one for a while, but on this issue that Mr. Rumsfeld raise, General, that we, can we truly afford to return to the destructive view that America, not the enemy, is the real source of the world's troubles?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK:: I don't think anybody has suggested that we have that view.

Neil Cavuto: You don't think there, there, there are those in the Democratic Party-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK:: Absolutely not.

Neil Cavuto: -who blame the United States for the evil that's been heaped upon it?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK:: Absolutely not. I- that, that, that's absolutely nothing but partisan attack. Look, the United States is the bastion of Democracy and freedom, and every Democrat knows that, but the invasion of Iraq was a war we didn't have to fight. This administration took us to Iraq. They took us to Iraq without a real reason for doing so under some grandiose plan to transform the Middle East and make it all democratic.

Neil Cavuto: Well General, can I ask you this?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK:: And what happened is that-

Neil Cavuto: C-, c-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK:: Hamas is in charge.

Neil Cavuto: Alright, but-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK:: Hizbullah's in charge.

Neil Cavuto: L-, Let me ask you this.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK:: It's backfired.

Neil Cavuto: You're a General. Y-, You're, you're one of the most widely respected Generals we've ever had, and you must realize that by disparaging this war, saying it was a mistake, for the guys still fighting there, and they catch a broadcast of this, General, they're going to say, 'What the heck? Why am I here? What am I doing?'

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK:: No, the guys that are still fighting there know that there are some of us on the outside who've served our time in uniform - and I had 34 years. I fought in Vietnam. I led a winning war against Slobodan Milosevic in the Balkans. - There are some of us who have enough courage to speak out about what's right and wrong, not only for the country-

Neil Cavuto: Would you tell them to get out?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK:: -but for the men and women in uniform.

Neil Cavuto: General, would you tell then, 'It's, guys, look, you're there. You're in a snake pit. Get out. We, we say get out right now' ?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK:: Well, I wouldn't've gone there in the first place, but now we've got to succeed, Neil. So, I don't think most Democrats want us to just jerk the chain and pull out, and I certainly don't think that's the best thing for the country.

Neil Cavuto: Well, actually your, the, your former nominee does. John Kerry has said he regrets the vote. Others are beginning to echo that in the Democratic Party, maybe save Hillary Clinton, but are saying 'Now is the time to get out.'

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK:: Well, I'm s-

Neil Cavuto: Are you in that camp? Yes or no.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK:: Anybody, anybody- I-, I would not have voted for the war. I think it was a mistake to've gone in, but now the problem is not inside Iraq. It's a problem of the region. It's connected to Ahmadinejad in Iran. It's connected to Israel. It's connected to Hizbullah in Lebanon. It's connected to Syria. It's connected to the price of oil.

Neil Cavuto: I know. General, yes or no, do you think we should get out now?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK:: I think what we need is a regional strategy for success, and that's what this administration gas failed to provide. As part of that strategy, I think it's possible we can deploy some American- re-deploy some American troops.

Neil Cavuto: Do you-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK:: But-

Neil Cavuto: Do you think though that, General- Here's the thing your-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK:: I wouldn't call on a pull-out right now.

Neil Cavuto: Alright, General.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK:: No, I'm not calling for that.

Neil Cavuto: Do, do you think then, the, by the constant pounding against the war, the constant pounding of the President, saying that he's a unfit Commander in Chief, that he hasn't done his job - what message does this send to our troops - and you of course, a former esteemed general - what message do you think that sends when the Commander in Chief is bludgeoned constantly?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK:: I don't think that's the point. I think the point is that the Commander in Chief went to war, partly for political purposes. He's used the war for political purposes, and I object to anyone using our men and women in, in uniform-

Neil Cavuto: What political gain-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK:: -for political purposes.

Neil Cavuto: General, what political gain has this President gotten out of this war?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK:: (laughs) He's gotten control of the Congress on 2002. He won the 2004 election over it, and now he's in a hole in 2006. And so, once again he's calling anybody who disagrees with him on his foreign policy and his attack on Iraq as someone who's soft on terror. That's not the case.

Neil Cavuto: No, no. He's not actually-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK:: Democrats are really-

Neil Cavuto: No, no, no. The best I can remember, General-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK:: Democrats are really strong on, on winning against terrorism.

Neil Cavuto: -he wasn't. No, no, no. General, you're, you're a smart man. He's not equating Iraq in that sense. He's talking about the War on Terror. Is it possible that your party, the reason why it keeps goofing up at the polls is because it can't distinguish between the two?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK:: No, I think that my party has distinguished between the two. I think what it is is the other part doesn't want to. I think Americans now recognize that the invasion of Iraq, by and large, was a mistake. It's what I've been saying all along. It wasn't connected to the events of 9/11, and it hasn't facilitated our success in the War on Terror. It's made it more difficult, bogging down our Armed Forces-

Neil Cavuto: Alright.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK:: -And serving as a recruiting agent.

Neil Cavuto: Okay.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK:: But Neil, this is going to be the big election issue as the election draws near, and I hope we'll have a chance to talk about it some more.

Neil Cavuto: I hope so too, General. Good having you on. Thank you.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK:: Thank you.

Neil Cavuto: General Wesley Clark in Little Rock.

[Sparkly]

1. I saw that. Cavuto was trying hard!!

Interrupting, trying to play "gotcha," etc...

This is a good example of how skilled Clark has become at debating, imho.

[niceypoo]

103. But, but, FAUX and CAVUTO are FAIR and BALANCED!!

They would never take sides, would they???¿¿¿

[CollegeDUer]

2. Well I disagree with most of what he said

But he's arguing with a crazy man (cavuto) so he does look very good when compared with him. He's beating sense into them but I don't see much humanitarian and progressive concerns in his foreign policy.

[Schema Thing]

3. Then you're blind

[CollegeDUer]

4. Well I don't agree with General Clark's politics

But he's very good at arguing his position against the insane people at FOX.

[Jai4WKC08]

5. What don't you agree with?

When you say you don't hear much progressive or humanitarian, I can't help but feel you really don't know what his politics are about. Because in my opinion, he's probably the MOST humanitarian of any of the national Democratic leaders. Could you be more specific?

[CollegeDUer]

7. His general stance on American foreign policy

I'm generally very against our foreign policy under both democrats and republicans and to my knowledge he has supported every armed intervention in the past few decades except this iraqi war, and mostly because it was "a mistake" (not that it was a blatant war crime by any reading of international laws). I like leaders who are willing to say we are being immoral or cruel to foreigners, as we so often are. That's just my preference, I'm sure many others are fine with more moderate leaders. I have nothing against General Clark, he's a good moderate who whips the FOX guys and can probably win an election and be a huge improvement over Bush. But he really would not be my choice.

[Sparkly]

9. "Moderate" -- lol

Who's your favorite potential '08 candidate -- one who thinks and speaks as you posted above?

[Jai4WKC08]

24. Ok, thanks for responding

I don't think of Clark as being "moderate" but maybe by your definition he is.

I don't think it's fair to say he has "supported every armed intervention of the past few decades," since he really wasn't free to protest any until this last one. A soldier must fight where the elected civilian leaders tell him to. You wouldn't want a military that functioned otherwise. But it's certainly true that Clark supports the use of military force, when necessary and ONLY as a last resort, to advance US and allied vital interests.

Fwiw, Clark has been pretty out-spoken about our being "immoral or cruel to foreigners" when he thinks we are, as in the administration's torture policy, or in snubbing our allies, or in not intervening in places like Rwanda and Darfur, and sooner in the Balkans than we did.

[grizmaster]

87. Could you elaborate on what you mean by this

"to my knowledge he has supported every armed intervention in the past few decades"


Clark is more hawkish than my own stance, but nearly any nationally recognized candidate is more hawkish than me. But your statement seems a bit exaggerated from my knowledge.



Care to fill me in on which armed interventions you're referring to?

[joeprogressive]

115. Clark is not a moderate, he is a true progressive

and what military conflict would you have been against in the past few decades? Bosnia, Gulf War, Somalia? Clark is our best hope as noted earlier.

[Democrat 4 Ever]

11. You are always the contrarian, aren't you? You give "left-handed"

compliments but then disagree with anyone and everything that stands up to the lies of the reichwing. What's up with that?

General Clark is an articulate, wise debater and that puts every argument in a cogent frame that makes it easy for even Chucklenuts and his Cabal to understand - he slays everyone with his reasoned talk and you don't agree with General Clark? Pray tell, what is it you don't like about another possible Dem candidate?

[CollegeDUer]

13. Welcome to Democracy

You support who stands by your beliefs. That's a HUGE spectrum of thought there, and I'm not going to limit mine to a few people who make television.

[Sparkly]

18. At the risk of being accused of "swarming," I'm just curious to know...

Which Democrat do you favor -- with a chance in Hell of winning nationally in 2008, in particular -- who did NOT support recent "armed interventions," before Iraq?

Which Democrats have not called Iraq not "a mistake," but rather "a blatant war crime by any reading of international laws," saying "we are being immoral or cruel to foreigners?" ("Foreigners?" There aren't "foreigners" in their own countries.) Closest I can see to that is Kucinich.

I'm curious to know who all these "non-moderates" are, in your view.

[TankLV]

130. Nevermind.

Withdrew post.

[clark08]

96. clark is our best hope

in 08.

[goclark]

100. I believe he is our best hope as well

My name stands for GO Wesley Clark and I thought he was right for 04.

Now that Bush has destroyed the world, 08 must have a leader with military experience, one that has traveled and understands the world view.

Clark is the only one that can do that IMO.

[Check12]

6. I saw that interview..

Cavuto was beaten down on every stupid argument he tried to make.
The most importnat thing that Clark said is that when Cavuto asked him "Why do the democrats not see that the war in Iraq is part of the larger GWOT?" Clark responded "Because it is not part of the GWOT and the republicans despertaly need it to be so because it's the only defense they have left for the disasterous state of the iraq conflict." Clark was brillant in his ability to quickly turn the talking point into an attack on thier logic in 30 seconds or less.

[Kahuna]

8. U WES A!!!!!!! U WES A!!!!!!!!!

:woohoo:

[JohnnyRingo]

10. Clark/Edwards '08

That's my hope.

The general could have pointed out in the middle of the interview that the Buxh admin seems to have recruited some "news reporters" to equate the War On Terror with the War in Iraq....as Cavuto proceeded to do just that.

[RBS]

89. I don't think he would ever do that.

Unfortunately, Wesley Clark takes a paycheck from Fox as their "military analyst", so while it would be nice to hear, he's not going to say anything like you suggest. Better to have him on as a voice of reason in the din of Republican talking points. It's an unfortunate byproduct of the times that Clark needs to measure his words to avoid the trap of appearing "ant-American" as opposed to the wretched policies of this administration.

Conversely, I will say this- the Foxies have given up all pretense of objectivity. In the past, they were much less blatent about their bias. Now they use phrases like "you Democrats", "your party", and I think you are seeing the effect in the ratings. Many of those who were suckered into believing that Fox News was an actual news organization are starting to turn away.

[kentuck]

12. Clark is one smart guy...

General or not...

[bowens43]

14. Clark says 'Stay the course'

No thanks.

[FrenchieCat]

20. He said.......we shouldn't have gone in........change the course.......

we need a strategy which we have yet to see. And we should be able to redeploy troops there.....but not tomorrow (which is what most, if not all Democrats believe--John Kerry, et al--none of them are for leaving right this millisecond) but we must start to redeploy in the very near future (most Dems say within the year.....end of 2006 is what most say...some mid 2007).

So, Clark didn't say "Stay the course"....that's what you said he said. Not quite the same thing!

[HootieMcBoob]

37. pretty much Murtha's plan

It sounds to me that what Clark wants to see happen is pretty much the same thing that Murtha has called for. The Republicans like to call it "cut and run" but it's much more than just pulling out. That's why they wouldn't allow Murtha's plan to be voted on in the house and instead put up a bogus plan of their own to be voted on, that they knew was going to be defeated, that they then attributed and continue to attribute to Murtha saying that he wouldn't even vote for his own plan -- the bunch of shites.

[Sparkly]

21. Hardly!

He wrote:

Iraq isn’t Vietnam. America can’t just walk away without horrendous consequences. But “stay the course” isn’t a strategy. And the longer the bleeding goes on there, the harder the electorate will dig for answers—and the tougher they’ll be on those who got us in, and aided, abetted and apologized for them.

From this article:http://securingamerica.com/node/1329

[DemExpat]

15. He is so intelligent and can get his point across like a sword.

I really like Wes Clark on our side.

:kick:

DemEx

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

16. Was this supposed to be some kind of Dem/Repub point/counterpoint? I mean,

how much more obvious can it be that Cavuto, and ALL Fox reporters are advocates for the Republican Party and attempt to paint Democrats in a bad light every chance they get?

[Bucky]

118. Not just Democrats. They go after the UN, too. They're the pro-war media

[NJmaverick]

17. Outstanding work by Clark!

This guy should be the Democrats main spokesperson. He is sharp, assertive and knows how to handle the right wingers.

[gratuitous]

19. Cavuto sure seems to have a funny memory

He remembers all kinds of things that Democrats have never said or done, and he can't for the life of him remember any errors or blunders made by the Republicans. Hell, Cavuto doesn't even remember the Bush administration exploiting fear and terrorism for political gain!

I'm not a big fan of Clark's foreign policy philosophy either, but he did a mostly effective job of avoiding Cavuto's attempts to frame him into saying something he didn't want to say or that didn't comport with what Clark actually thinks.

[CJCRANE]

22. Clark

is the closest thing to All-American Hero and electable progressive candidate that you're going to get in the real world.

He's no Mahatma Gandhi, but he's a pragmatist and a realist and one of the few who could bring people together, both in America and the Middle East.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

27. Started his campaign WAY TOO LATE last time.

[Parisle]

23. Question About Clark,....

---- Was it not Gen. Wes Clark who first brought up the idea of "pre-funding" as a means of reforming Social Security? It seems that I recall that from a couple of years ago,.. and I was shocked that this thoroughly ingenious idea got no more notice than it did. Anyone?

[FrenchieCat]

42. I don't recall that as being part of his platform.......in the primaries,

although he acknowledges that the biggest problem is coming when the babyboomers retire and based on how social Security is structured, this will mean that we will be taking out more than we put in.

However, he may have said this since....although I couldn't find it just now.

But then, I know that he broadened his position on health care from Universal Health care for everyone to a Single Payer health care system since the primaries. Wes proposed that we phase into this type of health care system gradually as opposed to thinking we can get it done in one fell swoop!

[Auntie Bush]

25. I LOVE this line

"what America's increasingly understanding is that the problem of Iraq is not a problem of the War on Terror. It's a problem of the Bush administration's own making. That's telling 'em! :bounce:"


Neil's most outrageous comment.

"Neil Cavuto: Do, do you think then, the, by the constant pounding against the war, the constant pounding of the President, saying that he's a unfit Commander in Chief, that he hasn't done his job - what message does this send to our troops - and you of course, a former esteemed general - what message do you think that sends when the Commander in Chief is bludgeoned constantly?"

Wouldn't that tell any intelligent person that we think he's full of sh*t
and needs his Depends changed before he soils himself and America?

[Sparkly]

26. Right -- as if it's patriotic to pretend the preznit is NOT incompetent

or pretend things ARE going well in Iraq... That's better for the troops! :sarcasm:

It reminds me of something a very young John Kerry said, during the "debate" with John O'Neill on the Dick Cavett show. He said "My country, right or wrong" is like "My mother, drunk or sober," saying if she's drunk ("God forbid she is," he said) you sober her up and try to make things right. Sort of a funny way of saying it, but the point right, and it's one of the many things we're dealing with again, that we dealt with during the Vietnam war.

[FredScuttle]

74. Clark has too much class to respond as I would have liked

He should have thrown right back in that pig's face - "Well, Neil, when I was in uniform, hunting Milosevic, I didn't mind that you and the other whores on this channel were chasing Clinton's penis."

[garthranzz]

28. What Clark should have said at this point:

Neil Cavuto: Do, do you think then, the, by the constant pounding against the war, the constant pounding of the President, saying that he's a unfit Commander in Chief, that he hasn't done his job - what message does this send to our troops - and you of course, a former esteemed general - what message do you think that sends when the Commander in Chief is bludgeoned constantly?

By stating what is obvious to anyone willing to look at the facts, by pointing out the Emperor's New Clothes, by stating - pounding, to use your word, that Mr Bush is incompetent, is an unfit Commander-in-Chief, that he and Cheney and Rumsfeld have failed miserably, have neither increased our security nor promoted democracy - by saying all this, which is only the truth, it sends a message to our troops that we don't think they're idiots. It tells them we trust them to handle the truth. It tells them that we will take care of them by not allowing them to continue to suffer for a mistake. It tells them that, like their brothers and sisters who fought in Vietnam, their service allows this country to debate, to disagree, to chastise and remove leaders who betray the trust of the American people, including and especially, the military. It tells them that their time in uniform preserves the Constitution - and democracy itself - precisely because unlike the dictators we've fought in the past and the would-be tyrants - at home and abroad - neither rank, nor wealth, nor a microphone makes one person superior to another. It sends the message that though the so-called Commander-in-Chief has betrayed them, sent them to fight an unwinnable war, based on lies and deceptions, and sent them without the support or equipment needed to succeed, we will not betray them or abandon them or deceive them or allow their sacrifice and service to have been for naught. For they have been fighting not for the spread of democracy abroad, but for the preservation of democracy here - by demonstrating the courage to serve and dissent.

[Auntie Bush]

29. Excellent!

[xkenx]

33. Great comment; spread it around!!!

[dback]

47. "Oh, are we talking about how the GOP treated Clinton during Bosnia?"

Undermining him, belittling him, constantly yelling 'Wag the Dog' while we were at war? Blocking and deriding any and all efforts by the Clinton administration to deal effectively and preventively with terrorism?

You don't want to start down this road with me, Neal."

That's something else he might have added.

[ourbluenation]

88. Gore/Clark 2008

[OwnedByFerrets]

30. Why is it SO DAMN HARD

for democrats and progressives in power to simply say "DEPLOY NOW"! Every time they are asked that (except for one or two exceptions) they stumble and stutter). Its more than aggravating, its maddening. I agreed with most of what Gen Clark had/has to say, but they should all be on the same page about immediate reployment.

[FrenchieCat]

31. Loved what he said.....that needs to be said over, and over again....

"what America's increasingly understanding is that the problem of Iraq is not a problem of the War on Terror. It's a problem of the Bush administration's own making.

So as much as Bush keeps stating that we must be patient, and that we just cannot leave........that Iraq is the Front on the War on Terror.....we have to continue to point to the fact that Bush got us into this mess to begin with.

That's why Democrats who keep talking about "no need to refight how we got were we got" will never have the correct point to make!

[madfloridian]

32. What does he mean... we have to "succeed."

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK:: "Well, I wouldn't've gone there in the first place, but now we've got to succeed, Neil. So, I don't think most Democrats want us to just jerk the chain and pull out, and I certainly don't think that's the best thing for the country."

When our Democrats say that...what is their definition of success? I am concerned about the Democratic rhetoric on this issue. I think everyone of them is into the philosophy of remaking the middle east, and it truly worries me. Most of them seem to be unaware of the chaos there.

Most of them don't seem to realize that the only way to succeed is to kill more people, more civilians, and have more of our own killed.

They all worry me on this issue, and I still think they are getting advice we don't know about, like this about encouraging Western style democracy:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/29/112724/212

[Sparkly]

34. Same things other Democrats mean when they speak of a "plan for success"

Stop it from getting worse and establish at least SOME level of stability -- "exit strategy" is another term.

[Sparkly]

73. Examples from other Democrats, here....

Kerry:
Kerry Introduces Strategy for Success in Iraq Act in United States Senate (11/10/05)
http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=248663
“And success will require collective effort that engages members of the international community who share our interest in a stable Iraq.” (08/03/06) http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/080406Z.shtml

Edwards:
"A plan for success needs to focus on three interlocking objectives: reducing the American presence, building Iraq's capacity and getting other countries to meet their responsibilities to help." (11/13/05)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101623.html

Dean:
“We believe that it's time for a new direction in Iraq and a plan for success that is both tough and smart.” (6/23/06)
http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/06/dean_on_democra.php

Warner (although he has so few words to quote from, I couldn't find the word "success"):
"I think the Democratic Party ought to get over refighting how we got into the war and, again, continue to press the president on what he hopes to do in terms of how we will finish the job."
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/richmondreport/2005/11/warners_iraq_policy.html

Edited to add: Longer statement from General Clark, from 2/14/06: http://securingamerica.com/node/607

[FrenchieCat]

38. Success in Gen. Clark's mind is that we at least attempt to

"stabilize" the ME prior to Redeploying....which could be done under the leadership of someone like General Clark, although this Admin isn't interested in doing so.

Remember that our "crime" was committed when we went into Iraq in the first place. Some folks want to think that the answer is to just leave it all behind us right now; today, as though that will make it all better. I wish it was that simple! But the unpleasant truth is that we opened the Pandora's box when we went in, and it's called a Pandora's box for a reason....meaning, leaving tomorrow will not undo what has been done....although, sure, OUR troops would be out of harm's way.

The problem in only being concerned with OUR troops and little else is that WE caused this shit.....and those that think that the only issue is the welfare of our troops, and screw everything else are really blinded to the complexities of the region, and the truth that this shit ain't over......not even by a little bit! Our troops volunteered understanding the chance that they might have to sacrifice their lives....which was NOT what the Iraqi civilian population volunteered for. So I hate to put a premium on our troops' lives while not caring so much about what happens to those who didn't even ask for this shit.....that we caused.

....which is why it is so important that we don't allow the fact that we went over there when we shouldn't have be forgotten....as some Democratic politicians continue to counsel.

Sure, many folks say......if we leave, the violence "might" end....that there is violence over there now explicitly because we are there. But I don't believe that this is the case anymore. I don't believe that the civil war will resolve itself simply because we are out of the equation. Note that this is NOT a laboratory experiment, and cannot be treated as such....cause when all hell breaks loose, are we to just whistle a tune and "hope" for the best? Because, I'll tell you that once we leave, we cannot go back--Ever! Me, personally, am not willing to watch the murders and mayhem that will ensue and act like it ain't our problem whatsover.....because regardless of how far we turn our heads the other way, the lives of many Iraqi civilians will end based on something that we did.....

So although for those who say....oh well, doesn't matter if we are there or not anyways, so we might as well not be there, I do think that U.S. Forces are most likely the only thing keeping that country from completely disintegrating in an even deeper turmoil and chaos than what is there today.......

I do think that things could get much, much worse....and regardless of George Bush....the entire United States is at fault on this one....cause a majority supported this damn war for so long!

The Solution to the Iraq issue is a very difficult one, and thinking that there is an easy solution is foolhearty IMO.....The only easy solution would have been not to have gone in there in the first place.....but it appears to late to utilize that solution at this point.

[sendero]

40. This is tough..

... I have more respect for Wesley Clark than probably any politician I can think of. (And of course, he's not really a politician or is he? :)

But, I'm pretty well unconvinced that there is ANYTHING ANYBODY can do to "save" Iraq.

I believe whether we leave today, tomorrow, a month from now, a year from now, or 10 years from now, there will be a power struggle of some kind and it will likely be bloody.

That said, if Mr. Clark thinks there is a way, I'd be supportive of his plan, for 2 simple reasons 1) he clearly actually wants a good result, something that cannot be said for the currrent batch of clowns running things and 2) he's actually one of the most intelligent, articulate people I've ever heard and if anyone could come up with such a strategy it would be him

He can and does smack down every talking-head asshole like Cavuto, and he does it without so much as breaking a sweat.

I'd give anything to see this man get the Dem nomination for 2008.

[xkenx]

43. My public arena hero was Bobby Kennedy, and

not since Bobby Kennedy have I been inspired by a public figure as I have been inspired by Wes Clark. As I've always said, once people get to know Wes Clark, they usually become dedicated Clarkies, and will charge through walls for him.

[FrenchieCat]

48. There is nothing that this administration will do right to salvage

Iraq......although I do believe that there is an answer to finding a "workable" compromised position that Iraq can be left in.

Unfortunately, I don't see any of this being done now....as it would take different leadership in our White House.......in order to get this accomplished......

The first step is dealing with the economic structure of Iraq. The foreign corporate interests there, along with the many foreign subcontractors need to go. The step following their banishment would be in having Iraqis employed by the government earning a reasonable wage minimum....to rebuild their Iraq. We would also need those who are international experts in various economic fields and who actually WANT TO DO WHAT'S RIGHT FOR IRAQ offering guidance to the Iraqi government and advising in earnest the need and the possibilities of nationalizing the Oil fields to the central government, who in turn would allocate the Oil profits fairly, most likely based on "per capita" of the population to the sectors, i.e., the states. The Oil income could then be used to build solid infrastructure for the country on an equitable basis.

Once the majority of Iraqis are gainfully employed....in where they are sharing in their country's natural resource income and are understanding that THEY ARE REBUILDING their own country, there will be less of a chance of intra fighting.....and this alone could possibly avert a civil war.

This economic action plan would go a long way in stabilizating that country.

Add to this a political conversation in reference to Iraq and its neighbors....creating some type of regular regional summits without the United States government involved could go a long way in Iraq winning respect for itself. Because, in a long run...it is not just Iraq at issue here.....but the entire region smoldering underneath.....mostly due to the example that the US has set in their attempts to "control" Iraq.....and therefore encouraging other ME countries and political organizations feeling the need to also get a piece of this Iraq pie, if not the whole enchilata!

When the day comes that the United States is respecting Iraq as a true sovereign country, then Iraq's neigbors will too...sooner than later. If and when Iraq is able to be seen as truly running its own affairs (and as long as Bush's admin is involved, Iraq will never run it's own country) then many of the neighbororing countries and even some of the "groups" within various Countries in the region will discontinue to effectively meddle and intervene via providing whatever assistances they can to those who, due to not participating in making Iraq what Iraq could be would feel the need to destabilize Iraq in order to attempt to "win" a piece of it.

The military portion of this is to continue training the Iraqi Army and the Iraqi Police, but at a stepped up pace...which can be done, if you have competents folks in charge of getting this done. The Iraqi Army would need the actual hardware that would allow them to do what our soldiers are doing now. The only way that this could happen is if the money being spent on Iraq now was going to where it could really make a difference in a long run. I have heard that part of the Iraqi Military and Polices' problem is the fact that they don't have the type of hardware required....and the type of hardware that the U.S. Soldiers have.

[madfloridian]

55. The blame can be spread around. Too many Dems are ok with it.

My problem is with saying we need to succeed when it is obvious we can't. We don't have the financial resources to keep our country going and spread democracy.

I am not just critical of Clark, I am critical of everyone who is not stepping up on getting us out of there.

We broke it, but we can not afford to fix it without just bombing all of the middle east.

[FrenchieCat]

57. success is a relative word....which does not mean the same to

everyone.

Clark often speaks of a C-/D+ solution as opposed to an "F".

To him coming in with a grade higher than an "F" would equate to relative success.

However, he does want the troops redeployed....and does not want permanent bases there....

Retired General Wesley Clark Calls For Iraq Troop Withdrawal...
Posted May 25, 2006 10:31 PM

Retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark called Thursday for transition of authority in Iraq during the course of this year and said that the United States should soon begin the process of withdrawing the U.S. soldiers.

Clark, a four-star general who served as the supreme commander of NATO in 1997-2000 and unsuccessfully sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004, said the fledging Iraqi government must take charge and be given the means to address the security in the country.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/05/25/retired-general-wesley-cl_n_21637.html

Clark: Begin troop withdrawals

http://www.navytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1825852.php
“It’s necessary ... to make this year a year of transition in Iraq,” Clark told The Associated Press in an interview during his visit to Kosovo. “The Iraqi government must take charge.”

He said that ministers of interior, defense and national security should be appointed, but also said that a lot of help is needed from the international community to strengthen the Iraqi government in meeting the needs of the people.

“And then we should begin the process of withdrawing the U.S. soldiers and other coalition soldiers from Iraq,” said Clark.

“I do think that there should be no permanent bases there. I think that the United States should soon begin its process of redeployment,” he said, adding that he believed there will be “some withdrawals very soon given where we are.”

[dogman]

70. At this point success is beyond Iraq.

He speaks of the regional dimension that is engulfing the ME. Due to bushco failures Iran has become a prime force in Iraq. The Kurds are caught between Turkey and Iran. Syria and Iran fight a proxy war in Iraq while combining to support Hezbollah against Israel. The Arabian peninsula nations are worried about the rise of the Persians. The region is prepared to boil over and give the RW their wish for WWIII. Clark has warned this was the course the bushco lack of policy would result in. He has been accurate so far. He attends conferences in the region and has contacts in most of the nations involved. At this point success is not any sort of victory in Iraq, but preventing the regional conflicts that have the potential to spread. Think of the neighboring countries, India, Pakistan, China, and the former USSR states. Underlying this are religions, ideologies, and economics. All of these are mixed with oil. It is in everyone's interest to see this defused. The US has wasted superpower status to serve the personal desires of bushco. With proper and respectable leadership we can negotiate. This administration will not do the right thing and that fact makes Democratic control of Congress vital. Only through oversight and accountability can this criminal enterprise be slowed down and hopefully stopped. Just bringing the troops home will not resolve anything. The bushco bs that they will follow us home is not the problem. The likelihood that they will soon go back to the region in a larger conflict is what I fear.

[brer cat]

59. I've read this entire thread, FrenchieCat, and you've made

a lot of great points, but I would especially like to commend this post. I would love nothing more than just bringing our troops home. period. amen. However, we can't forget that our troops didn't volunteer for "this" nor did the Iraqi citizens. I am supporting Clark because I believe he is the only potential candidate who can possibly have any success in stabilizing Iraq and the ME (other than Jimmy Carter, and he's too old to run again), and he is the only candidate who can repair our broken military. Wes Clark knows what "support your troops" really means, and it has nothing to do with a yellow ribbon on a bumper sticker.

And he can really kick butt:dem:

[FrenchieCat]

61. Thanks .....

You may be right that our troops didn't volunteer for "this"...although those who have signed up since 4 years ago.....most likely had an inkling (although it is also true that many who join the forces do it at times for reasons of survival).

However, most Iraqis civilians are still the most innocent in this whole debacle created by Bush and his cabal.....and so, their lives are worth at least "as much" as the lives of our soldiers.

Agreed that Wes Clark is the most qualified to get this done.....

[smomfr]

64. A common sense approach ...........

to getting out of Iraq should start with some dialogue with the enemy. Unfortunatly the bush administration dosen´t like to talk they like to tell.

[Hosnon]

90. Success is, in my opinion, at a minimum, leaving Iraq in no worse of a

position than we found it.

Regardless of whose fault it is that we went there...

[FrenchieCat]

92. And that ain't gonna happen......

Unfortunately for the entire world! :(

[Superman Returns]

35. Can it be any more obvious?

Neil Cavuto didn't even try to act fair and balance. What a joke. and yet people watch because they don't know any better.

[Zhade]

36. Lost me at "the United States is the bastion of Democracy and freedom".

That's simply not true anymore.

[FrenchieCat]

39. but are we so far gone, that we can't get it back?

because if we admit that we are no longer the bastion of Democracy and Freedom....then many will just accept that......

I'd rather not accept that the American people don't care about Democracy and Freedom! And the way to do that is to continue to say that these ARE OUR VALUES, and we want to live by those values...cause they make us who we are....

I believe that we may have strayed temporarily due to this administration--but I will not believe that this is a permanent state. I will not give in because of this administration to what we should be working towards....even if we never totally get there.

Hope by determination of turning things around is really our only weapon. And I Hope that some day, we will all, as a nation, get back to trying much harder at really being what we say we are.

[Zhade]

77. "but are we so far gone, that we can't get it back?"

I hope not, but when you consider the terrible things this country has done for decades (to suggest that it's only a temporary straying under this administration is to ignore history), I'm not very optimistic.

A little, maybe, because of things like the internet, but just a little.

[Donna Zen]

76. What do you consider a winning lead-in to bashing bush?

"America is a fucked up country?"

It seems to me that the point to make is that bush has failed, rather than open up the argument for Cavuto that Dems. "blame America first." Just saying.

[Zhade]

78. To say it's only b*s* is to ignore history.

I won't do that, and I won't condone it.

It's not just about bashing b*s* - he's far from the only evil this country has done. His (Cheney's, really) administration is more like the summation of our rapacious greed and governmental inhumanity over the decades.

[Sparkly]

79. So, should all Democrats be talking about our country's

"rapacious greed and governmental inhumanity over the decades?" Is that a good strategy toward progress, do you think?

[Donna Zen]

81. Follow the logic

Going on TV to rebut the " blame America first" meme by blaming America will bring the voters knocking themselves out to vote for Dems. and thus win back congress in hope of saving us from continuing like greedy, inhuman assholes.

It doesn't work for me, nor do I expect it would work at all. But...but... whatever makes one feel good.

[Zhade]

104. Apologies for the late reply...

I would say that honesty is a winning strategy, yes.

[PeaceProgProsp]

41. The shocking thing about this exchange

is when Cavuta gives voice to Bush's thoughts.

Why in the world is any host of a news shoe telling people what anyone is thinking? Is he really a mouthpiece for the administration?

If he wants his viewers to know what the president thinks, he should invite Bush or one of his representatives on and let them say what they think.

[blm]

44. Clark is great on these interviews - but you don't seem to GET why the

swifts were able to do what they did - the media was complicit every step of the way.

Read LAPDOGS. Clark was one of the few Dems countering the swifts at that time, and he couldn't break through because the swiftlies were given greater coverage and credibility than any of the Dem remarks in defense.

Kerry made an hourlong speech in Aug2004 attacking the swifts and the WH connection to them in front of the Firefighters Convention that every cable news network should have carried but NONE DID. They didn't even report on it as a news segment.

It's naive to say some one is onmipotent and what happened to Gore and Kerry couldn't happen to YOUR guy - but that isn't dealing with the reality of the CORPMEDIA.

It took a category 5 hurricane to blow some of them back from their 5 years of spinning for BushInc.

[FrenchieCat]

52. Wes Clark most likely understands better than most what happened.....

in reference to the SwiftBoating tactics.......against John Kerry. After all, he was swiftboated during the primary by the likes of Dole and Shelton....although those attacks were not as effective as it would have been wished.

Wes also very much understands the media being the mouthpiece of those who swiftboated John Kerry.

But I also know that john Kerry could have been more effective at attacking back those swiftboaters....like instead of attacking for 1 hour, one day.....to instead, mention in every speech he gave (maybe substituting all of the "thanks Yous" at the beginning of each speech to whomever) all about the swiftboaters....until it was a broken record.....talking clearly and concisely about the fact that these guys were just doing politics of personal destruction in order to win George Bush, someone's who own service was much more to be questioned, re-election.

The media could not have ignored every speech given by John Kerry....and so at some point, it would have been covered.

Indeed, even during the debates, John Kerry should have mentioned several times during each debate something to the effect of ..."and please tell those who are attacking my service, and you know who they are, Mr. President.....and yet have no questioned anything about your service to our country-- Please tell them that I know that these attacks are simply politically motivated and being done in a very cheap McCainist way in order to help you win an election that you simply do not deserve to win".

And then, John Kerry could have asked Clark to be his running mate, so that he would have had a built in offensive attack dog mechanism by having someone doing some attacks of his own....as well as defending John Kerry. Wes Clark has not been shy about attacking this administration in a straight forward way......so I believe that what he had to say would have resonated. But of course, John Kerry decided to go with "Hope is on the way" instead of "we will Kick your ass in National Security anytime" team.....and so it went!

[blm]

65. Do it your way - what angle does media take against YOUR way?

My guess:

Kerry is really getting OBSESSED with the swiftboat vets. He's running against them.

Kerry really got sidetracked from his campaign because his ego can't handle being attacked by fellow veterans.

Kerry is letting the swiftboat vets distract from his message, he can't do ONE speech without mentioning them.

Every answer that SOUND good always comes down to the reality of the media. They have these little rooms called EDITTING rooms, too, String together every speech and rally where Kerry attacks the swiftvets, and most people would be turned off at the obsessive aspect of it.

Until the Dems get serious and start EXPOSING the GOP control of the newsmedia, there will be no "safe" campaigns for Democrats.

[Greyhound]

45. He's still the best hope we have for '08. I'd really like someone with

more knowledge of the inner workings of DC and strong domestic policies on the bottom of the ticket. Feingold or Kucinich would be good choices, IMO.

[madfloridian]

46. He is actually saying we need to stay and win, please be honest.

Saying we must succeed there is saying we have to stay and win.

And we can't win there, it is an impossibility unless we just bomb the cradle of civilization into oblivion.

He also according to his communications person told the Senate Dems at retreat that we need to help spread western style democracy. That we need to calm people about coming home.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/29/112724/212

Too many of our Democrats are talking that way still, and they have got to start realizing the reality of what is happening there.

[FrenchieCat]

49. You are not reading my posts.

I would request that you at least read them, instead of repeating yourself in different posts without addressing any of the responses made to you.

[xkenx]

50. Madfloridian, you mischaracterize Clark's comments.

Read your own dkos reference. Clark has always preached winning people's minds, not bombing them into democracy. Making friends, not enemies. If we do the right things in the region, things will have a way of working out. It's okay for you to be supporting someone other than Wes Clark, but you have a habit of taking things seriously out of context in an attempt to knock Clark. At least try to be fair instead of forcing any number of us to waste time countering your assertions. It's getting really tiring.

[madfloridian]

51. Well to be fair, that is what he said.

And he did say that about spreading western style democracy. Now I just am one of those people who don't think we should be doing that.

I think if you try to spread our style of democracy in the middle east, it will end up being at the point of a gun. We have angered the world. We have devastated and occupied a country that never hurt us.

I do call all of Democrats to task for this...I want them to be honest and fair about how they speak. It is destroying our country's financial base, it is destroying our country.

There is in effect no more FEMA or emergency management, our road and highways are deteriorating all over the country. We are so in debt that Social Security checks might be in jeopardy.

And yet some are still talking about spreading democracy western style.

I know there is danger in Iraq whether we stay or leave, and I don't know which is more dangerous right now. Our troops are in effect being held hostage to a failing administration and Democrats who won't speak up.

We can talk about how wrong we were to get there, but staying there is destroying our reputation and our economy.

Now, what exactly did I take out of context at that dkos link? Explain.

[FrenchieCat]

53. Why is it when I respond to your post, you do not respond?

Am I on "Ignore"?

If you want to have a dialogue about this....I believe that I have given you plenty of material.....but instead of responding, it appears that you squeeze your eyes shut tight.

[madfloridian]

56. I did respond to you above.

.

[FrenchieCat]

58. I see it......

I will respond there then.

[xkenx]

54. Clark made several points about

what we need to do to be good citizens in this world. Clark is not for foreign entanglements at the expense of taking care of our own country's needs. Clark was one of the more progressive of the 2004 candidates. You can read his positions on www.securingamerica.com.

[Disturbed]

60. It is extremely frustrating to read this debate.

This Iraq debate via Cavuto vs Clark is maddening to me because the issue is so much more complicated than any convo on TV can provide. Cavuto is simplistic and wrong on most of his points but in order to counter his statements one would need a whole lot more time than is allowed in that format.

Success or Victory, as Busholini and his Criminal Cabal, keep spouting is never defined by them.

[PeaceProgProsp]

62. America needs to lead by example.

We shouldn't be spreading anything, especially when we're such a terrible example of what he claim to be spreading.

Come Home Fever can be a very good thing if it's motivated by a desire to come home and get our house in order and start setting good examples.

[zcflint09]

63. Wes in 08! A true leader!

Clark completley schooled Cavuto on the Iraq conflict. This man is the OBVIOUS choice for our Presidential nomination in 2008. His points were dead on and absoutley correct.

Some of you are uncomfortable with him not supporting immediate redeployment to the US--but that isn't much of a strategy either--if we care at all about the innocent Iraqis we have harmed we will work hand in hand with them in a withdrawl strategy that will best serve the Iraqi people because of the harm we have already done to them. Wes is one of the most articulate and intelligent Presidential canidates we have in this party. I hope Democrats don't blow our chance to get what would be one of the best American presidents in a long time. Vote Wes!

[Orangepeel]

66. nothing against Clark, but ANYONE can be "swiftboated."

I'll consider Clark if he runs again. But just as a point of order, no one is immune from swiftboating, because the attacks don't have to be based on truth.

[xkenx]

67. They just can't get away with it with Clark

[Orangepeel]

75. yeah, right.

I'm sure there are many reasons to consider Clark as a candidate, but, IMO, it would be naive to consider "he can't be swiftboated" among them. No one has natural protection against scurrilous accusations, because those accusations do not have to be true (see, for example, McCain in the 2000 republican primary).

Clark, I believe, would be able to mitigate the effects of swiftboating by having lots of money and using it to define himself to the electorate early in the process and to fight back vigorously when it starts to happen (that's what any candidate could do). But counting on the mud not sticking because it's thrown at Clark? Not a good plan.

[Sparkly]

82. I agree the RNC will make untrue accusations against ANYone.

It's all they have.

And their usual MO is not only to attack their opponents' (perceived or real) weaknesses and play up their candidate's (perceived or real) strengths; it is moreover to turn it around, finding exactly where their opponent is strong and their own candidate is weak, and attacking their opponent on his/her true strengths, while accusing him/her of their OWN candidates' weaknesses.

Setting aside what Democrats did to each other during the primaries, let's take a look at what the RNC did. They (by "they" I mean the RNC AND its compliant media) went after Dean, who had a lot of visibility, claiming they really wanted to run against him. They marginalized Kerry and totally blacked-out Clark. They embraced another candidate as the one they considered "really formidable."

Thinking of their MO, let's say they ran George Allen, or John McCain, or Rudy Giuliani. Think of their weaknesses and strengths. Just to be simplistic about it, Allen is a stupid phony, but "cowboy likeable"; McCain is "damaged," but a "free-thinking hero"; and Giuliani is "liberal" with personal "moral" problems, but a "hero" on 9/11. (Not saying those are true positives, but perhaps perceived ones, chosen to make the point.)

Allen against a one-term sentator or governor w/o military experience: attack the obvious (one-term, insufficient fp creds if governor; more elite than regular Felix; liberal, of course); then the turn-around-attack -- unintelligent/uninformed, phony, wishy-washy on "security," maybe even racist (reverse-racist?) to shield Allen's own racism.

McCain against the same kind of candidate: attacking on the obvious (again, insufficient creds, also not having McCain's experience of war, talking without walking, not being "free-thinking," liberal of course); and the turn-around -- unstable, said to have fits of temper, something about the wife, other past experiences that make them unsuitable.

Giuliani against them: the obvious (same inexperience, not understanding urban issues including for security, not having experienced 9/11 as he did, and being more liberal than he is); turn-around -- personal "moral" flaws, *extremely* liberal, hypocritical, untruthful, rigid, etc.

Yes, against any of our candidates, they will find some crew of people to get out there and say, "I know XYZ, I worked with XYZ, and XYZ is SATAN!!!" That's a given.

Yes, they'll claim "Liberal! Leftist Extremist!" and "Hypocritical! Liar!" and "Morally Flawed!" That's what they do, because THEY are extremist, hypocritical liars with moral flaws.

That's to be expected.

Also to be expected: we will have ammunition to fire back, showing up THEIR flaws. And hopefully, we'll use that effectively.

The differences among our choices for candidates are:
- What ammunition there is for them (our candidate's real strengths/weaknesses);
- What equipment the personal characteristics of our candidates have both for shielding attacks and firing back;
- What our candidate can bring to the party when it comes to the art and science of warfare.

Yes, warfare.

And to me, General Clark has the shields, the ammo, and the knowledge to "kick the shit out of them" (in his own words).

Sure, they'll get some people to get up and say how and why they hate him (they'll do that to anybody). They'll claim he's a "hypocritical liar" and "morally flawed" and whatever else their candidate is. But there are so MANY brushes of the collective zeitgeist around Democrats with which they can NOT paint him.

A coward; an appeaser; unpatriotic; a hippie; a pot-smoker; an elitist; a traitor; a man above the people; a weakling; a politician; a politician with a record of (fill in the blank for whatever they'll distort).

EVERYthing they can try to dredge up from his record will have to do with THE MILITARY. And right now, more than I can ever remember, "The Military" is golden.

Make no mistake -- his military career is NOT the reason I support him. I support him because he's an honest, intellectual liberal. (In fact, I started with a lefty cautious reticence about him, until I saw what a completely brilliant and liberal person he is.)

And part of what he knows, as an intellectual liberal of incredible integrity and knowledge, is how to wage war. What he's been learning is the art and science of "retail politics," and he's learned quickly. Among the many, many things I believe he knows well (his knowledge is vast and deep) is every level and philosophy of warfare -- eastern and western, ancient and modern. He's shown me that he sees every trick in their book, and has come right back at them -- with others trailing behind. If he could LEAD a 2008 campaign on that, rather than relying solely on "campaign advisors," our party could go a long way.

(I've also thought he could do that even if he weren't the candidate, but it's all a Gestalt, I think. Just as he can't give foreign policy advice for people like BushCo to implement -- because they aren't HIM, and thus can't DO it -- I'm not sure he can propose the same strategy if he isn't the one leading it.)

He can set them back on their heels, destroy their 30+ year machinery, and most of all, UNITE the country around progressive ideals. I know of NO one else who embodies the past and present as he does, whose biography alone refutes all the lies and stereotypes and strawmen billions of dollars and countless thinktanks have erected about Democrats, nor whose combination of intellect, experience, animal instinct and courage can take on the GOP machine -- all in a peace-loving, rational, clear-headed way -- and DEFEAT it in a way that will make it hard for it to ever rise again.

General Clark is one of a kind -- the kind that comes once in a generation. He is exacty what the RNC does NOT want to run against, and the media complies, rarely speaking of him. They'll deal with him only when and if they must.

In my view -- THEY MUST! I will do work my ass off, if he wants to run again, to make sure they MUST!!

[Larry in KC]

91. Hear, hear, Sparkly!!

Your message is one of the true "keepers". It's exactly to the point, about one of the powerful sets of reasons to back Wes Clark. More Democrats need to read it, think about its importance, and forward it on to convince others.

I'm there with you. I'm ready to give my blood, toil, sweat, tears, and money for the sake of the extraordinary opportunity we're being offered with him.

[Donna Zen]

68. Avoiding the predictable

A man goes on fox for about 3 minutes. He has to make the case against the most recent republican talking points. He knows what the talking are because he receives an e-mail from fox. The producers of the show argue with him to support bush; he says "no" and goes on. BTW, he has said that often those arguments get quite heated.

Now, he turns every point and completes every sentence. He makes sure that there are no hanging snips that can be taken out of context. He repeats that bush is a failure, that the talking points are partisan attacks (thus reducing Cavuto's creds) and he repeatedly disengages 911 and Iraq. His solution lies in the concept that this is a regional problem that must be solved regionally. He sticks to the Democratic Party agreed upon line that we not "cut and run" but instead call for redeployment.

That's quite a feat for someone sharing 3 minutes with a complete fox jerk. In fact, after listening to several Democratic windbags, it is amazing, and I would suggest that Begala and Brazile take lessons.

Nevertheless, it is predictable that there are those who would have preferred that General Clark say that America was a cesspool of fascism that needs to throw up its collective hands and shout "we loose because we're losers" it is time to hand over the entire region to Iran. Hey, he could have said that, but of course it would have done "shit" for the Democratic Party or the 06 elections.

And so I read this thread and shake my weary head: how fucking predictable. So sorry that General Clark forgot to endorse who ever the hell your supporting in 08. Nevertheless, I'm glad his voice is out there for me and you.

[Sparkly]

69. You forgot

that he should be appearing on friendlier shows, preaching to the choir as much as possible, instead of going into battle with the rightwingers directly and taking on jerks like Cavuto and Hannity et al.

You also forgot that he keeps spending his time supporting little-known Democratic candidates all over the country, instead of the ones that could glean him key photo-ops.

You also forgot that working with and for these Democrats squanders time he could be spending in Iowa and New Hampshire.

You also forgot that the more he defends and promotes the Democratic party, the less he can put other Democrats down and explain why he's "different" and better.

He's obviously a failure as a potential candidate, since he's insisting on helping the party -- even its unsung heroes and non-famous underdogs -- instead of thinking more about himSELF.

And yes, until he starts saying over-the-top things just like... uh.... well, just like nobody actually, then how can we believe he's anything other than a rightwing war-monger who doesn't understand what's going on in Iraq?

:sarcasm:

[Donna Zen]

71. I know. My lack of ability is sinful!

But it makes no difference since he is sure to be Swiftboated although the heads of Annapolis and West Point who endorsed him might try to mount a defense, the entire exercise would be futile. Better I should hope and pray for someone who can double-speak, says "oops" about a war, and stay safely in the confines of friendly audiences. Okay. Got it.

I think I need to stay out to these threads because when someone stands up for Dems only to be parsed to death, it somehow pisses me off.

[Sparkly]

72. "parsed to death"...

Exactly.

[Zhade]

106. So, your contention is that being honest about the United States...

...is the equivalent of wanting to "hand the region over to Iran"?

If so, that's pretty flawed.

For me, he doesn't have to come out and say "America really IS the Great Satan" - he just shouldn't repeat falsehoods about how 'free' this country is. 17th in freedom of the press, more people in prison than any other industrialized nation, the countless abuse of our rights under not only this administration but basically EVERY one - and we're "the bastion of liberty"? Please.

We're Americans, but we don't have to be blind to reality. The rest of the world doesn't swallow such tripe, why should an intelligent man like Clark repeat untruths about the U.S. being the greatest country, like, ever?

[Tom Rinaldo]

119. Radicals do want to change what is wrong about America, correct?

To do so requires both a political and psychological strategy that can actually be effective. Please know that I became a radical myself back in the 60's; I surrounded the Pentagon, I personally took supplies down to Martin Luther King's Tent City, I rallied for the American Indian Movement during the occupation of Wounded Knee, I helped shut down the Long Island Expressway after the Kent State killings. And that was just the start. I fought against Reagan's illegal Contra War, blockaded the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, went to Big Mountain Arizona and did direct support for a traditional Dine family. I could go on at some length, but instead will take note that big problems about how America relates to the world remain while injustice at home continues. One thing I know for certain is it isn't because the more sordid truths about America have not been told and told repeatedly. I know because I've heard it and read it repeatedly, but that's because I won't change the channel or put down a newspaper when I hear or see it said. That's because I am prepared to see and hear the full truth about today's America, because if I wasn't so prepared I simply wouldn't, just like hundreds of millions of other Americans don't. I would simply filter it out. Speaking the truth isn't enough when ears aren't open to hearing it. Being radical isn't enough if being radical doesn't change what is wrong with America and the world. I'll keep speaking out, and I'll keep acting out, but we need a change immediately.

When Wesley Clark talks about how idealistic America is he is telling a half truth, not an untruth, because Wes Clark summons up a true vision of America, one with roots dating back hundreds of years to Thomas Paine and "Common Sense, one that has literally inspired millions of true Patriots and idealists for all the many decades ever since. And that inspiration transcends our borders, just think back to Tianniman square in 1989 before the student Democracy movement was crushed by tanks. The Goddess of Liberty that those brave and radical students erected was intentionally modeled on our own Statue of Liberty. America's best vision for a better tomorrow is a powerful one. Clark summons Americans to greatness by reminding us of what is great about America, and then asking us to live up to that great standard. Martin Luther King Jr. understood that psychological dynamic well. He repeatedly called whites to greatness while he fought against White oppression.

What is wrong is today's world is deadly serious and must be dealt with now. It can not be delayed until some theoretical mass reeducation movement gets through peoples denial and reflexive rejection to somehow remold Americans self awareness and make them ashamed of some things our government does in the world and to fellow Americans. I already waited 40 years for that to happen. How long have others been waiting? The current Republican Party must be defeated in Congress this November. Their death grip fingers must be pried off a few of the key controls NOW, and in 2008 they can't be allowed to keep hold of the White House. I think Clark is the man to stop them. Clark is someone most Americans can trust now, not just an old Radical like me. I think America will rally around this: Clark '08 - Competency for a Change, and Americans will feel good about themselves again while they do so.

[Zhade]

121. I can't speak for radicals, not being one myself.

I don't happen to believe that the truth is radical.

However, I must confess that you make many salient points. That's something I really like about your posts - you don't make it personal (except when you speak of yourself in a constructive way, as in this post) and you really do care.

"Speaking the truth isn't enough when ears aren't open to hearing it." is also an important point.

I just wish we didn't have to bullshit the passengers to get to the controls and stop the train from derailing.

[Tom Rinaldo]

127. Thank You

I do try to further a discussion when I post, though sometimes I get get sucked into the negative interpersonal stuff also. It's hard not to sometimes, and we are all human.

I agree with you that the truth is not radical except in this Dictionary definition sense: ADJECTIVE:

"Arising from or going to a root or source; basic"

Simple honesty can be radical in that way, and as I've grown older I am less prone to type cast people as "liberal" vs "progressive" vs "radical" if they all are honest and sincere about seeking a better world. Yeah, there are still differences, but the lines are not so clearly drawn for me now as they once were.

As to your saying this:

"I just wish we didn't have to bullshit the passengers to get to the controls and stop the train from derailing.

I can't disagree, but I just don't see much upside in political suicide for the sake of unpopular brutal honesty. Clark talks about real issues, he just evokes our common democratic mythology and highest ideals to promote positive responses to them.

[Joe Bacon]

80. Thank you, General Clark

Thank you for standing up for the Constitution.

[Phrogman]

83. He'll make a great Vice President for Hillery

But anyone that thinks that anybody but HRC is going to get the nomination is living in a fantasy land.

[Sparkly]

84. Hah!! Resident of "fantasy-land" here, if that's the case!!!

(Edited to add: Btw, it's "Hillary," not "Hillery.")

[Phrogman]

86. Hey, I'm with ya, I don't even care enough about her to..

learn to spell her name right.

But she'll still get the nomination.

[xkenx]

85. Well, I have the same two questions for Hillary supporters:

1. Can you please name some red states she will flip?
2. How will she flip those states?

[Joe for Clark]

93. Thank you - I hadn't seen this.

Joe

[sarcasmo]

94. Kick to the top. Wes 08

[Donna Zen]

95. Just watched Washington Week

Sure, it's weak, but it is interesting to listen to how the buzz is being spun. According to them, if liberals carry 06 they expect the Dem 08 candidates to start a competition to see who can propose pulling out more troops faster. Also, Iraq will be an issue. Finally they concluded that the Dems will appear weak on national security/foreign policy in 08.

I wonder if the Dems. are listening? Clark in 08<---opposed the war without having to flip-flop, trusted on national security, very liberal.

[FrenchieCat]

97. Hell Naw....ain't nobody listening.......

I mean.......anything simple and straighforward and obvious ain't gonna get past the "let's make it as difficult for us as possible" to take our country back! :eyes:

[Clarkansas]

98. Clark and Warner would be a nice combination. I really hope Clark

runs and runs EARLY this time.

[PBass]

99. I like Clark too. He is GREAT on Fox news.

He just runs circles around people like Sean Hannity (who is able to bully a lot of people).

If it turns out to be Clark and Clinton in 08, I hope that Hillary is in the VP slot on the ticket. Wes Clark should be at the top of the ticket, in that scenario.

[xkenx]

101. I wonder if HRC in the V.P. spot would

draw too much attention away from Clark. She is so polarizing. Possibly a governor to balance the ticket.

[StrictlyRockers]

102. I am liking Gen. Wes Clark more and more the more I hear him.

I wouldn't hesitate to vote for this man.

[AX10]

105. K & R! Wesley Clark is a skilled debater. He is in the same league...

as Clinton and Cuomo. He is my top choice to be our next President!

Wes Clark 2008!

[PresidentWar]

107. I got a snoot-full of Clark in the '04 race. No thank ya.

Plus, he was wrong on the Iraq War. It was NOT "a mistake". It was an intentional crime, planned early, sustained by a web of lies, and carried off by an evil gaggle of men who had no regard for national or international law, or any sense of human decency whatsoever.

The time for mincing words is over.

[FrenchieCat]

110. So you'll be supporting the candidate who said that......

and that would be? Wes Clark was most likely the closest in calling the Bush invasion into Iraq criminal, or at least requesting for an investigation by congress to answer that question....in October of 2003, and continued on pretty much throughout the Dem primaries and beyond!

Wesley Clark Demands Investigation of Bush's Manipulation of Intelligence
03-Oct-03
Wesley Clark
"Wesley Clark called on Friday for an independent probe of the Bush administration's use of intelligence before the Iraq war, calling it 'twisted' and possibly criminal... said the American public needed to know if it was 'intentionally deceived.' In his harshest indictment yet of Bush , Clark said the administration's 'irresponsible' Iraq policy had put Americans in danger and the US in crisis mode at home and abroad. Going further than his nine rivals for the Democratic nomination, most of whom have called for a special counsel to probe the leak of an undercover CIA officer's name, Clark also demanded an independent commission investigate the'possible manipulation' of intelligence leading to the war in Iraq.'Nothing could be a more serious violation of public trust than to consciously make a war based on false claims,' he told a conference of military reporters and editors. 'Its handling of intelligence and its retaliation against its critics may have been criminal.'"
http://elandslide.org/preview.cfm?term=Wesley%20Clark

Clark has called for a full congressional probe into why the United States went to war in Iraq, but his comments Thursday marked the first time he had hinted at possible criminal wrongdoing. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108577,00.html

Clark Says Congress Should Determine Whether Bush's War Decisions Criminal
17-Jan-04
Wesley Clark
AP: "Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark said Thursday it was up to Congress to determine whether President Bush's march to war in Iraq amounted to a criminal offense. Asked if misleading the nation in going to war would be criminal, Clark told reporters, 'I think that's a question Congress needs to ask. I think this Congress needs to investigate precisely' how the United States wound up in a war 'that wasn't connected to the threat of al-Qaida.'"
http://elandslide.org/preview.cfm?term=Wesley%20Clark


Clark Denounces Bush's 9-11 Lies and Perpetual Fear Campaign
09-Jan-04
http://elandslide.org/preview.cfm?term=Wesley%20Clark

Wesley Clark Rips Bush for 9-11 Intel Failures and Demands CIA's 8-6-01 Briefing
29-Oct-03
Wesley Clark
"Wesley Clark blamed Bush for the intelligence failures that contributed to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. 'There is no way this administration can walk away from its responsibility for 9-11,' Clark said. 'You can't blame something like this on lower level intelligence officers, however badly they communicated memos with each other. ... The buck rests with the commander in chief, right on George W. Bush's desk.'



Further.....Clark has been consistently clear on his thoughts of this administration in regards to Iraq! However, your non-described "Snoot-full of Clark"--in my opinion is a vague low life attack which doesn't provide any real information to back up the statement. If you think mincing words is an offense, I think attacking without evidence is just as bad!

and what did YOU DO last during the primary 04?

[Dinger]

113. No Response From pw I See

Great post (as usual) Frenchie!:patriot:

[Tom Rinaldo]

116. Yup. A great post because it provides FACTS and LINKS

Ya got to wonder sometimes about hit and run posters who attack with nadda to back them up except their desire to put a good Democrat down.

[PresidentWar]

126. Relax. Not everyone shares the same opinion of these people

nor should they.

[FrenchieCat]

133. Making sense would be helpful.....if you are going to bother to

post.

Think about it.

[PresidentWar]

125. Spoke too soon, eh?

youch

[Dinger]

128. Yeah, Right You FINALLY Answered Damn Near 16 Hous Later

AND I posted a reply BEFORE you! Spoke too soon? What the hell are you talking about?

[FrenchieCat]

131. Actually, you didn't really respond to my post...even if you did

show up...which is not a response in itself.

So, in terms of the initial vague negative statement that you made,
and my specific response to it.......your "comeback" still is no answer.

So Youch is on you! :eyes:

[PresidentWar]

124. Saw it all before. Redux of the mess of '04

General Speedo just doesnt do it for me. Obviously, you are an ardent fan. Just take heart in that, instead of in the fact that (thankfully) our 11th hour democratic candidate will never be president.

Good luck with all that, though.

[FrenchieCat]

132. Whatever the General does....it will help the Democratic party,

and not hinder it.....so many of us will thank you for wishing "us" luck with that....but there is no redux that I found here.....apart from the fact that you have decided to call the General the 11th hour democratic candidate...which is obviously very 2004 (so in effect, you are the one reduxing 2004, not others).


Negativity appears to be your thing. So, Good Luck with that! :hi:

[wiley]

108. Great Post. Thanks!

[Ninja Jordan]

109. Video of this?

[FrenchieCat]

111. Here!

http://securingamerica.com/node/1395

[Ninja Jordan]

112. Thanks. I like where he stands.

He seems to know what he's talking about. I differ somewhat in that I support partition in Iraq (Kurdistan-Shiastan-Sunnistan w/mutually controlled Baghdad), because it may get our soldiers and marines home faster.

[CJCRANE]

117. That's an interesting idea...

makes sense in that it would probably be easier to control smaller, more homogenous areas. In fact it works fairly well for the Kurds having their own semi-autonomous region.

[FrenchieCat]

122. Maybe it is a good idea....but it is not our place to make this happen....

because either Iraq is "their" country, or it is not? If they want to "partition" it, they should be able to get that done via their government. For the U.S. to get involved would only illustrate the fact that the U.S. Government runs Iraq, not them.

I prefer a centralized government that includes "states" who are subgovernments.....

But more the the geographical boundaries, it is the oil that need to be "partioned" equitably by the centralized government by way of nationalizing the oil fields and allocating the revenues according to the population numbers to the "state" governments (in my world, anyways).

[Ninja Jordan]

134. I think Iraqis themselves should vote on it.

I think partition should be put up for a vote in Iraq. I agree the US would be foolish to try and push for this unilaterally, as it would come across as despotic.

[Donna Zen]

129. Maybe, although considering other countries

...that under went partition, I doubt that history points to a quick peace. Nevertheless, Wes Clark considers partition an option which he places low on the desired end list. He has said that 3 small countries are more vulnerable economic and polically than a united Iraq. Besides, the country is very integrated, and there would be massive dislocation.

One of the things that is happening in Iraq today is a growing faction of people who are small images of the country of Iraq around their neck. Of course they can be killed for doing this, but they stand by their belief. A female journalist who was recently killed wore one.

I think that it is up to the Iraqis what they want to do, just as I marched against bush to respect Iraq's sovereign borders.

[joeprogressive]

114. Use their words against them in campaign slogan:

"one of the most widely respected Generals we've ever had" Neil Cavuto

[xkenx]

120. Good payback; I hadn't thought of that

[MessiahRp]

123. WE can't differentiate between the two????

Is it possible that your party, the reason why it keeps goofing up at the polls is because it can't distinguish between the two?

:puke:

What fucking lying pieces of shit.

Rp

[cyn2]

135. Boffo! As usual from Clark nt