Clark to deliver the Democratic Radio Address on Iraq - text on rawstory

[Mass]

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Clark_brings_military_muscle_to_Democrats_1014.html

Full text in the rawstory.com.

Here is the end of the address. I had hoped that the Democrats would become a little more concrete than to criticize Bush for staying the course and say that we need a plan for success. This has been said now for nearly two years by plenty of Democrats.

I certainly hope Kerry's speech come soon and that this is a little more concrete than Clark and Feingold. Even Levin is more concrete than that.

"There is no alternative to success in Iraq. This administration has an obligation to provide our men and women in uniform and the American people that strategy.

"This is General Wesley Clark.

[karynnj]

1. Am I missing something or is this less concrete than any Kerry plan

In 2004 of in June (July?) of this year. I wonder how this will go over on DU because it really adds nothing to Bush has fought the war badly and we need a strategy. (I hope the next stage is not that we need a Task force to determine the strategy.)

I think the biggest problem for any Democrat, is that even a brilliant analysis followed by a carefully developed plan can be ignored as it won't be implemented.

Levin's really did sound very similar to the Kerry speech that was posted with it.

[kerrygoddess]

13. It's very similar once again to JK's June 28th speech

It's just a real shortened version with out much substance - he's asking questions and not even answering them with much in the way of concrete ideas.

Again to save everyone looking for it, here's the link to JK's speech in June - http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=239696

I haven't heard anymore about JK's upcoming speech and did feel as though I could ask him point blank yesterday with a dozen cameras rolling.

[JI7]

2. to be fair, in a radio address they have to represent most Dems

because Dems are not so united on this issue he probably had to keep the radio address this way.

i heard Feingold was critical of Clark's plan for Iraq . does anyone know what his problem was or was he just positioning for 08?

[Mass]

6. Feingold proposes a date to exit Iraq -

My issue with his plan and that his date is in 15 months, but he does not say what to do in-between.

I guess his reproach with Clark's plan is the same I have is that Clark says we must win, but little about what is a win and how we achieve that.

Of course, there is a little bit of positioning for 08 as well in both cases, I imagine, but the more fundamental issue is to define what we are expecting to achieve in Iraq, and IMHO, none of those two define that.

In the few words that the Boston Herald was reporting a few weeks ago concerning Iraq, Kerry was saying that we need to redefine what success is and he is right on that.

As for the issue of pleasing other people, Cleland's address on the same subject was a lot clearer: do it right or leave.

[TayTay]

3. This seems to be to be running in place too.

I read that article in Rolling Stone last week about the problems with the 'Peace movement.' One of the points in that was trying to separate out the genuine concern for international terrorists organizations causing violent trouble in the world, from the war in Iraq. One is an ongoing problem that we need to truly deal with and suggest some workable solutions. The other was an unnecessary and regrettable war that we need to make some hard decisions about. That article said that, politically, we could truly have a great moment for the Democratic Party if we would cleanly support getting tough on actual terrorism and finding a way to get out of Iraq, probably by setting workable goals and a deadline.

Sen. Kerry knows a lot about how the terorist control and finance their networks. Perhaps that will actually be listened to if he also states a sensible and sane plan that calls for a withdrawal. (Sensible and sane being the operative words. It would take months to sensibly and sanely leave Iraq.)

[JI7]

4. yes, i think we need to unite on a plan for fighting terrorism

before or at the same time as Iraq. when people only hear criticisms of Iraq the right wing responds by claiming we don't care about fighting terrorism.

that's why we need to make clear that fighting terrorism is separate or includes getting out of Iraq.

if you looked at the election results a large majority of those whose big concern was the war in Iraq voted for Kerry.

but a large majority whose concern was terrorism voted for Bush.

[Mass]

8. This article seems interesting - do you have a link to it?

I agree it is necessary to separate the two. Continuing to link the two is a sure recipe to stay in Iraq forever.

[TayTay]

9. Here ya go:

From: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/7683877

"Everybody knows that things are fucked up in Iraq," says Rieckhoff. "But the question is, What do we do now? The Republicans got us into this mess, but the Democrats don't have a plan to get us out." Rieckhoff suggests that opponents of the Bush Doctrine sit down and formulate a viable exit strategy guided by generals who oppose the war -- the "Zinni Doctrine," say, or the "Shinseki Doctrine" -- that would serve as the basis for a broad-based coalition. "That's ultimately what's needed," he says. "The problem is, that kind of coalition isn't being formed now."

Sen. Russ Feingold, one of the war's most vocal opponents on Capitol Hill, says a "responsible anti-war movement" must also ground its opposition to the war in Iraq within the broader demands of the war on terror. The troops need to come home not because the war is a colonial occupation but because it makes Americans less safe. "To be credible, it's critical that progressives be passionate about saying we want to protect American lives," Feingold says. "We support stopping terrorist networks, but we don't support wars that actually make the terrorist networks stronger."

Rep. Walter Jones, the right's most unexpected dove, sounds a similar note. Jones, whose North Carolina district is home to three Marine bases and more than 60,000 veterans, says he now regrets his vote to authorize the war. The same man who sponsored the "Freedom Fries" resolution as "a gesture just to say to the French, 'Up yours' " has joined forces with Rep. Dennis Kucinich to author the Homeward Bound Act, which would force President Bush to announce an exit strategy by the end of the year.

Jones says the president's stay-the-course message presumes the impossible. "We're not going to kill all the terrorists in Iraq," he says. "We're not going to kill all the insurgents. The director of the CIA says we have created a training field for terrorists in Iraq." What's needed now, he insists, is a specific plan, with concrete targets, for turning the war over to Iraqi troops and police. "With 2,000 deaths and more than 14,000 injured, you just get to a point of: When do we say to the Iraqis, 'It is now your country, it is now your fight'? How do we know when there's victory?"

[Mass]

10. Thanks!

[Island Blue]

5. Forgive my ignorance but

how is it decided who will give the Democratic radio address?

[Mass]

7. Excellent question, I really do not know.

[wisteria]

11. Good question, I would like to know also. I think Clark gave the

address not to long ago too.

[kerrygoddess]

12. Not sure...

but the text of the radio addresses are embargoed until they air. Silly me, I could have leaked JK's radio address a while back.