I was really surprised why Wesley Clark came across so

[cboy4]

combative and almost Republican-like at times on Real Time last night.

I mean, he defended Hillary and the other 74 senators for approving the resolution which declares the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization.

(I agree with how Bill Maher responded in that it lays the groundwork for another Bush war. "...you lay the groundwork with the PR division, fax it through Fox News and get all the people talking...")

And then Clark said, when referring to the shitty way women are treated in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries, said "these women basically like that society," and that they have the right to choose how they live........in response to Laura Bush's recent trip to UAE: :wtf:


He was really adamant that women like being second class citizens and who are we to judge.

Maybe he was just in a cranky mood, but I don't think he did his candidate (Hillary Clinton) any big favors, and if he ever runs for president, I can't imagine I'd be interested in voting for him in a primary after that performance.

I wonder what was wrong? I've never heard him sound so right wing.

If you missed it and have HBO, check out the replay and judge for yourself...I just thought he was off base, IMO.

[cuke]

1. I had a completely different reaction

[cboy4]

9. Did you want to elaborate? This is a discussion board

after all, and a six word response doesn't really help me understand.

You believe that Arab women enjoy being treated as second class citizens, for example?

[cuke]

13. Well, he got a nice round of applause by smacking Sully down

by excoriating the * admin's response to Global Warming. Not very republican of him.

I didn't hear him say arab women enjoy being treated as 2nd class citizens, but I may have missed that part due to interruptions.

And I don't see how defending a resolution that half of the dem senators voted for makes him sound republican

[cuke]

27. However, I will admit

that he wasnt as strong as I have seen him in the past. He did allow Sully to talk over him at times, and I was surprised at that.

[cboy4]

28. His Global Warming response was good, yes. Although

let's be honest, lots of Republicans, including * have signed on to admitting there's a problem now.

As for the resolution, why would someone like Clark, who says he opposes the Iraq War, want to lay the ground work for invading Iran?

That's what the Republicans want.

And that's why I'm surprised he supports that. It doesn't matter that a bunch of mostly moderate Democrats voted yes.

[cuke]

31. True, and in the interests of complete honestty

I'll point out that Sully was one of those republicans.

As for the resolution, because it doesn't lay any ground work for invading Iraq. It gives him no legal authorization. It merely gives him an argument, and given his low ratings and his disaster in Iraq, his argument will do nothing to sway the public's opinions towards supporting him

"It doesn't matter that a bunch of mostly moderate Democrats voted yes."

It matters if you're going to label it republican. Dems have never been friendly to Iran

[helderheid]

2. I felt like you did.

[Guaranteed]

7. Maher ought to have Dr. Dean on one of these days.

That would be a great show.

[Kolesar]

3. His candidate Hillary has this message of trying to appeal to the American Legion set

Unapologetic about the Iraq War Resolution, flag burning bullshit, etc. Hillary is taking the primary for granted and taking the antiwar Democrats for granted too. Her message seems to be: "I'm the Democrat. Who else are you going to vote for in November--Ralph Nader?"

[Cleita]

4. You're suprised?

He wasn't always a Democrat. I can't remember now if his former affiliation was Independent or Republican. Most military lean conservative anyway. I was surprised how hawkish he was about Iran although he did say that we should never have invaded Iraq. He is talking about diplomacy first with Iran not invasion to be fair to him.

[Kolesar]

6. Clark voted for Reagan...eom

[Tom Rinaldo]

23. And Webb worked for Reagan...eom

[NCarolinawoman]

26. Clark also voted for Gore.

And before that, Clinton/Gore and once again Clinton/Gore.

Gore wrote a nice little blurb on the cover of Clark's new book.

(Just trying to balance things out here)

[jonnyblitz]

12. i just saw a clip of CLark in the documentary "War Made Easy"

where he seemed to be for invading Iraq. His clip was added with other clips of Generals/ex-generals that were played back to back to show the one- sided, PRO -WAR bent of the media and how anti-war voices were left out. the clip of him was used as a PRO-WAR example for that documentary. it could have been taken out of context :shrug: I was always under the impression he was for invading but just didn't approve of the way Bush handled it . I suppose THAT could be interpreted by those with a reason to "spin" as an anti-war position. I have read lots of stuff about Clark (ie. his support of the "School of the AMerica's" where they train latin americans to go back to latin america , join right wing death squads and torture dissidents)then i read COMPLETELY different stuff posted on DU by his supporters that make him look all leftwing and fluffy.

[Tom Rinaldo]

32. I saw that film also but it was a while ago

and while Clark was edited out of context, and I noticed that at the time, I did not get the impression that sounded in favor of attacking Iraq at all. I just felt like the edit they took of him was one that they could insert into a different context to help underscore a point they were making in the film. There are many quotes one could have taken fron Clark that make him sound like the next closest thing to a pacifist also. Clark wll never come across as flat out anti war. He favors winning wars when they must be fought and is proud to our military's abilities. What Clark repeatedly stresses is that war should only, only, only be used as a last resort. He did not believe Bush should have or needed to invade Iraq.

And in fairness to truth if nothing else, that is a pretty distorted picture of the SOA you painted. Training in torture techniques was offered as a part of the curriculum prior to Clinton becoming President and was taken out under his administration. And no one who is honest can say that the School existed to train latin Americans to join right wing death squads. Some graduates of that school however did do exactly that, as you noted. But Al Gore for example toured that school while he was Vice President after reforms were instituted, and he never condemmed what went on there, subsequently the Clinton Administration and a Democratic Congress continued to fund it.

It is a controversial program no doubt, and personally I would prefer the whole thing be shut down, even after the reforms, and have a new program be built from the ground up to take on the positive functions of the old one. But I thought the truth is not quite as extreme as your summary implied. Clark has profoundly argued against the use of torture in many many public appaearances.

[bobbolink]

116. No, not surprised.. but it's going to upset some.

When we pick someone because of one issue, we're likely to be rudely surprised.

:hi:

[Guaranteed]

5. I was surprised, too. nt

[janx]

8. I don't get HBO.

Is this online anywhere?

[cboy4]

16. I see clips on youtube, which are then posted here

in the political video section.

But I can't find anything online...even a fricken transcript! :(

They do posts clips and quotes on his website (but none for this week yet)----->http://www.hbo.com/billmaher/

[janx]

22. I'll keep checking--thanks. n/t

[Mabus]

36. the youtuber to watch

http://youtube.com/user/MoK3LoC

They post a lot of Maher's clips. This week's clips should be posted within the next 24 hours or so.

[Tom Rinaldo]

60. Here is a link to a video of it, janx

It's at Clark Community Network:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13734

I'm only half way through it, it is long, but from what I have seen so far most of the reviews I've read on this thread are missing a lot of nuance and context. For one thing Andrew Sullivan was a raving pitt bull chomping foaming at the mouth to go after Clinton. His calling her Dick Cheney with a skirt on did not go over well with the audiance which had been sympathetic to what he was saying. Sullivan broke into what Clark was saying about the crisis of Global Warming to interject his opinion that Hillary wouldn't do anything to stop it. Clark was talking about the science at the time, no Democrats had been mentioned and the primary contest had not come up in anyone's comments; Sullivan just had it in for Clinton and was looking to turn Clark being there into an opportunity to attack Clinton. That had a lot to do with setting the tone of that discussion. Sullivan was attacking Clinton as if she were Bush (actually equating her to Cheney as I noted). So yeah, Clark started defending her.

Maher wasn't after Clinton on Global Warming but he sure was on Iran, so now there were two people there slamming her relentlessly (Martina Navratilova had little to say). Any politician who will not rise to the occaision under those circumstances, of offering a defense of the person he has endorsed - who a great many Democrats DO support based on the polls and who may well be our nominee, is not worth his weight in confetti. Sullivan was acting as if the K-L resolution that passed contained the language that got actually got stripped out in the final negotiations. He was asserting it gave authority for war and Clark was countering. Maher was more on target at least in that he talked about the perception of how that vote will be received, but Clark had to push back against Sullivan who was in full attack mode.

I'm just getting to the part about women in Islamic nations.

[janx]

84. Thanks, Tom.

I'm downloading it and will check it out. :hi:

[Sparkly]

104. I'm not seeing it.

The link at CCN takes me to Maher's page, and I don't see the episode there.

[Tom Rinaldo]

111. Click on the picture of Clark, not the text link below that...

By now I'm used to how Ruth does this at CCN but I can see how you got confused. If you click on the photo it should all open up for you.

[Sparkly]

113. Thanks, I finally found it on YouTube

But not the part after Frost. Was there more with The General after that segment?

[Drum]

92. Here on DU:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=65525&mesg_id=65525

Nomad559 has posted the full episode.

:hi:

[Sparkly]

105. Just watched that, and it was only his "rules" segment. nt

[DutchLiberal]

33. By Sunday night, the entire episode usually is online on YouTube.

Just search for 'Bill Maher real time' and set it on 'date added'. There's always at least one member who has it. Enjoy! :)

[janx]

34. Thanks. I can't stand hearsay, but at the same time,

I can't stand ideological justifications for anything. So I'll view it then.

[Generator]

10. I agree

Defending her on many things-and Wes Clark is so articulate about so much-it just seemed false about Iran. I don't buy it. His answer-was technically correct of course-first you use every diplomatic tool available. Bush and his admin have done none of that. Declarations of terrorist organization for their army. Then massive sanctions. NEXT-if you follow history and what pieces of lying warmongers the Bush admin are-is war. To ignore that-to give Bush any leeway is wrong. And Hillary better sure as shit PRAY no war happens with Iran or it's going to bite her in the ass forever even WORSE than Iraq.

[AzDar]

11. I lost a great deal of long-held respect for Gen. Clark last night.

His blind support of EVERYTHING Clinton leads me to believe he's been promised a juicy appointment if HRC is elected.
:puke:

[aquart]

15. Ah. So you believe he's corrupt and will lie for advancement.

[DesertRat]

21. Maybe her running mate?

[hisownpetard]

70. I agree. I said that on the day he announced his support for Hillary & I still think that's the case

[DesertRat]

14. I was very surprised too.

Especially when he was angrily arguing that Muslim women like to wear burqas.

[bridgit]

18. many have stated that they do enjoy wearing them, they are a symbol...

of their piety in faith with Allah...how can that be wrong?

[DesertRat]

20. Are they free to state otherwise?

[hlthe2b]

61. Won't you please read my post down below, DesertRat?....

(Post 51)

I don't want to get in an heated argument, but you really do not have an appreciation of a rather complex issue. Please give me a chance to share my first hand experiences with you. I too am a liberal progressive feminist western woman, but one to say our understanding of this issue is just plain wrong, or at least incomplete. We mean well, but, we are not well informed.

[zalinda]

19. The truth is, some do

not all, but some. I would imagine that those that do are older. There is a certain power that comes with being in the background, and being anonymous. They have lived their lives with burqas and have used them to their advantage, and change may be frightening. There are many people who are afraid of change.

I am sure that the younger people would like to see the burqa go away. Women are pretty resourceful, they can make lemonade out of the most difficult conditions.

zalinda

[TwilightGardener]

35. I believe in respecting their customs and society to a point, but presuming to SPEAK

for these women is not appropriate--I agree, it was weird.

[MADem]

44. That isn't quite what he said, though.

He asked Sullivan if he'd ever ASKED a woman in hijab how she felt about it. He didn't say they ALL liked wearing burkas. And I think his comments were more directed at the whole concept of hijab, not just the insane chadieris that Laura's pals were wearing.

I seem to recall that Karen Hughes got her ass handed to her for making the assumption that women living in the Saudi Arabian kingdom didn't like their lives or that requirement. When you live under a strongman ruler, your expectations are shaped differently.

I can weigh in here, because I HAVE asked women in hijab how they feel about it, in countries where everyone does it, and in countries where it's optional (or was, before the revolution). Here's what I've come up with, it's by no means the final word, but it might shine a little light:

--The deeply religious see a religious component to it, and would never think about going without it. Ever. They'll slap it on if someone comes to the door, just in case it isn't a relative, or someone that they treat like a relative. Older women, especially, aren't going to change--they didn't even when Shah basically outlawed the thing.

--There's a subset of people who feel comfortable in it for cultural reasons--the "everybody's doing it" attitude. Some of these folks like wearing "chador lite"--what we used to call "see through chadors." Can't get away with those in Iran anymore. They wear it like a fashion accessory, and don't go for the massive head to toe look.

--There are some who think it's "too much." They'd like to adopt the more liberal forms of hijab, but not get rid of it entirely.

--There are some who hate it. They're often the ones who get educated in London or the US and get very irritated when they have to go back home.

--And there are some who like the OPTION, for days when they look like shit and don't want to get all dickey-dooed up.

You will find a variety of attitudes about it, but one thing that is true, is that if a FOREIGNER comes in and starts hectoring about the chador/chadieri/burqua or hijab in general, suggesting that it is repressive or what have you, it puts those who wear it, willingly, happily or reluctantly, on the defensive in a BIG way.

If you don't ask the question in an open manner, you get the "Stay the fuck out of my business, who are YOU to tell me what to do?" attitude.

[bridgit]

17. Iran has been tired of U.S. meddling for decades, you do not believe Iran to be...

sponsoring activities that run counter to 'american interests'? simply because g.w. bush is an utter failure as a president, i am not prepared to offer up apologies for Iran nor blame Clark for voicing his opinions as to matters that have been understood for some time as well

[Writer]

25. On top of it, I think it's far worse for liberal Americans to believe that they're...

speaking ON BEHALF of Muslim women by claiming that ALL Muslim women want to remove the veil and live as we do. Many (not all but MANY) Muslim women gladly accept the veil and are fighting in some parts of Europe to be able to practice their faith in this way.

And yes, a resolution claiming that Iran is sponsoring terrorism is not a far-fetched thing to do. As I recall, some years ago while we were voicing our discontent with Iraq, that many were pushing up North Korea and Iran as larger problems than Iraq. Now we're griping about politicians who are dealing with the reality of the Iran problem. Bush is a nitwit asshole, but Iran is indeed a problem.

[Exultant Democracy]

99. Problem for who and how?

[OHdem10]

24. We complain and call Democrats Spineless because they

are not combative enough--then when one does show a little spunk--
Tsk, Tsk, he is like the GOP.

Cultural Differences. What we in Us see as oppression of women
is not necessarily viewed the same way in their country.

In Saudi Arabia, the Prince in charge of all finances for the
country--has a female pilot who jets him around. She openly
stated--she likes the idea that when she returns home there
is a car waing to drive her home. Being "covered" does not
hold the same symbolism as for us.

[Oilwellian]

29. Yes, I'm sure the Saudi women...

have no problem seeing little Saudi girls burn alive because they weren't allowed to leave a burning building without their head scarves. Saudi women love not being allowed to drive and those who protest should be beheaded.

The women in Saudi Arabia have no CHOICE...that's the issue here. They should be allowed the CHOICE of whether they want to be "covered," or drive, or divorce, or whatever freedoms other women in the world enjoy.

General Clark was very disappointing.

[hlthe2b]

67. Muslim extremists are no more embraced by Saudi women

than fundie "Christian" extremists are in this country. I speak from first hand experience of my years working (as a western woman) with muslim women from a variety of countries and backgrounds, if you care to hear from someone who has first hand knowledge. It is a complex issue and not at all as you assume. NO more than we can assume all American women would choose the same path for women. Take Phyllis Schafly versus Betty Friedan or Glorian Steinham for example.

If you care to, please read my post, #51.

[cboy4]

30. Well OHdem10, defending the oppression of

women and behaving like a hawk is not the type of spine (at least I) want Democrats to have.

Having a spine is voting to cut off funding of the war....not voting to lay the ground work for a new one.

[OHdem10]

39. Only want Dems to have a spine on Certain Issues???

If it is your way?????

Look I want the war ended as much as the next. I also
want Democrats with Spines all the Time.

Hawks and Doves had best learn to fly together otherise
we will be the minority party forever.

Let us be honest, there are enough DLC and Blue Dogs in
the house and senate to keep the war funding going.

You have to change the hearts and minds of DLC and Blue Dogs.

The word came out from Leadership . Democrats will not cut War Funding.
Will hold WH accountable.

[cboy4]

43. And guess what grade I give Leadership right

now OHdem10?

I'll give you a hint. They'll be needing to go to summer school.

[Democrat 4 Ever]

38. Was anyone else surprised that Bill, Clark and Andrew didn't know

that the FOUNDING FATHERS wrote into the Constitution that a president must be native born? I mean, honestly, Bill said it was "a law" or something written by a politician. That the founding fathers had no intentions of not allowing foreign born people to lead this country. Worse yet Bill thinks a foreign born Moran like Arnold would be a good president? Ack. Martina at least had the knowledge to tell Bill that the writers of the Constitution didn't want to take the chance of a British born president with divided loyalties.

The stupidity of that show absolutely astounded me. And the "bee keeper" suit segment was tasteless and unfunny. And while you might not like it polls do show that MANY women in the Middle East do like dressing according to their religious beliefs despite what you or I might consider inappropriate. (Much like the decisions of the Amish, Buddhist monks, Catholic priests and nuns) I read an interview (I'm thinking Vanity Fair, but could be wrong, will try to find a link) that American people have no idea how to think about religious dress, beliefs, or mores outside our own little sphere. That article asserted that many women in the Middle East like the protection and the chasity afforded them by their clothing. I'm not saying that women aren't treated horribly in the Middle East but don't discount what Clark said about Middle East women want to wear burkas because you just can't believe it is true.

[flyarm]

66. How about the Iraqi women who didn't wear Burkas under Saddam

but now under our occupation are now forced to wear Burkas..bet they love our liberation...


not........

here read this...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/17/103717/905

Cry, the Beloved Iraqi Women
by lorraine
Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 07:37:17 AM PDT

snip:

Houzan Mahmoud boycotted the Iraqi elections. Why? Because, as she says, "freedom" has become a cruel joke. Saddam's regime was brutal, but it was secular, and women in Iraq enjoyed a degree of freedom that their sisters in other Arab countries are denied. That has changed since the invasion. She writes:
The new norm -- enforced at the barrel of a gun by Islamic extremists -- is to see women as the repository of honor and shame, not only on behalf of family and tribe but the nation. Ken Bigley's abductors perversely wanted to redeem the "honor" of Iraq through obtaining the release of female prisoners. Since when did Islamic groups -- the very people doing the hostage taking, torturing and killing -- start caring about the rights of Iraqi women?
Take the case of Anaheed. She was suspended to a tree in the New Baghdad area of the capital and then first shot by her father (a solicitor no less) and then by each member of her tribe. She was then was cut into pieces.

This to clear the shame on the tribe's honor for having wanted to marry a man she was in love with. This happened in late 2003, months after the "liberation."

[OzarkDem]

128. Talking like a Republican

doesn't take much spine.

If that's what he said, its surely a disappointment.

[Sancho]

37. Maybe if you think women aren't second class in America...

you'll vote for a women for President. I didn't think Clark was being anything but objective.

[cboy4]

41. Maybe if I think women aren't second class in America

I'll vote for a women (sic) for President.

Huh?

[TwilightGardener]

40. I supported Clark in 2004--I am a military wife and I gravitate toward

military folk in general, because they are usually very competent. But watching clips from last night, I am reminded that Wes Clark is not a true, dyed-in-the-wool politician. I like this about him, on one hand--it's refreshing. On the other, I think it would have served him better to have run for a lesser office like the Senate or a Governorship first, because he does not come off sometimes as polished and skilled as one would expect for someone who ran for Prez, or might be VP. He's full of (valid, informed) opinions, but was never in a position to draft or vote for legislation, and thus he comes across as more of a talking head. Just my opinion, don't get mad.

[marlakay]

42. I found myself agreeing with Andrew Sullivan

more than Wes last night and it shocked me!!

[MADem]

46. The guy is a weathervane....whatever way the wind blows...

Go back and read his archives from 2000...you'll be sickened.

[jonnyblitz]

47. some of you are seeing the true Wes Clark for the first time.

He's quite different from the picture you get of him from his very loyal and "intense" (and I mean INTENSE) followers here at DU. those of us who read people like CHomsky and his ilk know better and have known.

[Tom Rinaldo]

63. I left a link to a video of this above in this post:

But first can I ask you, since you are talking about seeing the true Wes Clark, if you even watched that whole show that you are springing your comments off of here? I've watched Clark deliver about ten full speeches in person, and I've watched him field live questions from the audiance. How much have you watched him other than that clip taken out of context in th anti-war film that you cited above? A lot of folks saw Clark and met him at Yearly Kos where he got repeated ovations. A vide of that and many others (including much of his hour long interview with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now - which I also was present at) are available for anyone who wants to have any claim to speaking knowledgably about the "true Wes Clark".

The link to the Maher episode we are talking about is in this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2148236&mesg_id=2148756

Edited to add that it makes a lot more sense to watch this show BEFORE you argue passionately about what supposedly was said there.

[Tom Rinaldo]

73. OK, I watched more of it

Clark got in a great line to Sullivan; "How man women in a Burka have you talked to?" You got to see it yourself to get the context. Clark was speaking with more direct knowledge than anyone on that stage, and there was a point to the point he was making. When Sullivan postulated that perhaps the women in some of those societies who were comfortable with their culture didn't know any better, Clark replied; "Maybe they don't." For Clark the real point was that Americans still are not empowered to tell other people what they should or should not find acceptable, regradless of our theory about why they say they are satisfied with what they have. He as taking on a basic premise of neocon ideology, which is that the U.S. can and should intervene in other nations societies to bring them superior Western values like "Democracy".

[cboy4]

48. Yea, he's gotten better, but MADem is right,,,,

he's seemingly always changing his views.

[dogman]

98. I thought MADem was writing about AS , not Clark.

Sullivan originally supported bushco and has changed a number of opinions since. Clark is one of the more consistent.

[cuke]

59. What did you agree with?

When Silly said that Global Warming has it's "bright side"? (He says Greenland will make out like a bandit)

When he blamed the lack of action on global warming over the last 7 years on Hillary?

When he justified the way he "dragged his feet" on Global Warming by claiming the evidence is now overwhelming? (Do you really think he's reading the research which has come out in the last few years and if he did, do you think he understands it?)

[Tom Rinaldo]

68. Probably it was the part where Sullivan said...

...that Hillary Clinton was Dick Cheney with a skirt on. That is the type of outrageous 8 miles over the top type of statement that some people who oppose Clinton for the Democratic nomination seem to get off on making around here nowadays. The logical extension of that statement would be for them to prefer at least half of the Republicans now running for President over Democrat Clinton; since Cheney is universally regarded here as being as bad as Republicans get.

[Qutzupalotl]

85. I hear Rudy Giuliani is

Rudy Giuliani in a dress.

:hi:

[cuke]

88. IOW, he gets every fact wrong, but they still respect his opinons

what a bunch of maroons

[AlCzervik]

45. The burka thing and Iran--my sisters Mil lived in Iran until a year ago, her daughter

still lives there, they do not wear burkas, they do wear a Hijab---not a burka.

[MADem]

49. They're called chadors. In winter, or colder weather, they'll sometimes go for

the scarf and long, square coat ensemble. A few go for the "Islamic dress" which is the same idea as the coat, only it's a big dress often with pants under it, and the scarf.

The chadors (basically the weight and heft of a bedsheet, tailored so that it falls to the ankle) are wrapped around the wearer like, well, a sheet--and they aren't always black, either--they're frequently patterns, bright colors (for the unmarrieds), and they also have the 'mini' version, provided you're wearing appropriate covering underneath it.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

50. He also said that Iranian terrorists were responsible for incidents that were

previously blamed on Al Qaeda. No one corrected him either, so this lie was left to stand.

I do not trust him one bit.

[hlthe2b]

51. I taught in S. Arabia with male and female physicians as students

My female Muslim students came from throughout the Gulf region, including Syrians, S. Arabians, Kuwaitis, Palestinians, Jordanians. I can tell you that when I, a western female, would go into the offices of these women to work with them, the veils came off, and it was a fascinating opportunity to speak--just as women. To this end, I was amazed, but convinced that these women DO NOT wish to change their society and YES, many DO embrace the veil. Some clearly want changes (e.g., the right to drive), but they are appalled at how little we westerners understand of their culture. Yes, horrible things happen in the name of religion in some areas, especially to women in villages, but so, too do horrible things happen in the name of RW fundie "Christianity." They would point out example after example in their attempt to make me see the paradox. It is complicated and Wes Clarke is NOT wrong in expressing what he did. The women I worked with over the years would argue vehemently with our impression of Islam and women in Islam. WOmen in S. Arabia have been able to inherit, and in fact control the financial holdings for many years, going back at least a couple of generations, I was told. While we see this society as patriarchal, it is a blend, just as is our society in the west. Believe me or not, this is information gained through experience with this culture--not just reading American viewpoints.

I've also worked in more liberal Muslim countries, including Egypt and Jordan. My parents lived and worked in Iran before the revolution for an American company. I traveled and visted them the entire time they were there. We are so damned ignorant, unfortunately. The Persians of Iran were so RIPE to ally with America. They were so progressive and western in their views--even after we inflicted them with our installed Shah. There is still a groundswell that would embrace us, if we allowed it to flourish--but instead we have to sterotype them as another ISLAMOFASCIST megaenemy!

Some days I just get so damned disgusted with my country and some Americans....I am sorry to the peaceful followers of Islam. Our country and its policies are rooted in ignorance, I'm afraid.

[Hatalles]

54. I wish I could rec replies. =)

[hlthe2b]

57. I'm late to the party, but wish others would read my posting....

Sadly, it seems largely buried. I am not blaming any American for being ignorant, but we have to listen to others who have experienced other cultures. Unfortunately, all too often, we do not.

But, thanks, Hatalles.

[devilgrrl]

83. I read what you said and made a similar point farther down...

thanks for your story, that book I'm reading describes the same kinds of things you wrote.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2148236&mesg_id=2148892

[hlthe2b]

95. good on you, devilgrrl

I've not read the book you mention, but it sounds like it may be one to recommend to other DUers...:thumbsup:

[flyarm]

69. wait till we bomb them with bunker busters..or daisy cutters! ..i can feel the love now!! not..eom

[hlthe2b]

71. a truly devastating thought....

What does it mean to be an American, nowadays?

(On second thought, don't answer that, WORLD, please)....

[cboy4]

102. Well hlthe2b, just because these women you're

talking about purportedly "DO NOT wish to change their society," doesn't mean that I'm not justified in criticizing the way women are treated.

You talked about how some would like to drive. DRIVE!!

And it's not just the way women are treated. It's the way gay people are treated.

It's appalling.

Yes, it's their culture.

But I don't think it's a culture that should be praised.

You can't possibly compare "RW fundie 'Christianity'" with Sharia.

And everyone should write down this date when I'm actually sort of defending the fundies.

The bottom line is you're trying to imply that I have a problem with the people ("nstead we have to sterotype them as another ISLAMOFASCIST megaenemy") is just one example from your post.

I don't have a problem with the people. In fact, I'm very concerned about their human rights.

[hlthe2b]

114. Lump the myriad of cultural practices of a billion Muslims together

and you expect us to take you seriously? Good lord....There is no arguing with people that are so determined to think they have all the answers. Again, a billion people, both Arab, non-Arab, Persian, Indonesian, Kazakhs, Uzbekhs, Turks, and on and on throughout the world.

Even within the Middle East, there are tremendous differences, including some areas where, for all intents and purposes their countries are secular, much as Iraq was prior to the invasion. Why don't you take a little time to educate yourself, rather than relying on worst case extremist examples, extrapolating that to millions of disparate people.

All that is left is seemingly for you to echo the words of Ann Coulter, that we should "invade their countries and convert all the Muslims to Christianity." Sorry, but that is almost as bad as what you are projecting. Do these women, does this society not have the right to decide for THEMSELVES? Are you really proposing that WE DECIDE for THEM?

[cboy4]

118. Yea hlthe2b, like I really want to echo the words of

Ann Coulter. :eyes:

Of course these women have the right to decide for themselves whether they want to live as second class citizens with men as their masters.

And I have the right to speak out against Sharia.

[hlthe2b]

119. On that...

we can agree....

Do take some time to read on Islam though.... Those preaching Sharia are not truly preaching nor following the true tenets of Islam. Any religion can be exploited for cruel agendas. On this, Islam and Christianity share some historical shame.

[cboy4]

120. Absolutely. See how after all of that, we can end on

agreeing about something. :)

[hlthe2b]

121. ....

:thumbsup:

[Sparkly]

124. I'm so glad you posted that.

Very interesting, and most of us understand SO little about it!! I remember being very surprised, after the Taliban was routed out of power in Afghanistan, that the women didn't all throw off their veils and burkas and kick up their heels or something. Showed me how narrow my own view can be. :hi:

[hlthe2b]

126. thanks for keeping an open mind...

re: other cultures.... We need for that to flourish. :thumbsup:

[DefenseLawyer]

52. He is carrying water for Mrs. Clinton

Why are you surprised he is triangulating every issue?

[OHdem10]

53. Now that we have all vented--there is one basic truth

No Candidate will become President who does not stand tough
against Iran. Tough against Iran. Show a willingness to
bomb them back to the stoneage (at least in rhetoric)

Some powers are greater than others--I need not say more.

Do I think this is good, right or whatever--NO!!!

Sometimes you have to say. Let me change those things I can change
and have the wisdom to know those which I cannot change.

[hlthe2b]

55. Only because we have allowed the RW neocons to frame the

argument, to villainize Iran towards their own ends. Because we do not vehemently and vocally correct the record, we are allowing the public to be manipulated.

No, we could have changed things, but we have stood all too silent these past years, despite the clear example of Iraq and the lies put forth having been our greatest weapon to fight. One we did not use in the public argument, at least to any effect. We are complicit. All of us, unfortunately and unfairly, but true.

[DefenseLawyer]

56. Ah the DLC is here to tell all us rubes about "political reality"

It is you and your ilk that are still living in 2002. If you talked to regular people you would know that no one, other than the unreachable Strangelove fringe, wants a war with Iran.

[OHdem10]

64. Defense, Lawyer, -- I hope you are not calling me DLC.

No there is not a DLC bone in my body. I am a Liberal to the
core, but when you follow things closely--you learn there
are some realities. Since things have come this far, I do
not know how they can be changed immediately.

There are somethings we might have to take as long term goals
in changing the party. This is not practical this close to
such an important election.

[DefenseLawyer]

86. What "things" do you follow closely?

Other than past history and the "conventional wisdom" of the chattering class? That's the same kind of "political reality" that led people like you to advise Democrats to vote for the Iraq war. Oh we may not like the war, but you CAN'T ever vote against war in this country. Of course as it turns out, that was terrible advice on Iraq, not only in terms of policy but politics as well. It is even worse advice on Iran, as the mood of the country is measurably more anti-war now. We can't keep buying into this "don't look weak" mantra. What you fail to realize is going along with this insanity is what looks weak. Capitulating to the most unpopular president in modern times looks weak. For the life of me I can't figure out how many times y'all get to be wrong before our politicians stop listening to you.

[OzarkDem]

132. You need to get out more often

talk to real people instead of watching Fox.

[TwilightGardener]

58. True--that's the only reason why Rudy and McCain are in the game, so to speak.

People want to hear a willingness to take military action as an assurance of being kept safe. However, I want to hear evidence that it WILL be a last resort, that is IS an undesirable thing to do, that whomever is President will have grave reservations and exhaust all manner of diplomacy, even if it's not the politically expedient or popular thing to do--and that last point is where Hillary makes me a little queasier than Obama or Edwards. Out of those three, she would be the one most likely to try to prove her toughness, and respond to polls and politics, by military action. That's my sense from her--she is first and foremost a political animal. Far better than a Repub, but not as good as Obama and Edwards in this regard.

[cboy4]

97. I find it very disturbing that you would use the

expression, "bomb them back to the stoneage."

Very troubling.

:nuke: Right?

[OzarkDem]

131. Couldn't disagree more

any candidate who thinks so will lose. Americans aren't ready for another war for oil. Even the Republicans I talk to agree.

[Schema Thing]

62. Clark is exactly right

We on the left should know better than to join in the attack on Islam, even if it is a religion with some very harmful aspects; so was, and in some forms, still is, Christianity.

Religions change when people change, and people don't tend to change simply because OTHER people are criticizing their way of life; if anything, they tend to dig in to their positions.

[Tom Rinaldo]

65. Here is the letter Clark just released about Iran (he does not mention Clinton or any Democrats)

Does anyone have a real problem with what Clark has actually written here?:


Diplomacy Now!

Email the President to stop war with Iran today!

Yesterday, the AP reported that the Bush-Cheney Administration has instituted "sweeping new sanctions against Iran Thursday -- the harshest since the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in 1979 -- charging anew that Tehran supports terrorism in the Middle East, exports missiles and is engaging in a nuclear build up."

There are 3 choices in dealing with Iran. You can engage them. You can isolate them. Or you can attack them.

These sanctions could be part of any of the 3 strategies. The sanctions themselves can only be evaluated within the context of the overall policy. Currently, the administration has chosen a path of isolation with the threat of an attack.

This is the wrong strategy. The Bush-Cheney Administration's failure to use diplomacy in conjunction with these sanctions is unlikely to change Iran's behavior.

Please join VoteVets.org and me. Send a message to President Bush to use diplomacy to deal with Iran. War is not the answer.

The AP reported that Condoleezza Rice says Washington remains committed to "a diplomatic solution" and open to negotiations with Iran. Yet the Bush Administration refuses to speak with Iran unless the Iranians pre-emptively surrender their interests. This is not likely to happen, and the Administration will be left with two options: a nuclear Iran or war.

Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) stated yesterday:

"Unilateral sanctions rarely, ever work...I just don't think the unilateral approach and giving war speeches helps the situation. It will just drive the Iranians closer together...It escalates the danger of a military confrontation."

Diplomacy is about carrots and sticks. Unfortunately, the Administration seems to believe it only has sticks. They have continued their saber-rattling, and without diplomacy, the announced sanctions only serve to escalate the tensions between the U.S. and Iran.

Tell President Bush it is time to begin direct dialogue without conditions. War with Iran is not the answer. Send a letter to President Bush today.

Thank you for your support.

Sincerely,


Wes Clark
http://securingamerica.com/

[TwilightGardener]

75. It's an effective letter, and I agree with it. But--

he's trying to walk a line politically in order to preserve his VP/cabinet chances, and it's not something I like to see. Jim Webb, by contrast, has no problem disagreeing with Clinton's K/L vote publicly--I heard him myself--and he didn't seem all that impressed that she signed on as his cosponsor on his amendment either. That's what I would have expected of Clark.

[Tom Rinaldo]

79. Here is a simple way to look at it

I think we agree that once a nominee is chosen by our Party, when everything becomes politics with the Republican trying to take down the Democrat over any and every excuse they can come up with, at that point most of us put the best spin possible on things that we are not thrilled with about our own candidate, rather than play into the dire predictions the Republican makes about what would happen if the Democrat got elected. I stopped getting angry with Kerry over having voted for the IWR when he was the Democrat running for President. Overall I knew he was best for our nation.

A lot of Democratic politicians have endorsed someone for President by now, and once they do have you noticed that they don't tend to dwell on their differences with those politicians any longer, instead they look for a way to defend them when need be? Yes it is politics but we are in a political season right now. It makes no difference if I do or do not endorse anyone prior to my primary vote (which probably won't make any difference then either). But it is different for all the Governors and Congress critters and leading political figures like RFK Jr. Sitting out a contest lessons their potential for future influence. Me, I don't have any future influence to worry about. All things considered; like overall experience and having Bill Clinton by your side, Clark thinks Hillary is the best choice of those who have a chance to get elected. So he's backing her and the behavior you now see is completely consistent with backing a candidate. We will probabaly be doing it soon also.

[TwilightGardener]

80. You know, it wouldn't have harmed Hillary at all for the general election

for Clark to have said, "I disagreed with Kyl Lieberman, but I respect and understand Hillary's viewpoint on it"--at worst, it might have cost her a LITTLE bit of support in the primaries, which isn't going to hurt her chances considering she's so far out in front. But the cost to Clark was bigger, in defending the vote, because it made him look a little bit like a political suck-up. I understand that he's not going to take her behind the woodshed for it, but he doesn't have to defend a vote he probably disagrees with either. And again, Webb is a potential VP pick, and HE vocally disagreed--no toady, he. He didn't try to curry favor, and spoke truth to power--that's the kind of people Hillary needs to surround herself with.

[Tom Rinaldo]

82. For one thing Webb is not a serious VP option

For several reasons really, but the trump reason is that we need a Democrat to hold onto that seat in Virginia. Yes Kaine could pick a Dem to replace Webb, but there would have to be a special election and the Democratic Party isn't strong enough in Virginia yet to assume we can hold that seat without Webb, given that Warner is now slotted for the other seat.

Webb hasn't endorsed Hillary, there really hasn't been any reason why he should. Clark however has already endorsed and that puts every thing he says now in a different and starkly political light, in both directions. For him to break with Hillary now, after endorsing her, on something that she is getting pounded on by all her Democratic Presidential candidate opponents would be viewed as a very public slap in the face (not to mention how it would be privately viewed). It isn't the same thing for Webb to publically disagree.

[TwilightGardener]

89. It isn't a "break" with her to disagree mildly on a vote, if someone asks him--

again, there's ways to do that tactfully and skillfully, that minimizes the difference and the damage. He did, after all, make war with Iran a signature issue for himself--Hillary made an unwise vote (probably playing for the general election), Clark knows it, and he's squelching his true feelings in trying to protect her from the fallout. But sometimes you have to hang on to your own credibility and stock value, even when it runs counter to your immediate political ambitions--there's no guarantee that he will be her VP pick, or anything else for that matter. As far as Webb, I don't think he will be the VP pick for various reasons, but his name was tossed out there more than once.

[Tom Rinaldo]

96. Regarding "ambitions"

That word gets thrown around a lot, but not usually in an even handed way. The implication is that personal ambitions are exactly that; personal, meant to further a person's own career. But we don't say that when Democrats who we like seek to become President, which of course is an expression of a personal ambition also. It is Dennis Kucinich's ambition to be elected President (or at least to be viewed as a credible candidate for President). Many of us wish it were Al Gore's ambition to become President now, and obviously once it was. Does that mean that Kucinich, Gore, Edwards, Obama, etc are putting their own personal ambitions above the need of the nation when they seek the office of President? Certainly none of their supporters would say so. Supporters of those men and others would say that they each are only seeking an opportunity to serve their nation, to give back to America some of what America has given to them.

I have no doubt that Wes Clark still wants to serve his nation. And whoever becomes President will have some important slots to fill. I hope those slots are filled by people of the highest caliber and character, but at the upper most level of politics, everything is, well, political. They say that you can't become President if you don't make yourself available, if you don't do all the things needed to become a viable candidate, if you don't go out and shake the right hands and kiss the right babies. Lightning doesn't just strike you, you have to go out and fly a kite in a storm.

So somehow I think it misses the point to say that Wes Clark may have ambitions to serve in Clinton's Administration in some capacity. Why would that be his ambition might be a fairer question to ask? It's the same question we need to ask of people who propell themselves into the Presidential race also, and of all the people who group around a major contender for President.

[TwilightGardener]

101. I'm not questioning Clarks reasons and ambitions. I'm just disappointed

that he didn't say what he really thought, in order not to offend his future boss. I hope in the future he at least tells her PRIVATELY what he thinks, no matter what he says publicly. She doesn't need sycophants.

[Tom Rinaldo]

112. I truly don't think you need worry about the latter with Clark...

...there is a reason why Hugh Shelton didn't like him much (and it's not the character smear he gave), and there's a reason why Bill Clinton's second and Republican Secretary of Defense didn't care much for Clark either - Clark bucked the old boys consensus in the Pentagon. He made the case for fighting genocide and not simply keeping our forces in reserve in case we needed them to fight over middle eastern oil, which was the contingencies that most of the top brass at the time were interested in keeping our powder dry for.

[Tom Rinaldo]

90. P.S. There is a point to be made for national Democrats...

...to stress that Kyle - Lieberman was not meant to give Bush reasons to attack Iran. I mean now, after the fact, given that it is already entered into the history books that the altered version passed with a strong majority. What is the alternative? To make a case that Democrats intention in voting for K/L really was to lay the groundwork for war? How would that help the current situation? It is far better to have those who supported that amendment come out strongly now and say that they do not see any reason for the U.S. to attack Iran, and their vote was not meant to strengthen the hand for war. It is far better for them to claim that their vote was consistent with a desire to explore real diplomacy with Iran, and to say that loud, and to say that often. And to now support the Webb Amendment.

[TwilightGardener]

100. Dems voted for it for immediate political safety. That's it. Of course

I'm not arguing that they want war--but what they want is to not appear weak with elections coming up, so they let Kyl and Lieberman (no friends of a peaceful resolution) steamroll them--just like always. Afraid of looking soft, so they'll go along with a resolution that, on its face, appears to have no real purpose or value. But it advances ChimpCo's cause, even if just a little tiny bit--it's just one more slip, one more concession in the march to another war. Not the defining moment, but an incremental step. Otherwise, Kyl and Lieberman wouldn't have bothered. And, as I always like to point out, the top two Repubs on the FRC voted against it--that gave Democrats, including Hillary, all the political cover they needed--it was no longer a partisan vote at that point. No way to put lipstick on this pig now.

[Tom Rinaldo]

107. I agreee with much you said but...

there is no reason to fatten that pig either. The more that it can be emphasized that those who voted for Kyle - Lieberman do not support a military attack on Iran the better.

[karynnj]

106. I agree - but it is predictable that it would be used for political

gain by people who voted the other way - if they feel it could hurt an opponent. Here, if we do not attack Iran, this will disappear as an issue. If we do and the Republicans then cite that vote in conjunction with the resolution from before Afghanistan was attacked, it could become an issue, especially if Obama, Edwards, Biden and Dodd say the same thing.

[Tom Rinaldo]

110. I think we see this the same.

I wish that resolution had not passed for the same reasons you do, and now we have to work even harder to make it clear that it is NOT the sense of the Senate that there may be a need anytime in the forseeable future to attack Iran. It is far better to claim now, as Clinton does, that the intention of that vote was limited to providing a negative incentive to Iran to negotiate in good faith, while also arguing that the U.S. now needs to offer some positive incentives also. But above all else Democrats need to start unifying on a message that diplomacy is the path forward and there is no remotely sufficient justification for the U.s. to take military action against Iran, certainly not in the time framework of Bush's remaining presidency and certainly not without specific Congressional authorization.

Meanwhile those who want to oppose Clinton for President may well see in her vote another reason to oppose her, which is certainly fair, but we can't let this debate about Iran become a mere subset of the Democratic primaries. As I have said elsewhere, stopping Clinton from getting the nomination - for those who are so inclined, does nothing in and of itself to stop Bush from bombing Iran before he leaves office. That issue needs to be worked NOW.

[karynnj]

129. Exactly - which is why it is important to have Clark out there explaining it

as well as Hillary saying it. I do think that, at least politically, HRC screwed up on this vote. She was already a co-sponsor on the earlier more innocuous Iran resolution so I doubt she had anything to fear in the general election sticking with the other Democrats. Now, between redefining it and cosponsoring the dormant Webb amendment are attempts to correct her position.

[karynnj]

103. I would actually take the words of a surrogate

more seriously on the issues where he IS defending her as best, if he is willing to do as you stated - say, that he disagree, but explain the logic behind the position. The thing here is that before the endorsement, I don't think that Clark had an opinion on this piece of legislation. He may very well have AGREED with the reasons behind Hillary's vote. We shouldn't assume that he is distorting his opinion to back her.

[LWolf]

72. I wasn't surprised.

It fit all my previous conceptions. :shrug:

[hisownpetard]

74. I had the same take on it, throughout. But when he started yelling that Sullivan should talk to

some women in burqas and saying how much they like their way of life - They like it! They
really do! - it just sounded ludicrous. I started looking at him in a different light.

I've always liked him but, I must admit, he seemed like a lightweight last night, and was just "off" on everything.
Not a good night for him (or for Hillary, who he defended poorly).

[Tom Rinaldo]

78. Oh c'mon. Watch it again then please

Clark was speaking to the fact that a majority of the women in those societies like their cultures, he wasn't speaking specifically about full Burkas - it was a broader comment, and it was tied to Clark's position that it isn't up to America to go into other cultures and tell people inside them what is and isn't acceptable for them to be comfortable with. That is the 21st century version of the whte man's burden. And "white man's burden" was used as a foil to justify imperialistic interventions around the world. Bringing Democracy and western values to the middle east is being used as a foil to go after oil.

By the way Clark made some great comments toward the end about why the American public can not give in to living under a fear of Bin Ladin or Iran.

[hisownpetard]

81. I like Wes Clark and there's a lot about him that I admire. I agree with what you wrote, that :

it isn't up to America to go into other cultures and tell people inside them what is and isn't acceptable for them to be comfortable with.

But he just seemed "off" last night. I think he was possibly put off-stride by that blow-hard, Sullivan, who came out of nowhere and started
attacking Hillary, trying to high-jack the conversation in a different direction than it was going. I felt like he was overpowered, though, and really should
not have been.

I dunno - I will take your suggestion and watch it again when it's on YouTube.

[TacticalPeek]

76. Baloney. Please name a national figure who's worked harder/longer than Clark against a war in Iran.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/14/AR2007091401973_pf.html

http://www.stopiranwar.com/

http://securingamerica.com/

http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article2944342.ece

http://ga4.org/campaign/stopiranwar


Etc etc etc.

[devilgrrl]

77. OT: Did anyone ever consider that Arab women dress like that because they can?

And do it solely to annoy Westerners?

I'm currently reading a book of essays about Arab women by Arab women called 'Arab Women: Between Defiance and Restraint' edited by Suha Sabbagh and one the writers argues such a point. Which leads to me to believe that there was some truth to what Wesley Clark stated in regard to their attire.

[cboy4]

91. Do they also say they like being required to walk

behind men, etc., etc?

That's my point more than their dress. It's how they're not treated as equals.

[devilgrrl]

94. Perhaps you should read this post....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2148236#2148695

You haven't responded to them so far.

[kimmerspixelated]

87. Yes, I thought the same thing.

Odd indeed. It's like the Wes Clark we knew before has been hijacked to becoming a Hillary-robot. And it really pains me to say that. Please, Wes, change your course.

[madinmaryland]

93. I didn't see it, but Wesley Clark is very close to the Clintons.

I'm not surprised he defended Hillary. They go way back to the Arkansas days and even before that.

[mvd]

108. I have never had a strong opinion of him one way or the other

I'd be interested in him running again so I can find out more about the guy. This doesn't sound so good, but Clark supporters have also made good points.

[Exultant Democracy]

109. Just watched it. You are right Clark has jumped the shark.

[janx]

115. I didn't like it.

And I'm trying to be polite. I didn't like what Clark said about the lives of women there, and I certainly didn't find the fashion show funny.

I was not swayed by arguments in favor of the Kyle/Lieberman amendment either.

YES, we know Iran's a danger right now. YES, we know that Iran is not Iraq and that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq. But labeling their military a terrorist organization doesn't sound like a rational diplomatic strategy to me.

[mvd]

117. I'm sure Bush could see it as authorizing force

For once I couldn't argue. Again, we aren't being careful and having enough deliberation.

[Sparkly]

122. My thoughts: He is smart and brave.

1. He is damned smart. Incredibly smart -- genius smart. And he has a wealth of experiences that make him knowledgeable. So he often has a fuller understanding and perspective on a whole range of issues than the people he's talking with. (Note his answer on global warming -- he could have gone on much longer about that.) So it's frustrating when people like Sullivan and Maher interrupt him by tossing out short, less well-thought-out 'points' -- he has to derail to answer them then get back on track, derail again, back on track, derail, back on track etc. I reeeeeeeally wish they'd defer to his knowledge when he speaks and not try to seem as smart or smarter. They just aren't.

2. He is damned brave. When he thinks or knows something that goes beyond the "common wisdom," he SAYS it. That takes real courage, because you know the majority-view tidal wave is going to roll right over you for it, and most won't stop to listen and think about what you're saying. I think that happened here.

3. The rest are cases in point of #1 and #2. It would have been easy to go along with the jokes about the photo of Laura Bush and say nothing controversial. Especially as a Democrat! But he raised a different level of thinking, and it goes to something much more profound about cultural differences. Why NOT speak with women who wear burkas? Who are WE to judge them? Yes, we have our views about human rights, but for people who've been raised in such societies, it may be all they know, and they may not be at the point of itching to toss them off -- the point is it's not for us to judge them.

4. Same with Iran. It would have been easy to join the group-think. This is a man who started warning against war with Iran a long time ago (stopiranwar.com). I still do not understand the Kyl-Lieberman resolution, what it does, why it passed, why the Democrats who voted for it voted for it, and how it makes sanctions possible that wouldn't otherwise be possible. I don't get it. But if General Clark, who's passionate about this, says it doesn't enable an attack on Iran, I'm inclined to believe him. He has a LOT of credibility on this.

I forgot what else I was going to type... :dunce: I think it's pizza time here.

[cboy4]

123. I don't disagree that he is damn smart and brave.

That's why what he said about calling the IRG a terrorist organization surprised and disappointed me.

Calling them terrorists does nothing but stir the hornet nest.

And what good does that do?

Now go eat you pizza!

[CarolNYC]

125. Thanks to those who responded to the burka comment...

with insights gained through their own personal experience....Very interesting, although some choose to ignore them. Seems there are some who are way too quick to impose for other people what we want without stopping to find out what they might be thinking....

[mitchtv]

127. I trust General Clark, he did what anyone would do..

defend the Dem from that fucking idiot Sullivan, who was just too obnoxious for words,. He took the freeper method and tried to monopolize the mic. I swear Andrew is on DU with all the anti Hillary talking points he was spewing, and the pro Barak interjections. He was sickening. Hillary is not my choice, but I don't like pukes trashing her. As for the burka;let the women in those countries make up their minds, I agree with Wes

[cboy4]

130. Yea, let the women in those countries "make up their minds,"

as if they have any say in the matter. :eyes:

[mitchtv]

133. what exactly can you recommend?

regime change like bush? or kill their leaders and convert them like Coulter? I say leave them the fuck alone, they'll wake up on their own, There is little we can do

[cboy4]

135. I'm not recommending anything. But I also don't think

anybody should casually praise the oppression of women, just because it's their culture.

I'm sure you're also aware of what they do to gay people in Arab countries...which is a whole different discussion.

[mitchtv]

136. well, mostly what I hear is from American Muslim women

The law protects them here, yet many like the tradition snyway. Seems a shame what we did to the women of Iraq by destroying a secular state and promoting the shiite types, the only thing we can do with Iran, not interfere. the mullah's days are numbered there

[bullwinkle428]

134. I brought this up on DU several weeks ago, when Clark was

interviewed on The Stephanie Miller Show! I was surprised and somewhat disturbed that he was really pointing the finger of blame toward Iran for supplying many of the weapons used against American soldiers in the occupation, never mind that Saudi Arabia is obviously supplying the Sunni resistance. I was a big Clark supporter in the run-up to the primary season for 2004, but was disappointed that he didn't put a lot of effort into organization, and got very little traction early on as a result. I can't say I feel nearly as enthusiastic for him these days, and am a little apprehensive of the role he would play in a Clinton administration...

[Milo_Bloom]

137. It was very sad to watch... he sold himself out and appears dirty from it. (nt)