Kerry responds to Clark's plan to catch Osama

General Wesley Clark, criticizing Bush's failure to catch Osama bin Laden, outlined his own plan today. Clark called for the creation of a joint U.S.-Saudi commando force to search along the Afgan Pakistani border.

John Kerry issued the following statement criticizing General Clark's proposal:

"I have great respect for General Clark, but his proposal to rely on Saudi commandos to go into Pakistan to find Osama Bin Laden just won't withstand scrutiny. President Bush let Osama Bin Laden slip away in the first place at Tora Bora by not relying on US troops but rather on Afghan mercenaries who just one month earlier had been fighting on the other side. The General’s proposal, likewise, is flawed. Not only do the Saudis currently have their hands full finding the terrorists who are blowing up buildings in their own capital, but with their support of the Taliban and the blind eye they too often turned towards Al Qaida, I fear operational collaborations with the Saudis in Pakistan and Afghanistan would create serious intelligence and security risks

http://blog.johnkerry.com/

?

Except the plan of being entitled to the presidency. I HATE having to criticize any of the front-runners, but Kerry needs to SHUT HIS TRAP if he doesn't have his own plan. Basically he says that Clark's plan sucks becuase Bush hasn't caught OBL yet, huh?

Since the failure at Tora Bora to be exact. Too bad noone listens.

He is probably saying to himself "Why didn't I think of that!"

Kerry is still trying to figure out his message.

He shoots it down WITHOUT even offering an alternative. That's odd. Kinda leaves you with a sense of hopelessness.

Clark's plan should make Georgie boy mighty uncomfortable. Clark's plan effectively calls on the Saudis to put up or shut up. And if they shut up?? Guess they aren't as for us as they are against us.

MzPip
:dem:

Are the Saudis, Afghanis, and Pakistanis on good terms? Just becauses they are all muslims does not make them allies or even friends. Part of the problem is the tribal control of the mountains between Pakistan and Afganistan. Pakistan actually has some sort of agreement with some of the larger tribes that the military will not go more than a 100 meters or so from the roads in certain areas or risk being attacked. I wish I could find the link for that, but I'm having no luck at the moment.

Honestly, I doubt the Saudis would send commandos into another country while they are having their own problems with terrorism.

why is that area so powerful ? why doesn't the country have control over them ? i remember when something about a girl who did something bad, like go out with the"wrong guy" and they ordered her to be punished by gang rape. the government opposed it, but why was the tribal area allowed to try such a thing in the first place ?

She was gang raped because her brother had relations with a higher caste woman.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/08/31/pakistan.gang.rape/

John Kerry really should read the plan before commenting on it.

First, as president, I would press Saudi Arabia to join US forces in creating a US-Saudi commando force to work the Afghan-Pakistani border where bin Laden is thought to be hiding.

What part of US-Saudi force is John unable to understand?

Second, we need to fully utilize the assets we already have on hand to hunt down bin Laden and destroy the Al Qaeda network. Too many of our intelligence specialists, linguists, and special operation personnel are investing too much time and energy in Iraq in a fruitless search for weapons of mass destruction - a task that could better be handled by international weapons inspectors. These inspectors are ready, willing, and able to perform this mission. By doing so, we could refocus American specialists on the destruction of Al Qaeda not only in Iraq but wherever the Al Qaeda leadership and its forces may be located. This is a clear case where getting help from the international community to share the burden in Iraq will free up crucial resources to allow us to better fight the most significant threat to our homeland.

Geeze John, it sure sounds like American forces will be fully engaged in the operations.

But the weapons of our country must not be limited to our awesome military capabilities. They must involve the web of international relationships we have built over generations.

So does John want to go it alone? Or will John, Joe Biden, Gov. Dean and Gephardt hit the Sunday circuit to announce a plan for finding bin Laden that sounds exactly like the plan Clark outlines above. Stay tuned...'cause you can count on it.

The idea of depending too much on foreign troops to get bin laden. He believes we should do this ourselves to make sure the dedication to the cause is solid. I think it's just a difference of opinion and the kind of thing people ought to be considering when choosing a President.

I think he would agree that using the people who are 'searching' for WMD could be better used, although I haven't actually heard or read where he's said that.

Why would the Saudis send commandos into Afghnanistan and Pakistan?

Seems to me the Pakistanis should be sending their own commandos...

Tora Bora was one of the biggest military failures in regard to Iraq and only Kerry and Gore spoke out about it to hammer Bush back then. If they had back up from the other Democrats at the time, the American people would never have trusted Bush's plans or military strategy for Iraq.

We should have been relying on our own troops in Afghanistan all along. By relying too much on these warlords and what have you, Afghanistan is in much worse shape than it would have been.

But the fact is, we don't have the troops to spare any longer. The Saudis have an incentive to go after Bin Laden, since he hates them as much as he hates the U.S., more actually, and wants to destabilize their rule. Clark's plan makes sense given the dynamics of the situation.

What you say has merit, it's just that relying on certain countries for such a serious matter hasn't worked too well.

The Pakistanis have all kinds of tribal issues at play, which makes corruption flourish. The Saudis, on the other hand, have no real motivation to want Bin Ladin anything but dead. Outside of us, they are the most motivated government when it comes to this issue.

Which *ahem* several Dem Senators sanctioned.

Do we not think that Clark would have knowledge of such available "commandos" BEFORE he would make such a suggestion?

Serious question, I really don't know the answer. I do remember him praising Bush and Afghanistan last March and that's all I know about his comments on the subject.

i think he criticized it as far back as 2002. i thought the media would pick up on it, but they didn't report it much.

I don't follow Clark closely but I was glad to see him "one-up" Bush on this today.

If Clark and Kerry were the final two, this is the kind of campaign we'd see. Two true warriors fighting it out on substantive issues. It would be amazing and make the Democratic Party look like geniuses compared to Bush.

Clark got some press for this so Kerry dove in with nothing but negativity. Sorry, but I'm not seeing any genius.

Stop:___Joe Lieberman to issue a press release accussing General Clark of stealing his plan.

Stop:___Clark's plan includes American forces.

Stop:___Mashariff cannot be trusted.

THAT's the ticke.

It does raise the question, "Well, what the heck IS Bush's 'plan' to catch Osama?", etc...

It would take a Rumsfeldian level of double-think to analyze this criticism without dwelling on what Bush hasn't been doing about it.

Kerry misses the point here. Clark is proposing this
as a way to engage the Saudis. If they play, then
it will help change the political environment in
Saudi Arabia. If they don't, well we can exert
pressure on them to "reform." Given the fact that
bin laden's organization had its origins in Saudi Arabia,
and the strong anti-western prejudices of the Saudi culture,
it's not surprising that Clark would try to fix the terrorism
problem at one of its sources.

However, Kerry is right that this may not
a big impact in finding bin laden by itself.
Although having more people with an Arab perspective,
may help the US understand how bin laden thinks...

I believe the second part of Clark's plan, calling for transfer
return of intelligence personnel from Iraq would actually help
find bin laden.

He's probably right about putting them to the test on whether they're going to help end the terrorism that their country is fostering. But we really ought to do bin laden on our own and get serious about it. I'm glad Clark is making this a real issue, it needs to be much more 'front and center' in this election.

american boys die. Why not get help. Clark would never let someone else run the show (in this case). We would be in control, other can help.

they may be looking at it with different goals in mind. it would be nice to see them discuss this in a debate. it would be discussing real issues that matter also.

Having kerry and clark discussing policy
at a debate would be great for both men
and the nation.

pressure and compellance. He wants to give the Saudi's a reason and a no backing out way to help. If they don't help, they shouldn't be trusted. Then he can scream about the Saudi's. It is quite brilliant.

It will hopefully make the Saudis put up or shut up.

Does anyone remember Prince Bandar or whatever his name is trying to
give the city of New York $10,000,000 after the Royal
Family assisted a bunch of Saudis to fly into the WTC?

I do.

The Saudis are much to blame for this. By forcing them
to ally with us to catch Al Qaeda they will have to draw
what side of the line they stand on.

I support Clark on this.

Kerry pegged them as part of the funders of terrorism back in 97. Again, it all goes back to BCCI and IranContra.

Clark is a military man who I respect quite a bit, but, for antiterrorism I trust Kerry and his teaming with Gary Hart.

That said, I'll bet Kerry and Clark could put their ideas together and come up with even a better plan.

Kerry said nothing other than we need to use American forces, which this plan does. Also, the Saudis have very good intelligence about this region, and provide Arab speakers. This region is populated by the Pashtuns who stretch on either side of the border--which to them is not a border. The Saudis won't enter Iraq and who can blame them, but they do need take some responsibility.

he has always said it should be a combination of intelligence on the ground with special forces units trained in surgical strikes.

Even Carol Mosely Braun needs to jump on this one. All nine 2004Dems and as many more humans against Bush that can get in front of a microphone or on a blog should come up with a way to get Bin Ladin and Mullah Omar and let it be known Bush is losing the war on terrorism. With friends like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, who needs enemies? Let's call these capitalist pig poker players when they have a weak hand. Let's taunt the BFEE into defeat with their own boogie-men.

At least Clark has pointed out the PNAC plan MULTIPLE times in debates, speeches etc.

What's YOUR plan to get Osama?

What's YOUR plan to deal force Saudi Arabia's hand?

Kerry, you must not play a whole lot of poker

Oh, and what's YOUR plan to expose PNAC'ers?

in order to stop it from happening.

on this one.

I agree with Kerry on the "flag burn ban" thingy.

But on this, I think he is kind of out of his league.
Maybe he should have really sat down and thought about
it before he put a statement out. I mean, what's Kerry's
grand plan for Osama, Al Qaeda on the War on Terrorism?

Wes Clark has written two thick books.

Kerry is still my number 2 choice, but he can't even
beat Dean on Foreign Policy, what makes him think he
can beat Clark on how to conduct a military operation?

It's a joke.

I'll take the Rhodes Scholar, 4-star, West Point Valedictorian
for $100 Alex.