Clark: War didn't and doesn't bring democracy

The whole operation has been a massive war crime from its inception.

I suppose it is too much to expect for a retired general to criticize his 'professional' armed forces, but from Abu Ghraib to the bombardment of wedding parties in the night to the random killings of families at checkpoints, I see nothing brilliant here. It is only diabolical.

you gotta remember that for the most parts, its only the bad things that are shown on the evening news. Most failures are a result of the Bush administration's bungling and war mongering. Dispite our feelings on the war, ya gotta respect the troops.

:hi:

is that he praises the troops for the actual execution of the initial battle plan, after all that's what they've been trained for.

He knows full well, however, that the US military is not designed for a nation-building or urban policing role and has said so before.

he always praises the troops. He feels they have been trained to do a job, and he is proud that most of them do that job well. He loves the troops and is very protective of them.

His feeling about their being forced to do nation-building, urban-policing, and the jobs that they are not trained for (by this administration and its illegal war) is quite different, however... but, still he praises them for what they try their hardest to accomplish. One distinction that he tries always to draw is this: He loves and respects the troops, but hates the war they are forced to fight. He places blame for that war at Bush's feet (where he rightly feels it belongs). He feels the policy has failed -- not the troops.

Many have a problem with this dichodomy in Wes's thinking and expression. But just knowing this is a man who believes wars should be fault "only, only, only as a last resort" explains it to anyone open enough to hear it.

TC

(most recently at the HASC hearings) about how most of the regular troops were trained and equipped for "high-end" conflict, ie. full scale combat. He criticized their use for "low-end" tasks, such as police work and counter-insurgency. And he has also consistently criticized the over-use of reserve and National Guard units without sufficient training or experience.

Basically, he's saying that the overwhelming majority of the men and women in uniform have been doing the best they possibly can under a really awful set of circumstances that have been created by the civilian leadership.

If you could help me to understand. I do not disagree that the war, one based on a lie, is illegal. Nevertheless, the average American and soldier was told repeatedly that WMD would soon rain down on their heads because Saddam caused 911. Most of them still believe that how ever impossible that seems.

Should we, in your opinion, accuse all of the troops of "war crimes"? I'm not excusing the worst of them, I'm just asking about the least of them.

What about all of the willing and enabling Democrats who fell over themselves to denounce Saddam, vote for war, but are now featured on this board as possible presidential nominees?

Focusing on the root of the problem, the civilian leadership starting with the CiC-the SoD and the attending congressional committees would seen a wiser net to cast than one which aims at the smallest fish.

Troops are trained to do something, they did it--for the most part. As the country lauds the "Torture Guy" and his close friend, Condi, who did not do their jobs; as bush struts across the world stage cheered on by Biden's calls to Europe "he's the president--get over it," I just don't see that slamming the troops is the answer. Well, unless you want to keep losing elections and thus losing period. I prefer to support a credible voice, Clark, who always saves his criticism for the most deserving--the junta in charge.

So exactly what do you mean by your post?

Waiting.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

She's not being excused for "just following orders," either.

Neither was Charles Graner Jr.

No one here is excusing the people who actually participated in the crime and we're not dismissing the fact that a top-down directive was in place to allow these crimes to occur.

What we're pointing out is that it's not the entire military who's responsible and also that the military is being used by the Bush Administration for directives other than what militaries should be used for.

Sanchez, Myers, Rumsfeld, Cheney and make room for the mercenaries like Titan, CACI, Blackwater Security, Custer-Battles, Dyn-Corp and other mercenaries employed by The War President, George W. Bush.

Instead they cover-up war crimes and atrocities that may involve mercenaries, not US troops. US troops have been tainted by being ordered to take reprisals for mercenaries (Fallujah).

I posted that the troops are taking the fall for the higher-ups.

... anyone here would excuse "wiping out Iraqis at random."

But surely you are not suggesting that this is prevalent behavior? We have had, on average, about 140,000 troops or so in Iraq for the last two years. The vast majority of these are good, conscientious people trying to do the best job they can in the circumstances they have been put in.

Yes, there are some fraction who step over the line and commit war crimes. I don't know what that fraction is, but I'm sure it's small enough that it is very wrong to tar the whole force with those evil actors. Lets say, just for the sake of argument, that it is 1/4% - that would be 350 miscreants in country at any given time - surely enough to cause quite a bit of havoc, but hadly representative of the remaining vast majority.

And while not excusing the culprits in specific crimes, I do think there is responsibility to the top of the chain for such misdeeds.

Sliming all the soldiers for misdeeds or tragic errors by a minority is also a kind of misjustice whether you see it or not. Why not lets compare some actual facts or keep to specific instances. I think you'll find many here can agree with you that there have been some misdeeds without going and trashing all the men and women in our armed forces and comparing them to Nazi war criminals.

It's astounding to me what people continue to believe too, after all this time.

Those people in Congress based their votes, in part, on what Wesley Clark SAID.

"...But it was a signal warning about Saddam Hussein: he is not only malevolent and violent, but also unpredictable. He retains his chemical and biological warfare capabilities and is actively pursuing nuclear capabilities...

The best public assessment is that if he were to acquire fissionable material he might field some type of weapon within two years. If he has to enrich the uranium ore itself, then a period of perhaps five years might be required. But what makes the situation relatively more dangerous today is that the UN weapons inspectors, who provided some assistance in impeding his development programs, have been absent from Iraq for over four years...

The United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be further strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing US determination to act if the United Nations will not..."

http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html

That is what the man said. That was the thinking of many in Congress who voted for that resolution. Not all, not even all Democrats; but many Democrats.

I am sick to damned death of blind revisionist history, from all sides.

rather than a snip. He quoted Clark when he voted against the resolution. I also listen to Clark's testimony and agreed with Perle who stated that Clark didn't want to go to war under any circumstances.

Personally, I didn't like Saddam Hussein and would never chose to live under his rule. The guy was a nut case. Sorry. 22 Senators voted against the resolution and they probably didn't like Saddam either. But they were brave and honest putting their country before their political fortunes.

Clark's advice was a resolution that would get the inspectors back in but without a trigger that bush could use for war. Clark was briefed his testimony by the "crazies" but he didn't buy it.

I just linked to it.

Why did he say Saddam had chemical and biological weapons? Why did he support war in any form, if he had been told that they were going to make up excuses to go into Iraq? Why'd he suggest a resolution that allowed for unilateral action?

Clark has not taken responsibility for what he said to Congress. I'm not going to play spin games. He said what he said. He wasn't right in everything he said, but given what was thought at the time, he was right in suggesting the resolution. Democrats in Congress did the best they could to get it and follow his recommendations. Now he wants to pretend he and other Clark supporters want to pretend his words had no part in the resolution at all. It's bullshit.

Yep, no one knew for sure because.... there were no inspectors on the ground.

snip...

The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail.  The more focused the resolution on Iraq and the problem of weapons of mass destruction, the greater its utility in the United Nations.  The more nearly unanimous the resolution, the greater its impact in the diplomatic efforts underway.

Force should be used as the last resort; after all diplomatic means have been exhausted, unless information indicates that further delay would present an immediate risk to the assembled forces and organizations.  This action should not be categorized as "preemptive." 

^^^^^^^^^^

Clark did believe that we needed inspectors on the ground, as did the 22 senators who listened to him and voted against the resolution that was not retrained and focused.

Did you trust and like Saddam? As I said, I didn't. BTW, if we are spinning, then perhaps the remaining two hours of this testimony would shed just a little light on this.

That's the whole point. A resolution to put inspectors on the ground. Everybody wanted them, very few had the guts to admit that this resolution was the only way to get them. And accept responsibility for their real beliefs. And even fewer Democrats have had the guts to point straight to George Bush as the one who took the resolution, that he said at the time WAS NOT a war resolution, and twisted it into an authorization for preemptive war.

I've read Clark's testimony, and Scott Ritter's testimony, and a host of other people's testimonies and statments. ALL of them, going back years in fact. I know which ones were pro-war, which ones were pro-inspections, which ones were anti-war, and which ones were flat out too cowardly to take a stand at all. I don't pick and choose to support my personal need for a knight in shining armor.

"I don't pick and choose to support my personal need for a knight in shining armor."

"Now he wants to pretend he and other Clark supporters want to pretend his words had no part in the resolution at all. It's bullshit."

Clark never suggested that the Iraq/Sadaam situation didn't require some action, he preferred diplomatic action through the UN and said so then and now. And where do you get the idea that his supporters don't portray this accurately?

He didn't have a crystal ball on the WMD but was always advised a more conservative/skeptical reading of the intelligence than was being pushed on the congress and the country.

A thorough reading of all of Clark's statements prior to the invasion will bear this out. If we are going to snip sections of statements from various democrats this could be a really long thread.

One that said we would take unilateral action if the UN didn't act. That position is no different than the majority of other Democrats, no matter how they voted on that resolution. Democrats, for the most part, were consistent on how Iraq should be handled. People who want to deny what was said at the time, and act as if it all boils down to a vote, are being deceptive.

What everybody said about Iraq, not just Clark, should be taken as a whole, not in snippets. If people did that, they'd discover almost all Democrats were on the same page. The only ones who lied and are responsible for this war are Bush and his Administration.

If they have any questions on what Clark supported. Your interpretation is flawed mainly because you presume to know how he would have voted, when his statements to Congress are contrary to what you are saying. He supported a resolution that met the points he made over and over again for example:

quote from your link:



Clark said himself during the primaries he didn't believe the IWR vote should be used as a litmus test to select a candidate. I agree with that, there are many other qualities that attracted me to support him.

about Clark and that vote. I do presume to think people should stand behind their words though. I also presume to think Clark's words played heavily on alot of votes that were made.

The resolution did not outright authorize use of force. It required a declaration that all diplomatic and peaceful means had been exhausted to defend the country against the threat from Iraq.

It met his remaining requirements as well:


US determination to act if the United Nations will not

use of force must remain a US option

more focused the resolution on Iraq and the problem of weapons of mass destruction

more nearly unanimous the resolution

I don't think Clark supported the war in March 2003, any more than most other Democrats did. But his words were no more anti-war in 2002 than anybody elses.

Haven't we done this in another life or something?

Your characterization of IWR resolution is very interesting. You're saying that since Bush had to make a declaration, that even though it was completely out of Congress' hands, that in fact, they didn't authorize Bush to go to war.

Hmmm. I think you're full of it. But then as I said before, it wasn't a litmus test for me despite your statement above somewhere where you broadbrushed us Clark supporters. I certainly wouldn't go around attacking Kerry on his IWR vote, maybe you found a post of mine from a year ago or something, or you just had a horrible flashback?

"A" resolution is not "the" resolution, which is why Graham didn't vote for "the" resolution.

If the snippets are eliminated then one should avoid snippets by all means; nevertheless, there were those with a "D" after their names who advocated the action taken even after they knew there were no WMD. And there were those Dems who absolutely agreed with this policy.

Besides, since I knew that Iraq was 1) not a threat 2) that bush was after "the" resolution because he was looking for a war 3) the goals of PNAC and 4) the ultimate danger and illegality of a preemptive war, what am I to conclude about people who are suppose to have more than just Google when making a decision? Are they to dumb to represent me, or are they just playing their political cards?

Either way, we are in this thing now. I marched, I wrote, and I called, but I'm in it too. Our country and our families will pay for this with blood, riches and the future. This is not a small matter for me, it is "the" number one issue, because it negates our ability to improve our lives. We have sold out our children and our Constitution. Just as there were sell outs on the Patriots Act and NCLB.

I will not defend those votes.

I alread said there were Democrats who absolutely agreed with Bush's Iraq policy. That's why the words they said at the time are important. It is also important to identify the people who supported inspections, but had absolutely no plan to get us there, that's deceptive too.

I have no problem with what Clark said, all of what he said. It's the same thing most other Democrats said, regardless of whether they ultmately chose to vote yes or no. I suspect Clark doesn't really know how he would have voted, had he been faced with the choice. Which is where the confusion came from when he first announced.

of those of a certain poster who has to keep dragging Kerry's name into threads where Dean is getting heat for his position on the occupation.

I find it rather unhelpful and divisive no matter who is doing it.

Now. I find it rather unhelpful and divisive for people to continue believing Democrats are responsible for a war Bush lied us into. Or that somebody who said we had to deal with Saddam in a certain way, allows his words to be turned around and used to crticize people who were trying to do what he recommended.

I'm just sick of this whole business of Democrats tearing other Democrats down on a Democratic board. If reasonable people would simply refuse to engage in it, and would unite to register their disapproval of those who do it, now matter which Democrat they support, it would probably go a long way towards alleviating the problem on this board.

I just don't get this mindset of "my guy got beat up on so I'd better go and beat up on somebody else's guy". People beat up on Clark all the time, and I'm not going to use it as an excuse to go and beat up on other Democrats. I'm certainly not going to start beating up on Kerry just because a Kerry supporter came in and pissed on a positive Clark thread.

I'm just not willing to play that game, or do anything to encourage it anymore.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

for what they say. I can only take responsibility for what I say and do on here. Clark gets subjected to more vicious and more tenacious attacks than any other Democrat on this board. I long ago learned to stop going after whoever was supported by whoever was attacking Clark, and just stick to defending Clark.

I can't agree that Clark supporters are the worst offenders, though there are always a few in every group. We're mostly too busy defending Clark against the almost continuous attacks to go after other Democrats.

Now, it may just be human nature to react to an attacker in a positive thread about your guy by attacking their guy. Maybe you're seeing some of that in this thread.

At any rate, as I said in an earlier post, I had really thought that you were one of the ones who was above that sort of thing, and it disappoints me a great deal to see you engaging in it and perpetuating it.

I've seen that post written here for two years now.

That Clark gets attacked on this board? Well, he sure does, and has been ever since he was on the radar screen as a potential candidate.

To tell you the truth, I'm not making much sense out of your latest posts , and i'm not sure this line of discussion is productive anymore.

I'm sorry that Kerry gets attacked. I'm sorry that a couple of Deanies crashed your forum and that you evidently feel the need to take it out on Clark and his supporters. I'm sorry that you feel your attempt to piss on a positive Clark thread has been met with a certain measure of hostility and I'm sorry that reality appears to be making you angrier.

I really don't know what else to say to you at this point. Maybe you'll just dismiss this post as the same one you've been seeing for two years as well. Maybe you're just getting overly emotional and should consider pulling yourself out of a situation that isn't doing anybody any good at this point.

Clark supporters are attacking Kerry and you won't take it anymore?

This is insane.

He/she thinks we're attacking Kerry?

He/she thinks Clark wrote this article to attack ANY Democrat?

Um... Sandsea, dear, this article is about how BUSH and CHENEY and RUMMY screwed up the Middle East with their idiotic obsessions - oil. This thread, as I posted it, was NOT about Kerry or Dean or Edwards or anything other than what was presented.

I don't see an attack on Kerry. I see an attack on establishment politics that befuddles the human brain.

What are you so pissed about?

I then reposted the quote from the post, to make it very clear. Didn't have anything to do with what Clark said. I never responded to what Clark said. I liked what Clark said. I almost always do.

I almost never like what his supporters say, and almost never have.

The feeling is mutual.

It's been 6 months of non-stop Clark in 2008. Along with incessant slander against every other Dem out there, all of them. 6 months of it. Now I know a number of people decided to step back and let people deal with their anger and grief their own way. But it's been 6 damned months. It's time to regroup, deal with the issues in front of us and 2006. People are not just going to sit back and take this forever. Be it against Kerry, Edwards, Hillary, Feingold, whoever. And I've seen it against all of them.

Who are you accusing of "slander against every other Dem"? Clark supporters?

As for non-stop Clark 08, take a look at the Kerry threads always on the front page of this forum. Always on the Greatest Page. And tell me this is just about what a great Senator he is.

You said "we aren't going to sit back and take it anymore" right after "Clark supporters are the worst".

So, is this some sort of "get back" for Clark threads? Do Clarkies come into Kerry threads to trash him because there are "too many"?

Jesus.

I see it all the time. Wow. Denial is an amazing thing. That's what I'm talking about and that's all I'm talking about. DU should be full of threads about what our Dems are doing and issues we need to work on. I've got no problem with that. The gratuitous bashing and continued misinformation, that I have a problem with.

It's kind of funny, one little post and you people come unglued. Kerry people eat this shit for breakfast. And lunch and dinner.

With something other than blanket accusations.

Because YOU are the one that is unglued, here.

If you think that Kerry is the only whipping boy on DU, you are in not only in "denial", you are totally myopic.

Why you view Clark supporters as the enemy, is beyond me, when I rarely see a Clarkie attacking Kerry or most Dems at all.

Like I said, seen this post before.

I'm going to take the word of someone who hijacks a positive Clark thread and states that they dislike Clark supporters?

Right.

I'd be really curious to know that. I asked you before, but you seem to want to refuse to answer me, instead preferring to throw out an accusation that I can't even make heads or tails of.

Would you at least clarify what you mean by that statement?

The bashing did not take very long to start. I see Kerry bashing but very little by Clarkies. When you post an accomplishment by Kerry I have seen little bashing by anyone. If you are referring to threads where people express their reason for feeling Kerry should not be the candidate in '08, that is a different matter. At that point you can defend him just as Clark's supporters defend him.

gripe about so much and I'm simply amazed at how thin skinned you guys are because the attacks on Kerry don't even come close to what the Clark supporters have to deal with on an almost daily basis.

You eat that eat that shit for lunch? You guys eat pablum and tell yourself it's shit and tell yourself how tough you are for dealing with it.

Why don't you come back to me when you deal with a 200 post flamewar with someone who comes up with every kind of conspiracy in the book, that Kerry is a Republican, an neocon stalining horse, a Clinton stalking horse, is part of some kind of elaborate psy op scheme to carry out a military coup in this country. Come back when people keep lying over and over and over and over again about how Kerry voted on one thing or another. Come and complaing when banned people make sock puppets for no other purpose than to spam this board with attacks on Kerry. Come back and complain when people start flamebait thread after flamebait thread after flamembait thread directed at Kerry and his supporters. There's been three or four of them started against Clark just this evening and either locked or zapped.

I'm sick of the whining from supporters of other Democrats when I know that none of you goes through a fraction of the shit that Clark supporters get here every day.

I wish all the bashing would stop, but hearing other people whine about how bad it is for them is just laughable as far as I'm concerned.

"What about all of the willing and enabling Democrats who fell over themselves to denounce Saddam, vote for war, but are now featured on this board as possible presidential nominees?"

This is what I responded to. I find this to be complete bullshit. Clark didn't denounce Saddam? Clark repeated the Bush bio/chem nuclear line almost word for word. Clark recommended a resolution. Clark recommended threat of force. Clark recommended a unified vote.

That is what I'm talking about. And all I've tried to talk about. If that ridiculous statement hadn't been in the thread, I wouldn't have responded to it. Clark has gotten a free ride on his statements on this war. When other people get slandered on this war, but Clark doesn't have to take any responsiblity for what he said to Congress, then enough is enough.

All I can say is that you Kerry people seem to live in a splendid isolation where you have no clue as to what a real attack even looks like.

You're just lucky that you're not a Clark supporter because with how thin skinned you are, you wouldn't last 5 minutes at DU if you were.

I think that's about all I have left to say. You just keep telling yourself how brave and strong you are for fighting off the laughably mild "attacks" that you get so upset about. I'm through trying to discuss this with you.

Not surprised. Don't address the issue, change the subject.

Actually, the onslaught came after my response to that first post. Originally, I was just responding to a line of bullshit, like I've said repeatedly.

and spammed it up and down with seemingly inexplicable attacks on Clark, and then started whining about all the attacks that Kerry supporters have to deal with.

I was always just asking you about your behavior and you seem to be the one who wants to keep changing the subject. At any rate, I think this is getting ludicrously pointless.

OMFG, you have got to be kidding. Clarkies come and gang up on me because I confront his war statements, and *I* spammed the thread??

:rofl:

In a positive Clark thread "spamming".

And yes, when somebody comes in to a positive Clark thread spamming it with a bunch of bullshit, we "gang up" on them. I believe Kerry supporters do the same thing when someone comes and poops in a positive Kerry thread.

Well, your hysteria is amusing, but getting a little tiresome. Good night.

Next time I'll just bend over and take it.

Or go home and shove it.

That's what we've been saying politely.

I think you've demonstrated you won't listen to politeness.

no wonder you have a poor constitution.

:eyes:

I don't flame anyone AND I STARTED THIS THREAD.

Look back through my posts. You'll see that I don't think Hillary can win, I don't like Edwards and the rest... I say nary a word about.

I'M TIRED OF THE FLAME WARS STARTED AGAINST CLARK FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN TO FLAME HIM.

What I've seen is that people are ganging up against Clark for reasons I can't even imagine. Kerry didn't win. Election fraud is NOT going to be investigated by the corporate media; thus, effectively, he lost. Live in the real world.

I want for the media to NOT let it happen again, but I see no evidence that a change in their failure to cover meaniful info is afoot.

I WILL talk about Clark whenever and however I want on this board because, damnit, CLARK IS A DEMOCRAT even if I'm NOT (I'm not a registered Dem. I just vote that way).

You DEAL with 2006, go ahead - because it ain't gonna matter a hill of beans to me - I'm stuck in a state with NO support, NO alternative media to speak of and NO chance for a change. I present Harold Ford Jr. and you quip (maybe not YOU, but most DUers) that he's RNC "LITE" - yet, realistically, and I live in the real world, he's about the ONLY Dem who can win in Tennessee.

Get OVER your bad selves and come together and STOP sniping.

NO. Track a thread. I responded to Donna Zen.

And btw, you're in TN. I posted a thread the other day. TN should be a target state. You've got 9 Reps, several Dems. With a little coordinated effort, and education and information, maybe we could push your voters a little bit so your Dems could start voting with us for a change. Of course, it dropped like a rock, because anything except a flame war does.

I still find it comical that one post gets Clark people all in a tizz, when a Kerry thread almost always has more trash than anything else.

Clark is attacked all the time on this forum.

If anything, the tireless defense of him on threads, half of which aren't even started by Clarkies, have changed some peoples minds so it has gotten a bit better.

Maybe instead of trashing Clark, you should do a better job of defending Kerry.

Good-bye.

KERRY didn't even VISIT my state - except for some non-descript Fez-hat meeting during the WHOLE DAMN campaign. Don't TALK to me about pushing our voters when your guy - and I BEGGED him... I BEGGED Clark to get him here... and he didn't do it. MISTAKE. Put a link to your post and I'll try and respond. I didn't see it - where was it and what was it about?

That aside - yes, your response was to Donna, but this is MY thread you're hijacking, so, hell yeah, I'll pop in when I want.

BTW, I've never trashed a Kerry thread, so I would appreciate your not doing it to me. I've never trashed an Edwards thread - and I think he's a huge phoney. I've never trashed a Hillary thread and I think she can't win. Please, respect others and they will do so, in kind.

I've never trashed a thread about Dean, Kerry, Edwards, Kucinich, either Clinton, or any other Democrat. In fact, I vehemently defended Kerry as our nominee, and more recently Dean as our Chair. But I've never seen anything like the consistent and inevitable attacks on General Clark virtually every time his name appears in a thread.

It's ridiculous. He's a popular and influential Democrat with profound potential for moving our party forward and setting rightwing "thinktank" campaigns back by decades. This is a man proudly and stronly endorsed by leftist liberal Democrats and civil rights leaders. Why he is subject to constant attacks by Democrats is beyond me!! What are people *really* so afraid of?

I still won't enter the game of trashing other Democrats, and hopefully the game will stop somewhere, sometime.

If you don't want to talk about Clark's war testimony, don't. Pretty simple.

Some troll comes into a thread and starts posting distortions and insults and then whines about being "ganged up" on when Clark supporters have the nerve to respond. We get blamed for causing trouble. We "derailed our own thread".

Hey, why don't I go and smear shit all over some positive Kerry thread and see if you guys just sit there and blow kisses at me?


Pathetic.

That's all I did. If the rest of you hadn't piled on, none of this would have been here.

This sad attempt to make your posts anything other than a hijack is pathetic.

This article was written by a Democrat attacking Bush and the Repukes over fallout from the war and their justification for the invasion by taking credit for a mythical explosion of democracy in the ME. It had nothing to do with IWR. It had nothing to do with Kerry or any other Democrat.

YOU decided to attack Clark and basically call Clark supporters revisionists and Clark a hypocrite.

Why?

Because you don't like Clark supporters and you don't like Clark threads.

Definition: Troll.

I just don't think he was anti-war.

I don't like Clark supporters attacking everybody, and then pretending they don't. Which has been proven pretty clearly in this thread.

The projection never ends.

You hijack the thread, you insult Clark supporters, and we are the "attackers". You refuse to back up your slander that we go into Kerry threads to trash him or anyone else with any evidence, all the while trashing us and Clark.

It's called defending yourself when people accuse you of something you don't do and you disagree. It's called defending a person when you answer nonsense spewed about him.

But, please, continue with your projections, it's getting amusing.

Should I go back and paste where you called me a troll, and worse? Who's attacking who?

Again, one post to one person on one issue. One time. In 6 months.

I'm the troll. :eyes:

And I'd appreciate a response to my post #139, if you'd care to re-engage. Thank you.

He's anti-IRAQI-war.

He would take each issue, threat, etc. as a separate incident and make a judgment based on the relevance to that issue or threat.

I don't think anyone here said he's "anti-war" and I don't think the majority of Democrats are "anti-war," but I think we ALL are anti-Iraqi-war, including Clark.

You decided to insult Clark supporters using a slur DU gangbangers use against us. There had been a decent discussion going on until your Post #48 below. Clark supporters are not attacking everybody. I'm not attacking anybody at all. What's proven by this thread is that you've bought into the moonshine. If this is where it's going, if you want a fight, you'll get one.

sandnsea Donating member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon May-02-05 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. Inspectors on the ground

I don't pick and choose to support my personal need for a knight in shining armor.

How about you read ALL of his testimony instead of JUST the section that can be spun as incriminating.

Stop carrying Rove's water please, it only hurts real democrats when you do that.

Let's be very clear about this: you, which is your right, came into a thread about a newly published article by Clark and condended that he encouraged the senate to vote as he did. I disagree based on various evidence to the contary and a very different understanding of his testimony both from a personal reading and the ensuing historical response.

If I open a Kerry thread it is to read about his latest news and then I move on. I am glad that supporters post positive threads here and if every thread on the "Greatest" thread was a Kerry thread, I would not be offended or outraged.

Having never mentioned Kerry's name in any post on this Clark thread, why you are assuming that I was referring to his vote is a mystery. I do not bash Kerry. I did attend a meeting with Kerry and a group of Purple Heart vets prior to the IWR vote. I worked for and gave money to Kerry. This broad-brush that would include me as some sort of Kerry detractor is loaded foul: a cheap and baseless demonstration of the exact behavior supposedly being attacked. Go figure?

Again...this is a thread that was started to discuss a recent article by Wes Clark. How this morphed into a discussion of the proper style of bashing this man is a violation of common sense.

Considering everything I know, Wes Clark believed that a resolution dumping the Saddam mess into the laps of the UN was fine, but cautioned publically and privately against any resolution with a trigger that would allow bush to go to war. The congress has yet to bring up the policy of "preemption" and its consequences. While the resolution that did pass was overly broad, it did detail two conditions limiting "use of force" that bush never fullfilled and congress neglected to demand.

Note: I think that bashing Dems on these boards is fairly useless although if involved in a thread, I will express my opinions based on policy. I disagree with policies not personalities. And yes, I've seen all the spineless Dem threads and chose to keep silent; but I will tell one thing right now: I will not encourage the actions of those who vote against the interests of democracy, our country, and our future. Several of those who are mentioned on this board as "great candidates" and Dems have consistently voted in ways that I disagree with...consistently. I never once mentioned Kerry and in fact, was not thinking about Kerry.

You want to keep bashing Clark supporters and refuting Clark himself then that is what you will do. So be it.

by a few Dean supporters that you just have to share some of the love with Clark and his supporters?

Do you enjoy it when people jump into positive Kerry threads and piss all over them?

I'm disappointed. I had a much higher opinion of you than that.

He said:

http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html

Here is the full paragraph which you cut off to suit your spin-doctoring:

"The United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be further strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing US determination to act if the United Nations will not. The use of force must remain a US option under active consideration. (your spin-cut occurs conveintly here) The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force (oh, I can see why you didn't want THAT in your post!), but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail. The more focused the resolution on Iraq and the problem of weapons of mass destruction, the greater its utility in the United Nations. The more nearly unanimous the resolution, the greater its impact in the diplomatic efforts underway."

Clark saw the resolution NOT AUTHORIZING THE USE OF FORCE as a way to gain diplomatic leverage for weapons inspections. Surely you see that, don't you?

Wow. I swear I do not know how people post stuff and cannot even deal with the very words they post.

That's exactly what the resolution did.

IWR did authorize the use of force. It placed that ability into the hands of the President to use at will.

A resolution which simply threatened to create such a authorization, should certain demands not be met, is quite different. That is called "keeping all the cards on the table" and is not the same as an ultimatum to use force as the first response. It is simply putting that possibility on the table to send a message.

Not only did Clark not encourage military intervention, he discouraged it to the congress during his head to head with Perle. That same committee, during their recent rematch, praised his foresight and slammed Perle for his optimistic and activist pro-invasion statements.

If you don't like the fact that Kerry voted for IWR and is taking heat for it, don't come here and blame Clark for his vote.

Force should be used as the last resort; after all diplomatic means have been exhausted, unless information indicates that further delay would present an immediate risk to the assembled forces and organizations. This action should not be categorized as "preemptive."

The United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be further strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing US determination to act if the United Nations will not. The use of force must remain a US option under active consideration. The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail. The more focused the resolution on Iraq and the problem of weapons of mass destruction, the greater its utility in the United Nations. The more nearly unanimous the resolution, the greater its impact in the diplomatic efforts underway."

I think Clark knew he would bully, but others didn't.

Damnit... Bush gave it a whopping five months to work (yeah, that's all) and took the inspectors away so peace COULDN'T work. The resolution didn't address that.

Bush should have been held accountable for not allowing the inspections process to work. Some people have been more interested in beating up on Dems.

Pot-kettle-black.

Clark's statement.

I think he's recommending two separate resolutions, the key phrase being "intent to authorize."

In other words, the first resolution would make it plain that if (and only if) the "other measures fail" there would then need to be a second resolution specifically authorizing the use of force.

I'm not familiar with the language either of the IWR or of Biden-Lugar, and don't have time to look them up now, but I'm wondering if that (the need for a second resolution) might not be the key difference between them?

(edit for clarity)

But it's a nice trick people like to play. Not you necessarily, some.

None. Care to explain?

"I'm not familiar with the language either of the IWR or of Biden-Lugar, and don't have time to look them up now, but I'm wondering if that (the need for a second resolution) might not be the key difference between them?"

No, but that's a game people like to play.

However, I don't agree that it's a "trick" to assert that Biden-Lugar differed substantially from the IWR. IIRC, B-L would have required the president to present proof to Congress that everything but war had been tried and had failed, and presumably only then would there have been a second resolution that specifically authorized war.

OTOH, I also disagree with those who claim that a vote for the IWR was ipso facto a vote for war.

Finally, I think it's mighty big of you, widening your circle of condemnation and bitterness to include Biden-Lugar supporter Howard Dean and his supporters. Gotta LOVE all the Dem unity on display in this thread.

And no, it didn't require a second resolution either. It required an attempt to seek a resolution at the UN. Which Bush did anyway, so he would have met the requirement of Biden-Lugar too.

What I didn't do was claim that alleging substantive differences between the IWR and B-L was a "trick" that "some people" use.

Claiming to be a loyal Democrat while fanning the flames of discord among Dems is also a "trick" "some people" use.

Just sayin'.

Nothing personal, of course.

Honest. :hi:

You didn't know the difference. Which was the only reason I mentioned it.

I should have done in the first place. However, now that I've re-read the IWR (still haven't found the text of Biden-Lugar) and read some of the commentary, what I've discovered is a lot of anti-Dean Dems making the same claim--that there's no substantive difference between IWR and B-L, and Dean is an opportunist yada yada yada.

Then I found this January 10, 2004 post on the Mahablog which not only manages to finger the Dems who were arguably far more responsible for the IWR/B-L clusterfuck than Dean OR Clark (or even Kerry) but also quotes the relevant paragraph from a TNR article I would otherwise have to register to read:

"...Go back to September 19, 2002, when President Bush presented his Gulf of Tonkin Iraq War Resolution to Congress. Most Democrats and many Republicans thought the language -- "The president is authorized to use all means that he determines to be appropriate, including force" -- too broad, and the White House agreed to negotiate.

The notion that Bush should be bound by the language of the Resolution to obtain international support had bipartisan support in Congress. For example, a bill sponsored by Senators Joe Biden (D) and Richard Lugar (R) co-sponsored an alternate resolution that

... was crafted to win over moderates of both parties and, perhaps more importantly, to placate U.S. allies. Biden-Lugar defined the grounds for war more narrowly than the White House's resolution, stating that a war's purpose would be only to disarm Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and not to enforce "all relevant" U.N. resolutions--such as the return of Kuwaiti property seized in 1991, a provision some U.S. allies found absurd. Biden-Lugar also required Bush to report back to Congress on his U.N. diplomacy before launching a war and granted him authority to attack in the face of U.N. opposition only if he made the case that Iraq's WMD presented a "grave threat" to the United States. And it mandated that Bush send Congress a report within 30 days of the commencement of war, further detailing "the degree to which other nations will assist the U.S. in using force against Iraq," and his planning for postwar reconstruction--complete with cost estimates. Michael Crowley, "Memory Loss," The New Republic, October 6, 2003

Bush complained that the bill would "tie my hands." But Lugar and Biden and several others in Congress felt the alternate resolution had a good shot at passage, until ..."

http://www.mahablog.com/2004.01.04_arch.html

******

I'm going to bed.

BTW, the last part of my immediately previous post was intended to be (gentle) sarcasm. Apparently it was a little too gentle... ;-)

The IWR AUTHORIZED the use of force.

That is not the same as "not authorizing force at this time," but simply agreeing "on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail."

What Clark was suggesting was a tool for diplomatic leverage.

Congress, in essence, gave W. a premature, preemptive blank check, and that was neither Clark's doing nor his advice.

"The United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be further strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing US determination to act if the United Nations will not. The use of force must remain a US option under active consideration. The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail. The more focused the resolution on Iraq and the problem of weapons of mass destruction, the greater its utility in the United Nations. The more nearly unanimous the resolution, the greater its impact in the diplomatic efforts underway."

How can a resolution "express US determination to act" without authorizing force?

There is a HUGE difference between AUTHORIZING the president to go to war, and expressing an INTENT to do so "if all other measures fail."

Congress abrogated its responsibility by giving W. an authorization to go to war BEFORE all other measures had failed.

" seems to be preoccupied, and I'm quoting now, with building legitimacy, with exhausting all diplomatic remedies... So I think General Clark simply doesn't want to see us use military force and he has thrown out as many reasons as he can develop to that but the bottom line is he just doesn't want to take action. He wants to wait."

Richard Perle, war-monger

Look, I'm not trying to defend Clark here, because what he said and what the IWR did are, factually two completely different things. Anyone can see that. If you want to imagine they are comparable, that's your business, but it's not an objective reading of the facts by any standard.

fail. That is what the IWR said.

And it gave W. the authorization to decide when "diplomacy and peaceful means had failed."

Deciding when "diplomacy and peaceful means have failed" is a HUGE matter of opinion, and W. was not one to "use force as a last resort."

We were under no eminent threat, and congress blew it by giving W. the authorization to decide when to go to war when all that was needed was a resolution authorizing the intent to authorize force "if all other measures fail" (not an authorization for W. to decide when when to go to war when we were under no imminent threat)!

Presidents are the Commanders in Chief. That means that even if Congress declares war, the President still decides when there is absolutely no diplomatic means left and exactly when to deploy troops. In fact, President's can do that with no resolution at all.

Clark called for the US to force the UN to deal with Saddam, and to use force ourselves if necessary. He wasn't joking around when he said it, he meant it. A war with Iraq if he didn't comply with the disarmament process. That's what the man supported. If he didn't know the intelligence was being manipulated in Sept 2002, he wouldn't have known in Mar 2003. And if he'd still been a General, he'd have been directing the war in Iraq as well. Standing up there just like Myers, because that's what a soldier does.

"Clark called for the US to force the UN to deal with Saddam, and to use force ourselves if necessary."

Yes he did, if there was an imminent threat. I believe we should ALWAYS use force if there is an imminent threat.

The IWR authorized force without an imminent threat, and congress basically said to W., "we aren't going to debate when all diplomatic options have truly been exhausted, you decide." I know, I know. The president doesn't need that...IT'S A DIPLOMATIC AND POLITICAL TOOL.

"A war with Iraq if he didn't comply with the disarmament process. That's what the man supported."

Not exactly. A war with Iraq if it didn't comply with the disarmament process and there was an imminent threat. Clark truly sees force only as a LAST RESORT in the face of an imminent threat. Deciding when and if Iraq was complying with the disarmament process was always a matter of opinion. He was never suggesting congress authorize war under the circumstances of that time.

Clark is retired, so he would not ever have been "directing the war in Iraq" under Bush's command, and that part of your post is irrelevant to the whole discussion anyway.

"The United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be further strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing US determination to act if the United Nations will not. The use of force must remain a US option under active consideration. The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail. The more focused the resolution on Iraq and the problem of weapons of mass destruction, the greater its utility in the United Nations. The more nearly unanimous the resolution, the greater its impact in the diplomatic efforts underway."

Believe whatever you want. This is what he said.

Expressing the "intent to authorize force" is COMPLETELY different from authorizing the use of force at an inappropriate time when the circumstances do not warrant such an authorization.

It's not a matter of belief. The facts are not debateable. Either you accept the reality, or you don't.

If you don't want to accept the reality of the difference, that's your business.

He called for a coalition outside of the UN to go in. He never once said the words "imminent threat". He laid out a resolution, inspections, war, process.

http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html

"Force should be used as the last resort; after all diplomatic means have been exhausted, unless information indicates that further delay would present an immediate* risk to the assembled forces and organizations. This action should not be categorized as "preemptive."

"Preemtive" in miliary terms means taking action before the threat is imminent.

*Definitions of imminent on the Web:

at hand(p): close in time; about to occur; "retribution is at hand"; "some people believe the day of judgment is close at hand"; "in imminent danger"; "his impending retirement

End of discussion. You lose.

He clarified the two on several occasions. A preventive attack is when there is an imminent threat. A preemptive attack is before the threat is imminent.

He said not to categorize the action as preemptive. Which does not mean waiting until there is an imminent threat at all.

He said, the issue was how to force action against Saddam and his weapons program, US determination to act if the UN will not, forming the broadest possible coalition, and not "categorizing" it as preemptive. Nowhere in there did he say only go to war to prevent an imminent attack.

How about providing direct quotes?

Actually, I got it backwards. He said not to "categorize" the action as preemptive. Meaning he didn't want to have to get into the position of imminent threat before using force.

"Preemptive war means 'taking action against others before they can harm'; since there was no imminent threat from Saddam Hussein, the war America fought was preventive, not preemptive,"
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040115-112529-9766r.htm

Clark testified for 2 hours. He told the committee that there was a 5-10 year window. He also described Saddam as a level-2 threat.

Also, in diplomatic terms there is something called "coercive" diplomacy; that is when the use of force is mentioned as part of the bargaining tool but is not authorized.

Once of Tweety's show, CM tried to imply that Clark might have backed the war; Clark quickly reminded Tweety that they had met in Amsterdam and spoken about this during the summer of 2002 with Clark firmly against a war in Iraq. Tweety quickly backed down and said: you're right.

He never advocated for anybody to "go in," nor did he 'lay out' a "war, process."

"The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force..."

that you don't understand?

What is it about, "need not" that you don't understand? That doesn't mean "should not", it means "need not". Optional. Doesn't change everything else he said. Or that he sat in Congress and said Saddam had bio/chem weapons and was seeking nuclear weapons. Or that the US should go to war to disarm him. Or anything else he said.

It's the entirety of what people said, everybody, that should be used to judge their intent on this war. Not one line, not one vote, the entirety of it. Otherwise you could end up supporting Kucinich, who was anti-war, but had no plan whatsoever to get inspectors into Iraq, which he also supported. That's no good either.

but formerly I didn't include you among them. Your absolute doggedness here in attempting to draw some kind of comparison and contrast that will make Kerry look good in comparison to Clark or Clark look bad in comparison to Kerry is unseemly. Anyone can see what you are doing.

It makes you appear to follow in the footsteps of some of the most egregious negative and mindless posters for Dean or Kerry who intentionally start "agenda" threads about Clark in order to make their candidate look better. It also makes you appear to be engaging in a fit of petty jealousy. I worked heart and soul for Kerry and hold him in high esteem. I do prefer Clark, but that is my right. I do not like some of your sarcastic comments. I do not post negative comments about Kerry or Dean anywhere. I continue to work closely with many Kerry supporters and Dean supporters here in Austin. I have to keep reminding myself that you and your ilk do not represent their tactics.

See:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1729653&mesg_id=1729739

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=180x12757

How about you actually do some research about Clark for once?

And is trying to confuse the two in order to detract from Kerry's vote.

I don't give a shit about IWR anymore and the last time I even brought it up it was to tell people to lay off Kerry about it and that he was hardly alone.

Guess I should've have blamed him to make Clark look good.

But I'll be damned if I'm going to allow someone to twist what Clark said by comparing it to what Kerry and others voted for.

And FWIW, I know who trashes Kerry and who doesn't, and it ain't you or the other Clarkies here.

I dunno what's been up with the, er, hostility here in this thread... nothing I've ever experienced. I'm sure you and I both know who the disruptors on DU are, since I imagine the same people give both of us shit for our choice of candidates.

Peace!

I'm a Kerry supporter. Kerry gets a lot of shit at DU, as does Clark. Personally, I have never seen a Clark supporter slam Kerry. Perhaps it has happened, but none of the Clarkies I am familiar with would I characterize as being unfair to Kerry. I have no Clarkies on ignore, which is telling, I believe.

This thread has made me sad. I think Clark is a great guy, and I think Kerry and Clark supporters have a lot more in common than many. The two men respect each other greatly, that's for certain.

I just wanted to try to cool things down in here, because trust me, there's a lot of goodwill towards Clark among Kerry people, and it seems like vice versa.

There ARE people who trash Kerry relentlessly, and yes, they do get as nasty as they do with Clark (Skull and Bones, coward, he threw the election, ad nauseum) but I suspect you know who I'm talking about, since the same people also trash Clark.

Just trying to make some amends here, mend some fences. I think Clark supporters are not the problem when it comes to divisiveness on DU. Peace!

Hey WildEyedLiberal, thanks for that post. It made my morning. I know I'm not involved in the "discussion" in this thread but some of the stuff that goes on here really really pains me. Every time I'm just about ready to give up on this place, though, a post like yours comes along to give me hope again...thanks.

BTW, I'm a Clarkie and I worked like mad to get him the nomination. It was the first time I'd ever been involved in a political campaign...Then I worked like mad to get JK elected. I grew to like and respect the guy, I adore Teresa and I was crushed when we didn't get John elected.

You are right, from all indications, Clark and Kerry do greatly respect each other...and I think genuinely like each other also.

I just wish there would be a lot less bashing and a lot more supporting here...but I know that's an impossible dream...nice to find a little oasis amid the storm, tho. :)

I started to show some STRONG statements by a Democrat.
Granted, it's a Dem I prefer, but, I felt it needed to be read by other Dems.

:hug:

forgotten the exact wording of the IWR, because that's what I meant. However, it's true that I've never read Biden-Lugar.

As for my understanding of the difference between IWR and Biden-Lugar, see my response to Sandnsea in post #125.

There is a big difference between denouncing someone, however, and authorizing force.

I'll grant you that Clark had the luxury of not having to register a vote. That said, he had consistently spoken out more forcefully against invasion than Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, or anyone else who voted for the IWR at the time.

DTH

Clark is on record as not excusing the top-down machinations that created the situation of torture at Abu Ghraib:

After a Congressional Resolution and an aborted U.N. inspection effort, the U.S. invaded Iraq. We did not use the U.N. process effectively to enhance our legitimacy or build our coalition. The Administration did not heed the warnings of General Shinseki and others who warned of the force strength necessary to win the war and win the peace. In short, the Administration did not give our military adequate planning or sufficient resources to handle the post-conflict situation in Iraq. These errors were compounded by weak strategic decisions, including dissolving the Iraqi army and outlawing Baathist participation in new governmental structures. The prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib has provided our enemies with a propaganda bonanza resulting in a recruiting windfall in Iraq and throughout the Arab world.
More fundamentally, with its armed occupation of Iraq, the Administration lost focus, and was substantially distracted from worldwide efforts against Al Qaeda. Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda network are still at large, terrorist incidents have continued to take innocent life, and U.S. military actions in Iraq have provided a magnet for recruiting and training large numbers of extremist youth in continuing warfare. If Iraq is today the center of the war against terrorism, as some in the Administration have contended, it is not because the terrorists were there originally, but because they have been recruited there to the fight against us. Our military action in Iraq is more a catalyst for terrorists than a cure. Whatever results may ultimately come from removing Saddam Hussein from power, ending the terrorist threat against the United States of America is not likely to be one of them.

http://bartcopnation.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=11&topic_id=11909


However, in executing the battle plan created by the chickenhawk neo-cons lead by George W. Bush, who, as Commander-in-Chief, the troops are sworn, by law, to support, they have "performed brilliantly." The troops conquered the country in two months, which is what military troops are supposed to do - fight wars.

As nation-builders, though, they aren't equipped, politically, to be to forbearers of democracy. They are being used, wrongly, as FTOs for the Iraqi police force and as PR agents of the Bush Administration. Police forces AREN'T militaries in democracies and, certainly, folks with automatic machine guns, aren't effective PR agents and shouldn't be used in this manner. However, that's the failure of the Bush Administration, not the troops.

I don't understand how intelligent people, such as those who frequent DU, can mistake military COMMAND, which is, in the Bush Administration, made up of chickenhawks, neo-cons and Rapturists, for the TROOPS, which are made up of average men and women who are sworn to follow military command. It's a pretty simple distinguishment, in my opinion.

which are made up of average men and women who are sworn to follow military command. It's a pretty simple distinguishment, in my opinion."

Not ILLEGAL military command, though. Do you know nothing of history? Have you never heard of Nuremberg? Are illegal orders only to be disobeyed when issued by Germans? Is that the actual Nuremberg precedent?

This is very frustrating. It leads me to believe that the human race is incapable of learning from history. Americans are not a "special breed" of people who are always the "good guys" and should be called out when they are not, such as is the case with the ongoing war crime in Iraq.

Read my post above.

What's frustrating to me is that you can't distinguish an entire group of people from both the handful who are abusing their authority and the civilian authority who is allowing this to continue or dumping all the blame on this handful.

P.S. There also have been tons of defections and AWOLs during this war and recruiting and re-inlistments are down. You have to consider that, as a whole, the military is suffering because of this, probably illegal, war. However, you can't ask the entire military to simply step down - it's not realistic. Most of these people have been subjected to the same propaganda that has caused at least 44 percent of the American population to support this sham of a war. Many of these soldiers signed up to receive and education or help out their country - they aren't, at 20 years old, equipped with the knowledge of how to revolt, en masse.
Be realistic, please.

I have learned from history, but you haven't learned not to stereotype, apparently.

are against the Geneva convention. You seem to be confusing the two.

I guess it depends on whether your an idealist or a realist?

The human race is destined to destroy itself in war. There won't ever be enough people standing up against the illegal orders of a future madman who will begin the inevitable nuclear holocaust rendering large parts of the earth uninhabitable.

As for being "elected" President, that only happens to the party which owns the tabulating system for the paperless ballots. As long as said party is the GOP, only GOPers have a shot at being "elected" President. That is also a "realistic" position to take.

I think that we can manage to keep the human race from destroying itself if we can place a throttle-hold on the propaganda by reclaiming our media; however, to the point of the Diebold, ES&S and Triad machines, you have my complete agreement - which, ironically, also means gaining back control of the media to get out the info on how bad these closed-source machines are.

Think of it like a screwdriver. If you take a screwdriver and punch holes in your wall with it, you don't get upset at the tool for not fixing the drywall.

The military is a tool (not in the pejorative sense) - and it moves people, kills people and builds things. It does these things well. But it does not build Democracy.

You can't blame the tool for not doing what its not supposed to do in the first place.

Well stated. :thumbsup:

from an Iraq veteran's wife

... the legality of the war was not addressed by this comment.

Secondly, yes there have been plenty of fuckups. More than usual? I really don't know, I'm not in the military, have never been in the military, have never fought a war.

But somehow I suspect that most wars are on some level a massive cluster-fuck, even given the attempts of the spindoctors to make it all look like a surgical intervention.

I'm going to give Mr. Clark the benefit of the doubt on this. Even if the statement were only marginally true, it might be a good plan to keep the focus of the problems on the leaders and not the guys stuck doing their jobs.

He was on some show right after the Iraq "elections" talking about what a success they were and how fantastic it was that they held the election. The purple fingers came up too.

The purple fingers was a Republican stunt, was it not?

He was on Scarborough and warned that the elections, while good news, were not going to stop the problems there and the situation remains a mess. Scarborough insulted him and then wouldn't let him speak, Rich Little came on and make a disgusting joke about him, and he was villified for a week on both that show and its website for "providing comfort to the terrorists" by NOT cheering about the elections!!

General Clark is the bright one with the knowledge of history that puts what is going on now in its proper historical context so that reality can be properly understood. Too many others (politicians and "news" commentators) act as though the whole story is what is happening just now, and all one needs to interpret it is what information you have at the moment.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Edwards and Kerry and Gore and Dean and Feingold who were the dreamy ones.

I am wrong? Not according to their supporters!

But Dreamy has nothing to do with what Clark is saying. Superficial comments on substansive matters are really a waste of post by one who has not much to contribute. :shrug:

My advise: I would suggest that you, ArkDem, re-analize your response, and then...instead of hate.....think and then participate!

Bush turned decades of American policy in South Asia on its head because he needed to make it seem like he had a plan during the 2004 election cycle. The likely result is something Ronald Reagan and Poppy always feared, the very real possibility of a united Shi'ite fundamentalist republic under the aegis of Tehran in the not too distant future.

Our troops will be there for a long time, and the reason for this is to prevent the greater Iran Bush's irresponsible Iraqi election ploy made possible.

A. Bush wanted to win re-election and
B. Bush doesn't have the brain capacity to understand the basics of foreign policy and what can result that even his father and Reagan did.

Sorry, in my rush I missed the fact that it had already been posted.

How do I delete?

It will either fall off the page or the admins will delete it.

No problem, though, trillian. I'm of the same opinion as you that it should be read and digested by DUers. :hi:

Time to rejuvenate ALL of our base groups - patriots, blacks, people of faith, REAL soldiers, and greens and other liberals.

Will also be the most educated and intelligent POTUS/VP in history - even moreso than Clinton/Gore.

Operating on the theory that if you say something enough times people will believe it, the Bush administration and its allies have in the last few years confidently put forth an array of assertions, predictions, and rationalizations about Iraq that have turned out to be nonsense. They've told us that Saddam's regime was on the verge of building nuclear weapons; that it had operational links with al Qaeda; that our allies would support our invasion if we stuck with our insistence about going it alone; that we could safely invade with a relatively small number of ground troops; that the Iraqi people would greet us as liberators; that Ahmed Chalabi could be trusted; that Iraq's oil revenues would pay for the country's reconstruction; and that most of our troops would be out of Iraq within six months of the initial invasion.

Clark sums it up very well. When placed into one paragraph it is quite damning.

... any change in the region to Bush's policies.

I suspect this article is in response to several (Jon Stewart and Bill Maher for two) who even suggest that 'Maybe * was right').

This article tears apart the idiotic assumption that war can create a democracy (or influence others to do so).

If you don't get that, you're missing the point, go back and re-read it.

Until we put some Generals and Secretaries of Defense in prison for things like Abu Ghraib, or cutting off electricity and water to Fallujah which constitute war crimes. We will continue to commit them. Second, as to Mahar and Stewart saying that eventual democracy will justify the invasion (which is why I linked to your post) It can never do so. Even IF, good comes of this invasion (A huge IF) the motivations were illegal and immoral. Its a simple moral principle that those that will bear the cost of an action decide if the cost of the game is worth the candle. The Iraqis bore the major cost with 100,000 or so of them killed and they NEVER asked us to invade. Its something like burning down your neighbors house to get rid of the termites then deciding for HIM that since it DID get rid of the termites it was worth it.

"Mahar and Stewart saying that eventual democracy will justify the invasion ..... It can never do so."

That's exactly the point Clark was making in his article. He's continued make the point over and over since 2002 that this war was wrong on many counts. That nothing can justify the initial wrong decision AND that the war is NOT responsible for any "good result' .

The administrative decisions that started this war were wrong. No result can justify their misguided decision to start this war.

The RW spinmeisters twist their questions to force the answers they want. So that if you disagree with them you somehow support dictatorship and tyranny or that you don't support democracy.

Clark has provided the thoughtful and logical analysis needed to refute this spin.

sending this article to those who only a month or so ago were sending me emails about how wonderful it was that Bush was "right" after all. Mostly the same ones talking about the glory of how democracy was being fostered all over the world due to our fearless leader, Bush.

That's an EXCELLENT idea. I'll get to work on that right now! :)

:thumbsup:

"But like the rooster who thinks his crowing caused the dawn,those who rule Washington today have a habit of taking credit for events of which they were, in fact, not the primary movers."
--Wes Clark

Mario Cuomo said, "Wes Clark is a man of whom you can ask a question, and he will look you directly in the eye, and give you the most truthful and complete answer you can imagine. You will know the absolute truth of the statement as well as the thought process behind the answer. You will have no doubt as to the intellect of the speaker and meaning of the answer to this question....So you can see, as a politician, he has a lot to learn."

for anyone in the Middle East to believe Bush wants democracy because it's good for the people of the Middle East. Everyone figures he wants it because he thinks it's good for America. The neocons have never pretended to be interested in anything else other than what suits America. So it's good that Clark makes this point that even if Bush could rightfully claim credit (which he can't) he shouldn't.

...there is a passionate resistance to the U.S. “imposing” its style of democracy to suit American purposes. Democratic reformers in the Middle East don't want to have their own hopes and dreams subordinated to the political agenda of the United States. It's for this reason that the administration shouldn't try to take too much credit for the coming changes. Or be too boastful about our own institutions. Or too loud in proclaiming that we're thrilled about Middle Eastern democracy—mostly because it makes us feel safer. A little humility is likely to prove far more useful than chest-thumping.

And yeah, chest thumping is something the US does well -- and it really pisses off the rest of the world.

I love the way Clark makes this point. I also like the fact he points out the US can't claim credit for the progress toward democracy in Lebanon and not take the blame for the decline in democratic momentum in Iran.

What was the saying in the 60s? "Bombing for peace is like screwing for virginity."

And, yes... that was the saying...

*Proud daughter of two liberal-hippies that make me look conservative*

(I just hate tellin' 'em they were RIGHT - hell, tellin' 'em they were RIGHT instead of CORRECT would probably piss 'em off. AND my Dad drives a truck, likes NASCAR and we live in the South. Funny those stereotypes - they're not always RIGHT. LOL!)

My parents were squares I think. ;) Though Canadian so I don't know if it counts.

Love KO btw.

Thanks for posting the link...and thank you, Gen Clark, for continuing to speak out....Didn't Clark say the Washington Monthly had asked him to pen something for them about how Bush may have been right after all? I guess this is what they got instead.

"... the guy who runs Washington Monthly... Paul Glastris called me. His aide did. Said, 'How'd you like to write a paper, um, for the Washington Monthly, under the banner headlines of, 'What If Bush Was Right'?" (pause for laughter) I said, "I'm not writing ANYthing that George Bush might have been right. Bush was WRONG!' "

"And you find every Democrat who starts to waiver and sound wishy-washy on this thing, you tell 'em, Get some starch! Bush was wrong."

At the risk of annoying some here...I think Gen Clark rocks! :) :) :)