General Wesley Clark....on "This Week" Today!

This is just a reminder!!

least impressed than I have ever been with him.

won't say he is against ports deal.

This deal does not end at the ports. Do we need more enemies in the Gulf region? What about the Chinese running W.Coast ports?

Calling out the UAE does not rebuild our maritime industry.

No matter how foul or disturbing it is. Now you defend the ports deal? :eyes:

In some cases, without even knowing what he said. Did you even watch?

There was nothing "foul" or "disturbing" about what Clark said today. He didn't defend the ports deal. He agreed that there should be an investigation. He refused to condemn Clinton's proposed legislation calling for US ownership of all ports, even tho George Steph was prodding him to, and in fact said it was an important part of forwarding the discussion of all the pros and cons. He made the point that port ownership is a complex issue, because no one individual will own them and few American corporations are under 100% American control.

But what he didn't do was let GS derail him from discussing the main issue, which is how weak port security is (and homeland security overall) thanks to the failures of the Bush administration and the Repub Congress that won't do its job in holding BushCo's feet to the fire.

Steph asked him to condemn Hillary's bill. He wouldn't do it, but he also didn't have the guts to defend her or support her. The big, bad, tough, general didn't have the guts to say that American ports shouldn't be managed by companies owned by foreign governments. That is disturbing and foul. The sycophants here will cry and whine at me pointing out the truth. Let them. It doesn't change that this big, tough, "liberal" did not have the guts to say what needs to be said. American ports should not be managed by companies owned by foreign governments.

He said which company owns the management isn't as important as how we regulate the operation (at both ends) no matter who owns it. If you find that "disturbing and foul" fine, but don't call me a sycophant because I don't accept it as "the truth" with which you, noble soul that you are, are enlightening us all.

I don't see what "guts" has to do with any of this, but I think Clark did defend Clinton when he said her legislative proposal was important to laying out the entire debate.

You seem to think that that there's one obvious solution to the Dubai question, and whoever doesn't agree with you 100% is either gutless or a sycophant. That sounds like simple name-calling to me. It's not much of an argument.

These are important skills to bring to any debate. Let's say that there is an American company that runs the terminals in a port. Okay. The difficulty is that the company in question could be a store front in Newark that is owned by multinationals. Does that solve the security problem? Does that solve the problem of the cargo entering the ports which simple logic tells us was loaded in a foreign port? The Chinese company on the west coast is suppose to be a private company, but it isn't.

The suggestion of domestic ownership of the companies leasing these terminals is one I share because I'm concerned with our lack of a maritime industry. But...but.. it doesn't solve the problem, and realistically, most of the investors in large concerns are now multinational. That is the world we live in. Denying that our economy is global only aids those who would like to avoid regulation. The problem is security, the solution is assessing the problem and fixing it.

I'm sorry if you don't like that, but when you have a problem the best thing to do is handle it. Pandering politicians have gotten us where we are today. Look around.

Donna Zen did. But he didn't condemn it either.

We need to focus on the entire port problem. We need to inspect the LOADING at foriegn ports, as when they reach the U.S. Shores, the containers are more likely to be a risk to the U.S. We need WORLD PORT security increased..!!!

The debate should not be just Dubai but Dubya's lack of National Security. If Dems can take national security from repubs we've got 06 and 08!

WKC, said we need to investigate, the NSA,domestic wire tapping, complete the review the 911 investigation, as he has questions about the investigation on what he has learned. Encouraging a Private Investigation.
Said, when asked if he was going to run, that he was working for the 2006 elections, and we need a STRONG 2 PARTY system, for our democracy to continue. Also we need to not only depend on the military in Iraq, Iran, etc. but need engage in political discussions with these countries. IMMEDIATELY. Iraq on fringe of Civil War...

Clark is on fairly early, so be forewarned, don't know exactly when but don't wait to tune in much past 10 after the hour. I'm sorry but I missed most of the Ports discussion. On Iraq Clark strongly notes that the formation of the 4 year government and how power is shared within it is a critical turning point. The U.S. does still have some influence on the Shites because they still want our forces to provide security while Iraq security forces are built up. He mentioned some military specifics but stressed that it its ultimately a political issue and the U.S. has failed to provide regional political leadership by not promoting a regiional dialogue with Iran and Syria among others. But our concerns in the region won't end if we pull our troops out, so what is left behind does matter.

Clark continues to be virtually the only leading Democrat making sense on Iran. He is still out there on a limb virtually alone making the case for why the United States needs to negotiate directly with Iran's leadership, and he explained how the U.S. is pushing Iran toward developing nukes.

Clark would not talk about an 08 run directly, he made the point very strongly that Democrats have to retake Congress in 2006 and restore a two party system with the means and will to investigate all the abuses of power currently going on in Washington, and he ticked off a full laundry list. That was impressive, and on toward the end of the interview. I gotta go get something done so I can catch the begining of the ABC feed in a few.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2493996&mesg_id=2493996

TC

I didn't mean to start a new one, but this one must have dropped in the hour time differential and I didn't see it.

:blush:

I now hope America did. Any country can be named on a ports contract...but who own the company? Security is the issue, and as long as we make this about the UAE, the longer we'll go without security. I'm impressed that Wes Clark is more concerned with educating the public than pandering for the Sunday gasbags. How amazing.

It's actually startling how few intelligent, experienced leaders in this country actually care about this country as opposed to lying propaganda to cover their asses. What a truly impressive man.

candidates will be here telling how their person was out in front on this subject. Clark will most likely be accused of supporting the war because he will again support the troops. They will cite his saying what may happen as proof that he supported it.

the ports issue after seeing his first discussion on FOX. But, after seeing him on ABC,where he was allowed to really expand on the topic, all my doubts evaporated. He made complete, rational sense, as usual.

It was a wonderful interview.

I caught the last few minutes of the FOX interview which was on at the same time here in Mountain Time (around 9:10 am). He was very forceful on Iran, not letting the bimbo interviewer get away with any of her hysteria about the "theocracy" in Iran and the guy at the top. Can't wait to find a video of it to watch and download in its entirety.

He is well spoken. He comes across as a well spoken man and well rounded. He seems like he is going to run for president.

I thought he was impressive.