Wes Clark on CNN right now!

Analyzing Bush's speech.

Whats he sayin huh?

that the war on terror = war in Iraq.

He said it was elective, took resources away from war on terror, etc.

Wolf asked a question about Wes & Kerry's view, assuming that Wes is Kerry's spokesman.

Wes did his usual great job.

I can't remember the last time Wes had so much face time. This is great, Kerry is counting on Wes while he is on vacation. What does that tell ya folks! They are tight, a team.

Kerry will pick Wes for V.P. any more than the also very capable, Richard Holbrooke. Wes is just anxious to get rid of *. He will do whatever he can to accomplish that.

are fallin on my head. Stop rainin on my groupie parade will ya! :)

You sure you got the qualifications?

Seriously, tho. From someone not oblivious to his various charms, let's not lose sight that Wes Clark is the better VP nominee. Holbrooke is great, but he's fundamentally just a State Department wonk. NTTAWWT.

Just keep in mind the most important job of the VP is to be ready to step up and be president, if needed. Holbrooke has very little real-world experience on that score. Holbrooke is no doubt as strong as Clark on foreign policy--I don't see a whole lot of difference in their views--and they both have great depth of experience in working with foreign leaders and within the international framework, albeit from slightly different perspectives.

But Holbrooke lacks Clark's military experience (and assuming there are "others" reading this, I'm not talking about Vietnam service, but force deployment and development, logistics, strategic planning--the CinC stuff). And Holbrooke has never governed anybody, as Clark did at Ft Irwin and in Europe.

have to mean a women!!! How about: An enthusiastic supporter or follower. I was being quite sarcastic. Perhaps a bit too silly.

jai who ya trying to convince? I am in complete agreement.

:toast:

The "groupie" remark was for you. I have never heard it used as anything but, well, you know...

The Holbrooke paragraphas were for Kahuna. I've been seeing Holbrooke bantered about, and while I think he's great, he's not VP material. Better than Edwards of course. :evilgrin:

a brilliant mind, foreign respect and toughness does he
offer?

Wolfie tried the old "Aren't the people of Iraq safer now?" The General said sure, but the point was supposed to be to make the people of the U.S. safer and this was a "strategic blunder." The administration thought it was a "low-hanging fruit" or "easy victory" and were warned that securing Iraq and keeping al Qaeda from taking hold there would be a challenge -- and look where we are today.

Wolfie tried "yeah but now the president is working on the international alliance you and Kerry have been talking about." Clark said it's fine to have a nice thank-you in the East Room, but that's peripheral, not the central "mechanism" for coordinating with allies and communicating -- listening to them, not just telling them what to do.

Baaaawhahahahah.

smackdown!

I am disappointed in that answer.

and said something like, "if they're safer or happier now that's fine, great, but..." I'm not sure -- wait for the transcript.

A question based on what Bush had said.

And Clark first redirected it, that the point is keeping the US safe. I would have sworn he said it was good that the Iraqis "feel happier" but I'll have to wait until the transcript comes out to confirm.

moment. Ugh! Politics!

I recall that, too. I think he was accepting the premise of Wolf's question to say that *even if* they're safer/happier, that's not even the point. I agree that he could have argued that they are NOT safer or happier, but he was making a different point.

Iraqis ARE better off with Saddam out of power. He was a monster, and Democrats won't win any points by not recognizing that.

Clark was exactly right--it's not the point. American and the whole world will be safer and happier with al Qaeda defeated. Putting our resources into Iraq, NOT using the intelligence and law enforcement capabilities of our allies, and neglecting the force of international institutions have diverted us from the war on terror and, as the General said at that news conference the other day, given al Qaeda a breathing space, and the ability to regroup and get stronger.

But the second part of your post makes me want to agree with you.

I agree w/Clark and you that the Iraq war has diverted us from more important things. Doesn't that then make the question of whether the Iraqis are better off moot? I don't mean we shouldn't care about them, but that if we had acted wisely, we wouldn't have gone into Iraq, thus leaving the Iraqis with Saddam.

The whole question of whether Iraqis are better off is frustrating to me, because I think we are hearing that as an after-the-fact justification by the Bush team. Sure, getting rid of vicious dictator is always good. They gain our agreement on that, and elide the argument into "therefore, the war in Iraq was a good idea."

I wish we'd get back to THAT debate. It was a bad idea, and we might have tightened the noose on Saddam, forced his exile, or in another way changed the regime without war and the concomitant bloodshed. As DUer gulliver put it some time back, it's a $500 ice cream cone.

For me, too, there is the question of how much better off the Iraqis are. On the one hand, Saddam is gone (from the country, but alive). On the other hand, thousands of Iraqis are gone forever. Same for hundreds of Americans and coalition members, some U.N. workers, several journalists, some non-military workers. Don't forget the wounded. The country is occupied and fractured. Violence continues. Services are not restored fully -- some are barely restored. A crook and U.S. puppet is the de facto leader. Coalition-created laws will allow privatization of companies and the expatriation of profits. Despite all this and more, some Iraqis must have hope of better days simply because the system in place has been changed. Perhaps it is not too high a price for them.

Speaking only for myself, though, I see few (OK, no) gains for us as a nation or as a people. The cost in lives, the cost in treasure, the cost in international relationships, and the cost in the real effort against terror is too high for me. I do see gains for a handful of rich guys and companies who are all connected/related/donors to Bush. For me, this war is a crime.

Imagine that you were an Iraqi citizen before the war. Perhaps you longed for "freedom", perhaps not. Perhaps you just accepted things the way they were and did like most people - went about the business of making a living for you and your family. Then, through no fault of your own, your country is attacked. Perhaps some of your friends and family die. Perhaps you lose your home. Your country is torn apart. You have no job to go to. You have no electricity or clean water. Every day you live in fear of attack - from terrorists or from coalition forces.

Are you better off? Do you feel like you are better off? Or do you blame the U.S. for coming and destroying your life and your country?

I just can't justify in my mind saying they are better off. I really can't. Would we, as a country, be grateful if some other country came and attacked us militarily to get rid of Bush? Would we be better off if they destroyed our government and set up one that THEY wanted? Would we? Would we be willing to see a change of leadership come about THAT WAY?

Polls I've seen since last summer have shown what you say to be true. It used to be as high as 75% and is lower now.

This is from February 2004 (Pdf)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/15_03_04_iraqsurvey.pdf

The situation is very complex, but Iraqis seem not to want the coalition troops to leave until the situation is straightened out and they have security. They do want their own government, of course, but they don't want even more chaos or a civil war or a religious government. They do want a democratic government. They want the US and Japan to take care of the reconstruction.

This poll was posted on Salam Pax's blog.

http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/

Bush did not have proper legal grounds to remove Saddam, and more to the point, Bush didn't WANT them. What Dems have to recognize is that we were flat out scammed, and fighting Saddam had nothing to do with fighting terrorism. If anything, he's escalated the war on terrorism!

:headbang:
rocknation

ROTFLMAO

Describes Bush's policies to a T. Whatever is easiest for him and his supports is what he does.

MzPip
:dem:

I loved that zinger...plus, it has been getting many replays. I saw it again this morning.

about the monkey and the gourd?

African proverb/wisdom.

You put a piece of fruit in a gourd. The monkey sticks his hand in to get it, but can't get it out with his fist clenched around the fruit. But he is so greedy, he won't let go, and so he is stuck...

Thanks for letting us know!

That was the first Bush speech I've been able to watch in a long time. I think he gets more stupid each time he opens his mouth.

Lord it was a yawner. What on earth do they give him before speeches. It must be some kind of downer to keep him from mugging and cocking his finger at you, but he is so danged dumb when he's on it.

Later at Walter Reed, he made many profound comments such as "this fabulous facility" and "warms my heart to see these soldiers. He had not one meaningful comment to make.

...out on MTV...

Sure does beat "clearing brush" as a dynamic image...

I wasn't going to check out CNN for fear of being exposed to *.

BLITZER: The president of the United States receiving a standing ovation from the audience. Diplomats, government works, White House officials representing, he said 84 countries the diplomats, part of the coalition fighting terrorism. He's stopping by to shake hands with those who have been brought to the east room of the White House, including several members of Congress, members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The president speaking for about 22 minutes, joined with Mrs. Bush as they leave the East Room of the White House. Was not interrupted by applause during the course of his actual speech.

Let's get some reaction now. Democrats have been accusing the president of misleading the nation into war with Iraq. Joining us with some response to the president's speech, the former NATO supreme allied commander, the Democratic presidential candidate, General Wesley Clark, a strong supporter of Senator Kerry.

Was there anything in that speech, General Clark, that you could quibble with?

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0403/19/se.01.html

Per DU copyright rules
please post only four
paragraphs from the
news source.

Thank you.


DU Moderator

I didn't think it was that long, just spread out. But I'll watch it in the future.

Color me appropriately chastised. :spank:

Could not have been a better reply to the speech and the issues involved. He just gets better and better.

GO, GENERAL!!!

Look at his clear, wide open eyes as compared to Bush's squinty, secretive eyes....I'm glad he is working to help Kerry....He's a valuable asset.

I started a separate thread about the War on Terror, & the Iraq War.

Bush, the media, keep saying these are the same things.

Wes tries to refute this, & it's really difficult to show that Bush pulled a bait & switch. Yet majority of Americans continue to support this war, because they have been lied to.

Bush's support regarding Iraq has taking a serious hit, and largely because of Wes IMHO. I don't have a link, but I know a couple days ago there was a poll where slightly less than half said it was worth it.

They are saying the country is divided on this issue.

There is another thread at DU today, I read earlier, that says a majority of Americans still support the war.(Gallup)

Different polls show different things; also depends on way things are worded.

But what blows my mind is that ANYONE would still support this fiasco, & why would they not be FURIOUS that they were lied to?

and vote in their daily poll, if you haven't already. I can't understand why it isn't overwhelmingly "NO," either!

Was it worth it.



HELL NO!

Schneider said that if you ask Americans if the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror, it's an exact 50-50 split.

But that's sort of good news. It wasn't that long ago it was much higher in the percentage that believed the two are the same. We're making progress.

Probably preaching to the choir, but that's why we need guys like Wes Clark, with his credibility on foreign affairs and ability to articulate what he knows, to get as much media coverage as possible.

The more he speaks, the more people will listen. And the higher profile he has in Kerry's campaign, the more opportunities to speak he will get.

It's just like we've said all along--this election will be won or lost on who can make Americans feel safe. That means safe about their livelihoods, sure. But Americans already feel overwhelmingly that Democrats will are best able to create jobs and provide healthcare. They do NOT yet feel that Kerry is the guy who can best battle terrorists. But they can be convinced if they keep hearing it from voices like Wes Clark.

Pay up!!



Wes Debt Relief
$15,877.66
146 donors
Status Date
3/19/2004 11:06 AM


1-Donate here:

https://secure.clark04.com /

2-Log the amount here:

http://www.wesclarkdemocrats.com/index.asp

If you are maxed out on Wes and cannot help with the Wes Debt, please explore our listings to donate to important congressional races and John Kerry - and don't miss Clark Champions, those pols who were there for Wes when he needed them. We like to say thanks with our wallets if we can. All candidates who receive donations from Clark supporters through wesclarkdemocrats.com will receive a printed report of donations, earning credit for Wes Clark and raising his profile within the Democratic Party.

This, too, is important.

If you have already donated to any candidates (other than Wes) shown on the site and have not entered the amounts of the contributions, please do so.

Now, if you're not maxed out, you know what you have to do: Wes Debt, Wes Debt, and Wes Debt.

Any previous donation to the Wes Debt, post-2/11, can still be entered.

Thanks again for your help.

Jersey

Are you doing solicitaions on my thread?

Teasing!!!

I am shameless.

Besides, a kick is a kick, right?

:cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry:

I'm so sad. :( Damn, damn, damn!

I'm so mad...I'm having a temper tantrum! :bounce:
I want Clark! :bounce: :cry:
I want Clark! :bounce: :cry:
I want Clark! :bounce: :cry:
I want Clark! :bounce: :cry:
I want Clark! :bounce: :cry:

...you sure can't ask JE or HD these sort of questions--they are stumped.

GO WES GO!

like deers caught in headlights. Totally useless.

...Yihtzak Rabin was, how the hell can anyone expect you to answer FP/International questions??? Those two are NOT right--every Senator and every Governor should know who Rabin was as it wasn't like he lead Israel before it WAS Israel--he was killed only a few years ago. Not like we are expecting them to know ancient history--this is MODERN world basic knowledge. Rabin was one of our most powerful allies, and it is like JE was completely asleep during the 90's!

Cheney appears--it is CLARK replying on behalf of Kerry.

Makes you go 'hmmmmmmmm'...

I'll have to download it later.

As to what Wes said, and how he said it, everyone has to remember that he is a mouthpiece for Kerry now. He has to be careful about how he phrases what he says, and has to parse his words. He's not out there speaking for DU, heh. We all know what his opinion is on Iraq already, nitpicking over exactly how he says what right now for Kerry is pointless. He's doing a job, and he's doing fine.

As for Holbrooke, he is in direct competition for the position of Sec. of State, not VP. He is not VP material at all. If anything, the fact that he is out there right now, backing Kerry, makes me think that my personal wish for Wes, that he gets SOS, isn't in the cards. It does, however, make a better case for him as a running mate.

Clark is certainly getting a lot of face time on CNN, eh? :)

topple aWol, then Clark as VP may be vitally essential to victory in November.

NObody smacks down the R as effectively as Clark. Shrub's slippage began when Clark put the AWOL monkey on the chimp's back.

:evilgrin:

I have a strong feeling he will be the VP pick. In fact, I am almost certain. There's just no way Kerry can possibly miss this opportunity.

The man is incredibly qualified for the position. Do we want someone who can take Cheney to the mat in a debate? Wes is the man to do it. Do we want someone who can get us out of Iraq, the RIGHT way? Wes is the man to do it. Do we want someone who's respected by leaders around the world? Wes is the man. Do we want someone who can help to lead in the destruction of PNAC? Wes is the man. Do we want to take down the cabal and see EVERYONE of them in handcuffs and orange jumpsuits? Wes is the man to lead the way. He knows where the bodies are buried. IMCPO, Kerry would be NUTS NOT to take advantage of what's right in front of him to be used....Wesley Kanne Clark. He's a gift. Kerry should graciously accept the gift.

IMCPO =

In My __ __ Opinion?

constitutionally protected opinion. :)

:hi:

there are a lot of important long time friends/activists/experienced members of the party that Kerry might feel deserve a look see. Like seniority (like the Repukes do)but I hope he has good sense and gives the job to the best most qualified man for the job. I've really got my fingers crossed and really BELIEVE Clark already has the job and Holbrook will be SoS. Both great choices!