Clark's remarks on Iraq called into question

[littlejoe]

Wesley Clark on Iraq: "I think when you put Iraq in retrospect, it's still going to look like a $150 billion to $200 billion mistake, despite the fact we were successful."

note: This was a blurb in the Political Buzz section on page 2 of today's Sunday Kansas City Star. What I typed was the entirety of the blurb. No context can be given.

I don't know about you, folks, but I fail to see anything successful about this tragic debacle. It is beginning to look more like Vietnam every day, with no exit strategy or solution to the mess we created for the Iraqi people.

For Clark to make a statement touting our success in Iraq, calls into question his "knowledge" on matters of foreign policy, which he so highly touts.

[ClarkGraham2004]

1. It isn't "Vietnam"

Are hundreds of soldiers dying everyday?

This is nothing like Vietnam.

[LiberalVoice]

2. I would have thought it looked more like Israel/Palestine

but close enough I guess

[jmaier]

3. littlejoe

LOL. You've ignored all of the dialogue in your earlier thread. How about providing a link which provides the actual context around the quote. I know that you don't support Clark and are loathe to be fair but that is the fair thing to do.

[Dookus]

4. militarily....

it was a success. We eliminated the ruling government and captured Saddam.

As foreign policy, however, it was a huge mistake. You'd have to break your back stretching to believe that Clark believes this entire undertaking was successful. He's referring to the military capture of the country, which was accomplished rather quickly.

Try again.

[SahaleArm]

9. Eaxctly - Where we failed was winning the peace.

We failed to have a post-war plan, failed to get international involvement, and failed to involve the Iraqi people in running their own government.

[Scott Lee]

55. So you applaude an immoral and illegal invasion/occupation?

Sounds like you're at odds with your own candidate - or is it rather that you are in agreement with Wes, and we're not getting to hear Wes's true mind, as they say?

[littlejoe]

11. replacing a despot with chaos is not succes.

As for Saddam, he was persona non grata after the invasion. Do we have an exit strategy? What is our solution? Can you give me good reasons for depleting our economy and wasting over four hundred soldiers? I fail to see any success here.

I think it is valid to call general Clark's remarks into question.

[Dookus]

20. If your premise

is that Clark supported this war, and thinks it was the right thing to do, you're so woefully misinformed that there's little we can do here to educate you.

[littlejoe]

45. You are mischaracterizing what I am saying.

What I am questioning is what makes him think that any part of this mess is successful. I know he says he is against it. But that is not the point here.

[Party of the People]

5. If no context can be given,

this really is tantamount to gossip.

This is not an item on which it is fair to comment because, frankly, I doubt Clark said it at all.

I don't mean to attack you, it's just that it's better if we have a link...

Thanks.

[littlejoe]

I don't have to lie.

Clark made the remarks. I just reprinted them. If you have a problem with them, take them up with your candidate. These remarks were printed, as I said in the Sunday Kansas City Star. Naturally, you will choose to believe whatever you want to believe. Loyalty is an admirable quality, unless it is misguided.

[wyldwolf]

6. The Iraq war was successful...

...despite the tragicness of it.

The US had an agenda. They succeeded.

A bank robber who gets away with it is successful.

[Scott Lee]

19. Then why didn't Wes accuse the Bush admin of being criminals?

which, let's be honest, they are?

That would have shocked me into becoming much fonder of Wesley Clark. Sadly, I think he's playing it safe like Kerry has to this point.

[coralrf]

7. THIS THREAD IS A DUPE...

and intentionally so. littlejoe posted the same unsupported crap earlier and now posts it again. The intent is to find an angle, desperate as it may be, to deride Clark. Granted it is a very lame attempt.

[wyldwolf]

8. Yeah, well, that is desperate...

Throw a smear out there and it it gets some play, fine.

But if it fails, go back to the drawing board.

[littlejoe]

30. If it is a smear, then I am smearing him with his own words.

[littlejoe]

24. I posted in the wrong forum earlier. I think it is fair to call into

question his remarks. If you are too lazy to look them up, don't blame me.

[maddezmom]

10. link please?

[littlejoe]

13. The link is

[e-mail]

[maddezmom]

15. that's an email addy

maybe to the author, not sure.

[littlejoe]

17. All I can tell you to do is log on to

www.KansasCity.com

[maddezmom]

26. here's where the buzz is if anyone is interested

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/

I scanned the headlines and didn't see anything. It might be there don't know, but I'm not looking for it anymore.

[littlejoe]

33. Page two, bottom of right hand column.

[maddezmom]

37. how about a title? or why don't you follow the rules and post the link

[littlejoe]

40. As I said earlier, it isn't an article.

It is only a quote from Clark on the Iraq war.

[WillyBrandt]

27. Which article is it?

Is there link to the actual article?

[Democrats unite]

12. He was run out of town in the last thread (and for good reason)

Same will happen here.

Maybe if he gave a link to the article he might have a leg to woble on.

[littlejoe]

14. I don't run. I'll debate all day long with you, if you can keep up.

Good luck. I have a lot of ammo.

[Democrats unite]

16. To bad your ammo is blanks

You have nothing to substaniate.

[Scott Lee]

21. You mean as opposed to your empty retorts?

Got it.

[wyldwolf]

23. "retorts" need no substantiation ...

[Scott Lee]

56. A benefit, in your case.

[wyldwolf]

64. nevertheless true...

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[wyldwolf]

22. oooh! Lots of ammo on Clark and up for a debate! Let's go!

...I'll be on another hour or so...

[littlejoe]

28. Actually, when discussing Clark, there's not much to debate.

[Democrats unite]

29. Littlejoe, I think you need to go find Hoss...

to help you out.

[littlejoe]

42. I am amazed at the level of hostility

that me, the messenger is receiving from you Clark supporters, just because you don't like the question. It is a fair question, one which touches on his command of the issues.

He is the one touting his foreign policy experience. When he talks about Iraq being a success, it is disturbing. If you want to throw rotten tomatoes at me, fine. I have thick skin. But choose to ignore your candidate's weaknesses at your own folly.

[wyldwolf]

31. Then why did you say you have lots of ammo and could debate all day?

Confused?

[littlejoe]

43. You seem to be confused when it comes to the difference

in definition between "debate" and name calling. You obviously didn't take debate in high school or college. You did go to college, didn't you?

[wyldwolf]

46. Dual degrees: Journalism and Political Science... now...

1. Show me where I've called you names;
2. When can we start the debate of which you have lots of ammo for and can go all day?

Hurry! I don't have much time.

(yes, I ignored your sad little insult.)

[littlejoe]

52. I apologize. I seem to have an unfair advantage.

I promise I will only use the left side of my brain, to make it more fair for you. Now for the debate. What makes you think that a man who has spent 34 years in the military is qualified to be president of the U.S.? Obviously, he has proven he can take orders, as well as give them. He has never been elected to office. He has not demonstrated the ability to run a government of any type, whether it be local or state. There is a good reason that many presidents were former governors. Running a state is like running a small country. As militaristic as we have become, it would send the wrong message to the world to elect a military man to the oval office. He is also tied too closely to the bloated and corrupt military industrial complex.

I will wait shortly for your answers to my debate points.

I too, have two degrees. One in history, and another in english.

[Scott Lee]

57. littlejoe, be fair. Keep your debate on the "all attack no facts" level.

Give them a chance.

[wyldwolf]

60. Good advice. Thus far, he has been all attack, no facts.

[wyldwolf]

59. Debate points:

You lose points for being condescending and insulting, but I'll overlook that this time.

You also dodge my acceptance of your debate challenge until you knew I had not much time left this evening.

Anyway...

Is this the ammo you bragged about? Repeated and previously debunked talking points from DU?

What makes you think that a man who has spent 34 years in the military is qualified to be president of the U.S.?

Since there is no other qualifications to be president besides an age consideration and being a naturally born citizen of the U.S., you question lacks merit.

But if you're referring to political, governmental, and leadership ability, Clarks has plenty.

As Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, Clark was also the Commander-in-Chief of our European Command and responsible for over 200,000 members of military families.

Just as a governor has to, Clark worked closely with legislators - only he was working with Congress.

He was responsible for the needs of his people on issues like spousal abuse, medical concerns, and education.

The military is, in fact, one of the more progressive institutions there is, and Clark dealt with issues such as affirmative action and universal healthcare on a level no other current presidential candidate has.

Ditto for economics.

As the Supreme Allied Commander, Clark often acted an ambassador to other countries, hammering out delicate political agreements.

It's obvious to anyone who knows the responsibilities of being in such a high position that Clark's position was very governmental and political - akin to a governorship.

He has not demonstrated the ability to run a government of any type, whether it be local or state.

See above

Running a state is like running a small country.

see above

As militaristic as we have become, it would send the wrong message to the world to elect a military man to the oval office.

We are electing a president of the US, not one of the world. Besides, that statement is just your opinion.

He is also tied too closely to the bloated and corrupt military industrial complex.

1. No proof of this
2. Clark's position is to reduce the military's budget.


Next?

[bushclipper]

65. Round one to Mr. Wolf!

[wyldwolf]

67. Why thank you! But remember, littlejoe was only using half his brain...

...like Rush Limbaugh does.

I'm sure he'll unleash that arsenal of ammo soon!

[Tom Rinaldo]

18. The full context of Clark's recent comments

usually derive from a question concerning Hussein's recent capture. That has been the question he is being asked lately, and I have seen Clark answer it, though I don't know if this particular quote out of context is from the same interview that I saw.

In other words Clark lately has beeen saying that though we finally were successful at capturing Hussein, we still are in a mess. He goes on to say that not only have we squandered 150 billion we didn't need to, but we took our attention off of Bin Laden who is still out there and the biggest threat, AND we don't have a successful exit srategy out of Iraq. And we damaged our alliances, and and and ...

The success part is about capturing Hussein. And the quote probably was in the context of asking Clark if our success in catching him made the U.S, safer. As to the latter I saw Clark say yes it does, but only if you reverse the question and ask, would it be worse if Hussein was still free out there as a symbol of defiance and a measure of U.S. impotency? Clark says "safer" by THAT standard only. It is a very smart political answer, he doesn't get ambushed on the question, and he then goes back on the attack against Bush's failures.

[mzmolly]

32. I think the General has a different version of success than you and I

sadly... :shrug:

[Tom Rinaldo]

38. I think it is sad if you think Clark has a different version.

This is not an area where Dean and Clark have more than a feather weight's worth of difference. They are about as closely alligned here as two people can be without being identical twins. You can dig up history to argue about which man was or wasn't more pure about their earlly and unswerving opposition to going into Iraq the way we did. I think that has been argued to death already, but they certainly do not view the situation in Iraq substantitively different now. Sure there was a brief rhetorical dance over is the U.S. safer affter catching Hussein, you can read my post above about that tea pot tempest. Clark admits the U.S. is .05% safer, it was an interesting spin on how to handle that question. Dean might conceed that much if asked point blank also, which means both men agree we are not fundementally safer.

There are honest grounds to differ with Clark. Even the fact that he wasn't a Democratic partisan, with all that implies, is a reasonable issue to debate, so long as it isn't distorted into Clark was a Republican until 25 days ago.

But these guys see the mess in Iraq the same way. Clark was an early Dean advisor on this one. There is more distance between Dean and Clark's position and Kucinich's for example. Even Kerry takes a stand different from the one both Dean and Clark have, and let's not even mention Lieberman.

[oasis]

34. Bill Clinton and now Wes Clark. Rhodes Scholars think they can just step

in and aquire enough knowledge to be up to speed on this country's foreign policy.

[Democrats unite]

35. Bill Clinton did a damn fine job also

Thanks for the memories.

[oasis]

44. Bill is not through yet. We have a planet to heal.

[wyldwolf]

36. I think Wes Clark has more going for him on foreign policy than..

...being a Rhodes scholar... just can't think of that it could be...

Now, what could former Four Star General Supereme Allied Commander of NATO Wesley Clark have going for him in regards to foreign policy... someone help me... it's right on the tip of my tongue...

[oasis]

41. Clark is well respected in diplomatic circles, but what do foriegners

know? Chocolate makin' art appreciatin' over-educated bunch of elitists. :-)

[Tom Rinaldo]

49. lol n/t

[littlejoe]

50. I think had Clark stayed in the military, he would have made a

fine member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Using your analogy, Al Haig or William Westmoreland would have been presidential material. Hasn't this country had enough of wars and generals? Doesn't it worry you that Clark is closely tied to the bloated and corrupt military industrial complex?

[wyldwolf]

51. Again. littlejoe, one must prove what one states...

Now how about that debate that you have so much ammo for?

You can even ask some of the other Clark detractors here for advice.

Tomorrow sound good to you? Around 8PM? You'll have time to prepare.

We can even do it in a chat room.

As for now, I'm off to bed. Watching you dodge the debate challenge that you yourself issued is getting tiresome.

[littlejoe]

53. It seems that it is you who are dodging me.

[wyldwolf]

61. Apparantly not...

... you dodge and dodge after I explain my time limits tonight, then try to swoop in at the last minute.

But I've cleared my schedule for you!

See #59

[Scott Lee]

58. Better luck to you tomorrow wolfie.

[wyldwolf]

62. I've had great luck tonight, scotty boy!

[jmaier]

39. would that be unlike

the rest of us who simply think that by posting here we are "up to speed" on U.S. foreign policy? :eyes:

[oasis]

47. Depends on who among us are also Rhodes Scholars.

:hippie:

[eileen_d]

48. OK, the words "mistake" and "successful"

used in the same sentence say quite clearly to me that he does not think that the situation in Iraq is a complete success. If the "blurb" had been "we were successful" PERIOD, I would be worried. However, since I am familiar with Clark's actual positions on the Iraq war from several other statements he has made on the topic, I am not worried.

Clark has a unique view of the Iraq situation (compared to the other Dem candidates) because of his military background. This is evident in his book "Winning Modern Wars" about Iraq, in which he sometimes goes over the mechanics of the U.S. invasion of Iraq as if it were a sports match or a chess game, rather than a war in which people killed and died. This is a "sanitized" view of war that I am not accustomed to, and frankly it did make me a little uncomfortable at times. IMO it also means that it is easy for people to quote Clark out of context and make him sound like a warmonger.

However, I also understand that Clark is speaking as a military professional. He is speaking from his own experience as a career soldier. And he does think that there are huge problems with Bush's justification in going to war, his use of the military, his foreign policy, ad nauseum. I have no doubt that he is on the right side, i.e. the Bush-is-wrong-and-a-liar side.

Lemme tell ya, it's going to take more than a doctor (pun intended) to get us out of the mess we're in regarding Iraq.

There's my two cents.

[0rganism]

54. Here's an article with some contextual information for the quote

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/primaries/massachusetts/articles/2003/12/16/clark_welcomes_saddams_capture_but_still_questions_iraq_war_rationale/

He's made similar remarks at the press conference in The Hague, which should be available in the C-Span archives by now.

I don't think this reflects poorly on Clark in any way. His assessment of success appears to be the military victory in ousting the Ba'athist regime, not the ongoing occupation.

Wes Clark is a solid candidate; even if he doesn't get the presidential or vice presidential nomination, I'd be happy to see him stick around in politics for some time.

[Zero Division]

63. I think's it probably very simple

He certainly thought the military aspect of putting the regime out of power was successful, and it undoubtedly was.

But Clark has stated himself that military success is not enough for an overall success in such conflicts. You must be politically successful, as well (retain the support of the people who are no longer under the power of the regime). One statement like this is hardly enough to accuse Clark of seeing the Iraq War as an overall success, especially when put into the context of everything else he's said.

I think what he would say is that the question of whether a peaceful, stable democracy will arise in Iraq looks very grim at the moment, but that we cannot be completely sure of the outcome either, and that the Bush admin. has done a very poor job in its planning and execution of the nation-building aspect of this conflict.

[incapsulated]

66. Yes, let's forget...

The massive amount of quotes and speeches he has done on Iraq and concentrate on one word in one sentance in which he also characterizes the invasion as a "mistake". Literally in the same breath. C'mon, this is getting really tired.

Pathetic.