Wesley Clark: Obama Not Prepared To Be Commander-in-Cheif

[nonconformist]

Speaking to a BBC interviewer, Power said Obama would not necessarily base every military decision he would make in 2009 would be based in full on a plan crafted now.

"He will of course not rely upon some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or as a US senator," said Power, who resigned after calling Clinton a "monster" in a separate dust-up.

"He will rely upon a plan, an operational plan that he pulls together, in consultation with people who are on the ground, to whom he doesn’t have daily access now as a result of not being the president," Powers told the BBC's Stephen Sackur Monday.

Former NATO commander Wesley Clark, a Clinton supporter, called the comments "disturbing," and he accused Obama of not being prepared enough to be commander in chief and properly oversee an end to the Iraq war.

"That means knowing where you're headed before you start down the path," Clark said.

Jamie Rubin, a former State Department spokesman, compared Obama's foreign policy approach to "amateur hour."

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Clinton_camp_accuses_Obama_of_being_0307.html

[Hawkeye-X]

1. Fuck you, Wesley Clark. You supported SOA, and I didn't support you at all in '04

and will not support you, Hillary-lover.

Hawkeye-X

[thunder rising]

6. 2nd-ed! Clark was worm then and a worm till he dies.

[faithfulcitizen]

10. Wow, that's a bit harsh.

[thunder rising]

35. That's the most polite thing I could think of.

[Crunchy Frog]

135. A couple people for my Ignore list.

:)

[LibertyorDeath]

12. I'll second that Fuck you, Wesley Clark

I didn't know about his supported of SOA http://www.soaw.org/

that is very disappointing.

[IsItJustMe]

54. I Third it!!! The motion has carried, next.

[0007]

143. Here here .... present!

[surfin]

82. Wes, she has lost it, your not going to be vp

Boy this guy is not smart.

[damonm]

207. WTF is SOA?

[Hatalles]

2. I'd like to see the exact quote in context.

But it really disappoints me if Wes Clark made that kind of remark.

[tishaLA]

3. agree with you on both counts.

[nonconformist]

9. When it comes to foreign policy and national security

I think Clark knows what he's talking about.

[TwilightGardener]

15. I think Clark understands that you don't just proceed with a withdrawal

according to a pre-determined schedule, but rather with caution and flexibility. But he's given up military credibility for political cheap shots. Fuck him.

[nonconformist]

22. And yet another formerly respected person on DU attacked.

Oh, that Obama change and unity!

[jackson_dem]

69. Yup! Change he can deceive in!

[Quixote1818]

16. And you don't think people like Clark would be on Obama's staff?

He will have plenty of experts around him, perhaps even Clark himself.

[nonconformist]

27. I don't think he'll have Clark.

But Hillary will.

And this is the same argument I heard about Bush... "it will be ok, he'll have experts advising him!"

[Quixote1818]

Maybe Bush should have had Obama advising him on the fucking war?

Don't you fucking think???? Jesus Christ, think what you just said! :eyes:

[nonconformist]

38. With his one speech?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4643795

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4825736

[Quixote1818]

43. If you think voting to support the troops after Hillary sent them to war

is equal to what Hillary did, you have drunken way too much Hillary Lemming Aid. Having the strength and courage to be against the war up front is 1000 times more admirable than anything Hillary has ever done. And I am no big Obama supporter either.

[nonconformist]

61. "voting to support the troops"

You didn't even read the second link if that's what you got from it.

I'll summarize:

Obama said in speeches, to rousing applause, that he wouldn't vote to fund the war, because at some point you have to say NO to Bush and stop getting steamrolled.

When he was finally in the Senate, the timetable for withdrawal was added to the funding bill.

Bush threatens to veto it.

Other Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, stood strong and demanded that Bush sign the bill, and retiterated that it was the will of the American People.

Obama IMMEDIATELY folded and said hey, if you veto it, we'll send you a bill with your objections removed.

Obama is universally slammed for this by the left.

THAT is what happened.

Now think about that speech, and think about the ONE politically safe speech he made in deep dark blue Chicago. Now look at the first link in my post.

I have no doubt that had he been in the Senate at the time, he would have voted for it. There is NOTHING in his background that indicates he wouldn't, except for ONE SPEECH. (see above) Hell, even Obama admitted he doesn't know how he would have voted for it.

[XemaSab]

125. Both of our candidates will need advisors.

Ditto for McCain.

It's all about getting good people, and listening to what they have to say.

(W has gotten crooks, and ignored their good advice, but taken the bad. Worst of all worlds. :( )

[XemaSab]

122. I'm irritated by Clark's "line in the sand."

I've liked Clark for a while and I was hoping he'd be part of a democratic administration REGARDLESS of the candidate. :(

[Laurab]

197. Then wouldn't he also know a President uses ADVISORS?

Isn't that what he would probably be in a Clinton Administration, if not VP?

Yes, he knows about foreign policy and national security - but he should stay out of the dirty political battles of Hillary Clinton.

Hillary would be as lost as Obama in the WH without advisors.

[krkaufman]

227. Agreed.

Except when he's just being political.

See: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4970489&mesg_id=4980810

[CarolNYC]

36. Since you asked for context...

Here's audio of the conference call the statement was taken from....
http://thepage.time.com/2008/03/07/power-shocker-ii-adviser-pulls-back-on-obama-iraq-pledge/

Thanks for asking.

The rest of you jumping ugly on Clark can go to hell, OK?

(Edited to fix link)

[tishaLA]

46. that link doesn't work

can you possibly repost? Thanks.

[CarolNYC]

50. Ooops, sorry...

Try this one: http://thepage.time.com/2008/03/07/power-shocker-ii-adviser-pulls-back-on-obama-iraq-pledge/

Click on the listen to media conference call link....

[tishaLA]

53. gracias nt

[Donna Zen]

113. Senator Clinton has said that she will consult with the JC of S

This is exactly the same as what Samantha Powers has said. David Corn is correct. This entire phone call has been nothing but twisting words for partisan reasons.

Samantha Powers was standing by Wes Clark when the Clintons were no where to found when Shelton attacked. This is nothing but disgraceful to stab a friend like Powers in the back.

They all know that the NAFTA mess has been debunked and yet there they were repeating it.

Edit: To hear Wes Clark on the same call as Lee Feinstein is just sick. Lee Feinstein has said that the only thing wrong with bush's pre-emptive war is that it didn't go far enough. Anyone should be ashamed to talk to Feinstein the hack.

[bellasgrams]

56. Why are you guys jumping on Wes Clark. He's a good honest

man why has served his country well. He's a Rhoades. Scholar and a 4 star general. He knows his stuff. There is no way BO is qualified to run a country. You have to walk before you run. He needs to take it easy and not force himself on the American people as a know it all.

[CarolNYC]

66. heh....

Anyone who doesn't bow down before the throne of the Almighty Obama will get beaten up here....I think that's one of the rules or something these days. :P

[mzmolly]

214. Agreed. I've not seen that quote in the remarks above?

:shrug:

[TwilightGardener]

4. Wes lost all credibility, when he acts as if it's BAD to take the current

situation into account when withdrawing troops from a war, rather than sticking to a schedule no matter what. You blew it, Wes. Obama is right.

[faithfulcitizen]

5. That's really disappointing General, as you have said very similar things. Ah politicians...

[rug]

26. Like Obama, who said he'll end the war in 2009?

[TwilightGardener]

34. He will--carefully. I guess Hillary will just yank out troops with no feedback or

attention to the ground situation--that's what she's saying.

[Bad Thoughts]

7. Didn't Power endorse Clark in '04? eom.

[Crunchy Frog]

17. Yes. n/t

[bigtree]

110. !!!!!!!!!!

:bounce: :applause:

[stevietheman]

8. Well, I guess Clark won't be President Obama's Veep now. n/t

n/t

[democrattotheend]

23. Love the sound of that

President Obama...love the sound of that!

[CyberPieHole]

51. Since Obama will be serving as legal counsel to his friend, Syrian Slumlord Antoin Rezko...

he's not going to have need for a "Veep".:rofl:

[Hatalles]

64. Had to sneak "Syrian" in there, didn't you?

:eyes:

[SoxFan]

84. Those swarthy Mohammedeans stick together!

[CyberPieHole]

133. What have you got against Syrians?

:shrug:

[MojoMojoMojo]

93. Or cellmate

[blm]

183. Sorry his associations just can't rise to your preferred level of BCCI criminals who led us to 9-11,

and who YOU want to continue to lead YOU down the road to full on fascism.

[psquare]

55. Jim Webb would be a better choice anyway nt

[JoFerret]

229. Not likely

.

[Quixote1818]

11. I would expect this from his son, but not Clark himself. It looks out of context. nt

[DiverDave]

13. Showing your true colors, general?

I thought you were too good to be true, another god damned repuke warmonger...who cares what you think?

[bluestateguy]

14. Cross him off the VP list

I supported him in 2004, but it became clear to me watching him campaign that year that he didn't have the stuff to make it through a grueling campaign.

[0007]

138. Wesley was front running then as he is now. junior's party

didn't want him, so he switched sides and is still no better off.

[ProSense]

18. Jamie "Hypocrite" Rubin. Calling Hillary a monster is not a foreign policy blunder, this is:

Comments on Iraq War In Error, Says Kerry Aide

By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 25, 2004; Page A08

A top national security adviser to John F. Kerry said yesterday that he made a mistake when he said the Democratic nominee probably would have launched a military invasion to oust Saddam Hussein if he had been president during the past four years.

On Aug. 7, Jamie Rubin told The Washington Post that "in all probability" a Kerry administration would have waged war against Iraq by now if the Massachusetts Democrat were president.

The Bush campaign, eager to portray Kerry as holding the same position as the president after the failure to find weapons of mass destruction, seized on Rubin's comments as evidence that the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates share similar views on the war, in retrospect. On NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday, Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman said the two candidates agreed about "sending our troops to war."

"To the extent that my own comments have contributed to misunderstanding on this issue. . . . I never should have said the phrase 'in all probability' because that's not Kerry's position and he's never said it," Rubin said in a statement. "That was my mistake."

In previous conversations, Rubin said Kerry would have handled the Iraq strategy much differently than Bush from the beginning by allowing U.N. weapons inspectors more time, attracting more allies into the effort and crafting a better postwar plan to stabilize Iraq, among other things. On Aug. 7, when pressed by a reporter about whether Kerry, like Bush, believes he still would have gone to war, Rubin said, "In all probability he would have launched a military invasion with the support of the rest of the world by now."

more

Maybe, he was playing the same role as Bill

[seabeyond]

19. clark is allowed his opinion. though... i have yet to see the governors that become pres

be any more qualified so i am not worried about it. still like clark. know he is an absolute clinton fan and know why he is. i can respect that. and again i say

he is allowed to speak. i didnt read the shit to see what was said. though he is jumping on the band wagon attacking fellow dem, it is hillarys call. she is allowing.

[Yossariant]

20. kick and rec

[OhioBlue]

21. they are spinning out of control

OMFG! How in the World does accepting the fact that a President has access to more intelligence and military advice than a Presidential candidate dictate anything but reality? I hope Hillary won't shove all of her plans for Iraq down the throats of the World absent acknowledgment of the current situation at the time and advice that she doesn't currently have. No one can predict the future, not even the Clintons.

[TwilightGardener]

Obama should hit her on this--make it clear that Hillary would proceed

with a precipitous withdrawal according to a strict timetable, and not with any flexibility or advice from military and state department officials. That seems to be what she's implying.

[OhioBlue]

39. that's what I'm getting.

and who does that sound like?

[nonconformist]

225. That's not what is being implied at all.

Listen to the audio link, it's posted down the thread. The issue is that Powers is contradicting what Obama has said in his campaign. She said that what he says to get elected is just a "best case scenario" and that "we've never seen the best case scenario before", implying that Obama is likely to not start withdrawing troops as planned. Wes is saying that is like going into office and saying "so, what now?" about the whole thing. He says that you have to know where you are headed to get there, there has to be a plan, and that Obama doesn't have a clear one. He says that Hillary does. He's not saying she'd ignore advisors, he's saying that she has a clear and concise plan and a strategy to implement it.

Lots more in the audio.

[rodeodance]

186. yes, the BO camp is full Damage control

[K Gardner]

24. This must be the MEME of the Day. On Larry King, I just heard THE EXACT words from

Lanny Davis. "He's not prepared to be CiC.. the people in the large state of Ohio said so.."

[SoxFan]

96. Oh, a welder in Ashtabula said so?

I guess that settles it.

[GOPBasher]

25. I've always admired Clark, but this bothers me.

I actually was hoping that if Obama won the nomination, he'd be the vp. Oh well.

[nonconformist]

30. He'll be Hillary's VP if she wins. nt

[xmas74]

52. I'd love that ticket!

What a great ticket. He's very well respected by the military and the overall "good old boy" network that doesn't care for either Clinton or Obama.

He could take a number of votes away from McCain. Wes and Hillary would be a winning combo in November.

[nonconformist]

67. Yep, that is a winning ticket.... well-rounded with broad appeal. nt

[xmas74]

77. I know of people who don't like her one bit

but would gladly vote that ticket. I know quite a few Republicans who would switch for that ticket out of respect for Clark.

Love it,love it, love it.

[MojoMojoMojo]

94. Hes better qualified than Mccain

[rosetta627]

120. Same here

Clark has so many fantastic qualities.

[kikiek]

28. RIght on Wes. About time someone tells the truth.

[Kaylee]

29. Huh? Wesley what are you talking about?

All Wesley is doing is spewing Clinton talking points back out. Powers made a perfectly reasonable and intelligent statement. How reckless would it be to make a firm plan when you only have access to a few pieces of information. Come on, Wes. I know you're better than this.

[TwilightGardener]

32. They are overplaying their hand on this--Hillary is now letting Obama run to the right

on the war, at least in terms of smart strategy.

[anamandujano]

116. He's already hit the wall on the right. Impossible to go any further.

[TwilightGardener]

123. He's a better national security candidate and CiC--he won't draw down our troops

recklessly, like Hillary will.

[zulchzulu]

31. Does Wesley know how to use a Xerox machine?

[madfloridian]

33. Some of us tried...

well, never mind. I have too many bruises over it.

[IndianaGreen]

37. And McCain is, General?

When did you decide to become a McClinton boot licker? I am very disappointed!

[Quixote1818]

40. Didn't Clark suggest it was right to vote for the war before it was wrong?

Seems Clark would have done better on that question if he had consulted with Obama.

[citizen snips]

41. So I guess Clark will not be on Obama's short list

if he wins the nomination

[qnr]

59. Ha ha

Wes might be saddened by this.

[Schema Thing]

42. Wes is playing politics, plain and simple.

[Beregond2]

44. Clark

I'm so disappointed in Clark. He has sure shot himself in the foot. Any chance he had at a political career is over now.

[jgraz]

45. Another decent Democrat gets "Colin Powelled" in service of Queen Hillary

Just sickening.

[IndianaGreen]

48. It is pathetic that Wes Clark has been reduced to playing a hatched man for McClinton

This is part of the corrupt influence of the Clintons. They turn anything they touch into crap.

[Sir Jeffrey]

47. Hmmm...

"That means knowing where you're headed before you start down the path," Clark said.

Excellent point. Oh wait:

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

Never mind.

[abburdlen]

149. Shame he didn't tell Hillary that

before she voted for the AUMF...

oh yeah, he did but she didn't listen to him.

[CyberPieHole]

49. Wesley Clark does not buy the Obama Messiah bullshit...

good for him.:thumbsup:

[StevieM]

90. Wes Clark will make every bit as good a vice-president as Obama would make a bad president (eom)

x

[0007]

140. .....and not many are buying into Wesley Clark's Messiah bullshit either.

[Dinger]

193. Yes, Good For Him

Wes Clark, all patriot, no act!

:patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:

[FlyingSquirrel]

57. Rats! I'll have to take Clark off my list of VP possibilities for Obama

No big loss

:shrug:

[Bryan]

58. I won't throw Gen. Clark under the bus for this opinion

It is, however, disheartening; I also thought he looked like a good veep prospect.

[malletgirl02]

60. Actually I expected him to say something like this

I expected him to say something like this, this is politics after all.

[malletgirl02]

148. my cynicism

Turns out my cynicism was misplaced, Clark was misquoted.

[XemaSab]

131. I was thinking secretary of defense

:shrug: :(

[bagimin]

62. Put a cork in it Wes...

stop dissing the impending nominee.

[Raine]

63. As a former Clarkie I'm disappointed

and disgusted with him. :-( I guess he's hoping for some big position under Clinton, he'd better think again cause he's backing a "losing horse".

[OnionPatch]

151. I think they've always had some kind of deal.

He didn't run for president this time and I think it's because she's got him slated for VP or something else in her administration.

[Middle finga]

65. Obama is making all of these old Washington insiders look

like ameteurs. Wes is a fucking hack fuck him

[jackson_dem]

70. Funny

Senator Obama is a Washington outsider but Clark is an insider. :wtf:

[jillan]

73. It's a little confusing to some people.

:P

[mojowork_n]

184. Think of it as having started after school.

As a young attorney, instead of chasing big bucks, Barack Obama instead got involved in community organizing. Standing up for ordinary Americans, to his own financial detriment.

Since that time, while he has been drawing huge financial support for his campaign, he hasn't had anything on his tax returns that would make a maggot puke -- his financial history is relatively uncomplicated. When opponents have accused him of being a corporate stooge, they've only been able to do so by pointing to the past associations of some of his advisers.


On the other hand, as a soldier, Clark was known (and rather widely disliked) for his ambition. His career track was all about "an army of one."

After he left the military, Clark's kept himself busy with both business and politics, as he's been given passage through the same gilt-edge revolving doors that many ex-politicians-turned-lobbyists keep going through.

[newfie4]

129. maybe they're all making Obama look weak and inexperienced

just a thought...

[jackson_dem]

68. Clark's name goes to the rafters along with Joe Wilson, Paul Krugman, John Edwards, et al.

All former progressive heroes until they didn't follow King Obama I's script.

[Medusa]

71. Clark is a Hillary 'ho

'nuff said.

[workinclasszero]

72. Clark is a Hillary 'ho

For sure!

And thanks for the laugh!:thumbsup::rofl:

[jackson_dem]

75. Clark is a great man with great accomplishments, not just one speech

[rosetta627]

121. Agreed, I can't support Hillary, but I respect General Clark

He's just backing the wrong horse.

[AX10]

141. You spend to much time in the mirror.

[lewis_in_fw]

74. And another well-respected Democrat becomes a victim to the Obama Bus *NT*

[susankh4]

78. No end to the Dem bashing.

Who are these people?

[theHandpuppet]

80. Yep, doesn't all that hope and unity feel grand?

Yet all I've seen from the "hope and unity" movement is a neverending stream of vitriol and hatred.

[GoldieAZ49]

142. hopefully they will all unite

and change countries

hmmm, maybe cuba could become obama nation and they can all go there to worship him.

they could hope and unite against castro

[Kaylee]

89. Actually, most posts show disappointment that he is giving

Hillary talking points. I respect Clark and was a Clarkie back in the day (I gave him my first ever political donation). He is a smart man and knows his stuff. To see him in the role of spinmeister is sad. He is better than this and I hope to see him in Obama's cabinet.

[OzarkDem]

159. "Cult of personality" bus

stops for no one.

[Lena inRI]

76. Time for me to rant on Clark. . .

. . .this pronouncement from Clark that Obama is not prepared to be C-I-C is soooo disingenuous and self-serving and implicitly a lie when the intended meaning is that Clinton is prepared. . .or as he says, "Hillary does her homework ". . .while he knows full and well that HE does her national security-foreign policy homework, dontcha General.

Yeah, that's been the looooongtime plan. . .I'm talking way back in 2003-2004 when he ran for President, the deal was made between the Clintons and Clark to be Hillary's big military endorsement to give her that all-important C-I-C image.

To think I really believed in Clark's candidacy. . .a totally loyal Clarkie. . .heart and soul, canvassing in NH, visiting Vets hospital, writing a lengthy letter to Hillary pleading for her endorsement of Clark which was totally ignored, and $3000+ in donations. . .what a sucker I was. . .

. . yeah, the "dance in politics" you claimed you didn't learn to account for your loss was really a complete ACT. . .ya had me fooled. . .give this man an academy award for best con-candidate of 2004.

TRUTH IS you never were supposed to win per order of micromanaging Clintons. . .just get the face recognition and the donor data base to turn over to the Hillary campaign of 2007-2008. . .

WOW

Well, ya fooled me once, SHAME ON ME, but hell if you're going to fool me again, General. . .SHAME ON YOU AND THE CLINTONS!

Hillary is no more prepared for C-I-C than Obama. . .that's the non-partisan truth!

:rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant:

[nonconformist]

85. Wow.

So, you loved Wes and supported him strongly in his 2004 run... then

dum dum dum DUMMMMM!

He dares to say something negative about Obamassiah.

Now, because of this, you hate Clark and everything he stands for.

[Lena inRI]

95. Don't trivialize my point with your word-choice "hate". . .

. . .I'm an adult, not a child pulling a tantrum. My rant is based on growing suspicions about the Hillary-Clark bond, in spite of their contrasting views on the IWR vote/Iran Kiel-Lieberman bill until Clark endorsed Hillary in 2007. What a 180!

[GoldieAZ49]

144. 180????? WTF have you been? Clintons back Clark running in 2004 because of his

military background to stop John Kerry.

Clark has never held elected office, and just decided to run for POTUS???

c'mon, Clintons need Bush reelected so she could run in 08

you bet Clark will be in a Clinton administration probably Sec of Def if not VP

[Lena inRI]

147. Clintons did NOT endorse clark 2004. . .

. . .and he can't be Hillary's SOD until he's been retired from the military for 10 years.

Your talking to a ex-Clarkie here, and I know what I'm talking about in my post.

[GoldieAZ49]

150. no they didn't publicly, they couldn't & stay head of the party

but they did not want Kerry in

I did not know that about the 10 years requirement

[OzarkDem]

160. Clark was a better qualified candidate in 04

than Obama is now. Seriously.

This stuff of Clinton wanting Bush to win in 04 is nonsense.

[nonconformist]

185. So you think it was all a big conspiracy, then?

Yeah, that's a really adult and logical stance.

[Carolina]

97. OMG, Lena inRI

It all makes sense. I, too, was a total Clarkie but you are so right. They had a fucking plan.

Damn them all.

Carol In Carolina :hi::hi::hi:

[Lena inRI]

104. Thanks for getting my point, Carol.. . .

. . .I wish I didn't have to write this. . . the truth isn't always easy to face.

Let's HOPE this time around, Carol, keep believing in someone like Obama . . .

:hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi:

[Sparkly]

136. That is a conspiracy theory, not "the truth."

This is crazy. :crazy:

[NCarolinawoman]

119. Have you read Wes's book? A TIME TO LEAD?

Much is explained about 2003-2004. All the nuances of why he ran.

Of course you might choose not to believe him. But that would be up to you.

[Lena inRI]

127. Sorry. . .

. . .his actions speak louder than those words in his book.

Clark could have stayed uncommitted like Gore.

Instead, he endorsed Hillary over other candidates who shared far more with him, according to his books, on the IWR and Iran bill.

Clark's a Hillary hack. . .jeez, that is so disheartening!

[TwilightGardener]

126. Wow--That makes sense. I was a Clark supporter too, and he just sank to the bottom for me.

[judaspriestess]

146. LOL, OMG

this rant sounds alot like the shame on you moment from Hillary and was unequivocally bashed for it. But an obama lover goes on a rant that sounds (because obviously we can't physically see the rant)but we can imagine it based on the post. Its ok?

WTF is up with this hypocrisy???

[JVS]

79. Eat shit Wes.

[Thepricebreaker]

81. He running for VP spot?

[nonconformist]

182. I think it's almost a given at this point Wes will be Hillary's running mate. nt

[Laurab]

200. Would have been. n/t

[SoxFan]

83. Go away, Wes

Power: Discusses the issue in a frank, open, and responsible manner

Clark: "Neener, neener!"

Ole Wes just flushed his vice presidential prospects down the crapper.

[johnnydrama]

86. he's wrong

So if on the day that Hillary wants to start removing large numbers of troops Moqtada al-Sadr drops his cease fire, and all hell breaks loose in Iraq, with hundreds dying in bombings, she'll keep on removing troops because it's something she said she'd do 12 months before.

Bullshit.

[XemaSab]

132. Exactly

I hate to say it, but the Iraq war's a tarbaby you can't just ditch.

We're in there and it's our DUTY as Democrats to figure out the best possible outcome for Iraq. Maybe that's "allowing" civil war, maybe it's fostering the current puppet government, but it's something we have to play by ear.

[jefferson_dem]

87. Right-o Wes. Hillary...ready to admire teapots and exaggerate her experience on day one!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4959885

:eyes:

[Iceburg]

88. I trust Wesley Clark /eom

[libbygurl]

91. Yay, Wes Clark!

Your credentials will surely be questioned by some here, but then you were only NATO's Supreme Allied Commander for Europe, so you really can't know much about foreign policy, huh.

[libbygurl]

92. Off to the Greatest Page with you! nt

[robbedvoter]

98. Wes Clark, Paul Krugman, Joseph Wilson, Stephanie Tubbs Johnson - the evildoers

list of the BO world is growing and it contains more and more of my heroes...
The "uniter" strikes again...

[theHandpuppet]

100. I expect any day now...

... the new mantra will be "They're DARKSIDED!!!" Frankly, I've lost track of how many people are on their hate list now.

[Sparkly]

128. Yes, and Maxine Waters and Robert Kennedy Jr.

It's not so cut and dried -- with us or against us, evildoers or good guys -- as people want to believe.

[robbedvoter]

145. Add Sheila Jackson lee and Charlie Rangel to the "excommunicable" list

[theHandpuppet]

164. Let's not forget Stephanie Tubbs-Jones!

Plus Jennifer Granholm, Ted Strickland, Ed Rendell.... they're DARKSIDED!!

Yep, Obama's the "hope and unity" candidate all right.

[OzarkDem]

162. All thrown under the bus by Obama supporters

How quickly their loyalties change.

[madfloridian]

99. That saddens me to hear that.

.

[David Zephyr]

117. Yeah. It was a gratuitous comment that he will later regret.

Oh well, the Clintons suckered him into not running and to join up with them.

I guess he feels he has nothing to lose anymore, but he does: his self-respect.

[jillan]

101. Let me get this straight - Obamans are now against Clark and Joe Wilson??????

Hello? Who were two of the first people to speak truth to power about this war?

Next thing you know, they'll be against Jack.

[MoonRiver]

103. There are so many "newbies" on here I don't know what to think.

Sadly, a some very long timers have jumped the shark for Obama.
But a lot of the people plastering this board with Hillary hate are just right wing trolls trying to insert the easier to defeat BO into our winner's circle.

[lewis_in_fw]

102. The OBAMA BUS Passenger Manifest for the hit-and-run on Wes Clark

HawkeyeX starts cursing/swearing:
" Fuck you, Wesley Clark."

thunderrising backs up Hawkeye:
"2nd-ed! Clark was worm then and a worm till he dies."

LibertyOrDeath also can't control his new-found hatred for Clark:
"I'll second that Fuck you, Wesley Clark"

surfin questions the intelligence of Wesley:
"Boy this guy is not smart."

wienerdoggie shows a little resentment:
"he's given up military credibility for political cheap shots. Fuck him."

JVS keeps it short and sweet:
"EAT SHIT WES"

BlueDogDemocratNH works the toilet humor:
"Ole Wes just flushed his vice presidential prospects down the crapper."

Lena InRI goes particularly off the deep-end with her long rant:
"Well, ya fooled me once, SHAME ON ME, but hell if you're going to fool me again, General. . .SHAME ON YOU AND THE CLINTONS!"

Mystery2Me invokes crude sexist language and keeps it short and sweet:
"Clark is a Hillary 'ho"

IndianaGreen equates Wes Clark to a Jeff Gululi thug with a touch of fast-food corporatism?:
"Wes Clark has been reduced to playing a hatched man for McClinton"

bagimin wants clark not to diss god's chosen one:
"stop dissing the impending nominee."

Bergond2 says unequivocably that Clark's work in politics is over:
"He has sure shot himself in the foot. Any chance he had at a political career is over now."

DiverDave likes to call it like he sees it:
"Clark....another god damned repuke warmonger"

Babylonsister equates Clark to a rethug:
"Hard to believe he considers himself a Dem. Sounds like Rush."

[robbedvoter]

108. Good summary - I wouldn't believe it - if I didn't see it - dogma rules!

[bigtree]

112. ha

:thumbsup:

[annie1]

114. lmao.

[Neshanic]

175. That's good.

[annie1]

105. accused him in what way? i don't see a quote with the accusation.

[bigtree]

111. that's a good point. The 'down the path' comment falls well short of the accusation in the Op

or, even, the assertion in the article.

[Bullet1987]

106. Yea...but Wes Clark is going to be Obama's VP

:sarcasm:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

107. Clarkain.

McClark? :shrug:

[babylonsister]

109. Hard to believe he considers himself a Dem. Sounds like Rush.

Or Clinton.

[LizW]

115. Words I never thought I'd see at DU on the same day:

"Fuck Wesley Clark."

"Fuck Howard Dean."

GDP has officially gone around the bend.

It's not shocking or upsetting anymore. It's just pathetic.

[Laelth]

154. It's still upsetting to me.

I still have some hope that the party can be saved, but that hope is fading rapidly.

:(

-Laelth

[ProgressIn2008]

155. My fave is the "Eat shit Wes" post above. Sometimes, the unity leaves me a wee mite woozy.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4959434&mesg_id=4960567

[Phillycat]

176. LOL

Yes, all this unity is making my head hurt a little...

[Seeker30]

118. Gotta love the Odramas

They are in a class of their own.

[Sparkly]

124. Wow.

I'd like to see The General's full quote.

[AtomicKitten]

130. Jamie Rubin quoted HRC's foreign policy experience as being the 1995 Women's Conference in China.

Oh, plus she has traveled to 80 countries.

So, there's that.

[GoldieAZ49]

137. An Obama foreign policy advisor said that neither Democrat

was prepared to take that call (see video), a comment that John McCain was quite happy to endorse.

Regarding the 3am national security call - hopefully it was Power that resigned today.


At the bottom of the link:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/42_want_mccain_to_answer_3_00_a_m_phone_call

[AtomicKitten]

139. Proof positive that that was one dumbass ad Hillary ran.

Only a full-on moran would run an ad that goes after the Achilles heel of the Democratic Party. That's the problem with hubris. In an effort to put the smackdown on Barack, it exposed her as being too stupid to be president.

[Crunchy Frog]

134. I have to put some people on Ignore.

And the sad thing is, that they're supporting the same candidate that I'm supporting.

I'm disappointed in Wes on this too, but I'm not going to change my overall opinion about him, and I'm not going to put up with seeing a bunch of assholes trashing him.

[Dinger]

152. Thank You Crunchy : )

I miss the "old days."

[Laelth]

153. Still throwing Obama under the bus.

The Big Dog is calling in all his favors, evidently. The end result may be the destruction of the Democratic Party.

Can they not see what they are doing?

:(

-Laelth

[fujiyama]

156. Clark has always been a Clinton loyalist - and in this election season - a hack

I admire Clark'slong career of military service, but it's clear he was not cut out for electoral politics...and also why he never really caught on in '04 either. He's not a terribly great campaigner or exciting speaker either. And he had a muddled view of whether or not he would have supported the IWR...

Obama has actually reiterated much of what Clark has said over the years with regards to foreign policy. His views are not drastically different from Clark's, but Clark is too blinded by his loyalty to the Clintons to see that. He's just blindly following Clinton talking points. Pathetic.

[Maribelle]

157. Obama's policy team has truly made disturbing comments in two ways.

Firstly, their comments are in direct opposition of what Obama preaches to his vast congregation. This needs to be corrected as soon as possibly by Obama.

Secondly, perhaps even more importantly, Obama manifested an extremely poor judgment in the selection these policy wonks of his to begin with, clearly indicating he is not ready to select a cabinet that will advise the leader of the world.

[lewis_in_fw]

167. His advisers have made conflicting foreign policy statements to what he's said *NT*

[OzarkDem]

158. Clark is telling the truth and he's one who knows

For cryin' out loud, the entire world is on the brink of WWIII. Its ludicrous to think we should elect someone who has zero foreign policy experience or skills.

Clinton has many of our nation's top military leaders who support her, I defer to their judgement.

[BootinUp]

161. Its time people look beyond the Obama lofty rhetoric

at what his real qualifications and experience are. Thank you Wes.

[mmonk]

163. Why did he work for an inexperienced president?

[Vinca]

165. Well . . . duh . . . Wesley Clark is a Clinton supporter.

Guess I won't be promoting him for Veep under Obama anymore. Time for Barack to drag the military people onto the stage for a photo-op.

[Hav]

166. .

I know this is an election and it's about perception and about framing the debate so that it suits you best.
But with all this talk about him being just not ready, that he can't be Commander in Chief, insinuating that it would not be safe for the country and so on, I have worries that these kind of remarks from fellow democrats against a possible candidate for the genereal election may come back to bite us in the ass big time. I can already see the Repub talking points hammering it home again and again that even the Democrats agreed that Obama is unfit to be President. How will they explain their reasoning and their support for the candidate of their own party if Obama wins the Primaries?
Of course, they are free to voice their opinions but at this points it's only about throwing out talking points and I fear that if we continue this way, we will see yet another nightmare in November.

[BootinUp]

168. He shouldn't have run with so little gravitas in the first place.

By your logic we should walk to the slaughter without saying anything.

[tnlefty]

187. Thank you.

Be prepared as making this calm observation can get you jumped on, too.

Damaging statements like these while McCain is getting a pass...:crazy:

[joeybee12]

169. Gee, so much for the Obama/Clark posts I'd been seeing around here.

Yup, blame someone else for Power's candidness that shows BO is stringing you all along.

[Neshanic]

170. Another "non-worthy" of the acien regime branded by the Obamists

Go sit in the corner with Joe Wison, you....you...old military person.

[Bucky]

171. As a Clark Democrat, I am quite miffed at this. I suppose this kills the "Clark for VP" talk

Dog in the manger syndrome. I wish the general would aim his missiles outward.

[Avalux]

172. I guess I need to rethink me admiration of Clark.

While he knows his stuff, he's allowed his support of Clinton to could his judgement. This makes me angry.

[Bucky]

174. I won't rethink my admiration. I still wish we were voting for his reelection this year

But yes, his judgment is pretty clouded. Right now he's not all that important in the scheme of things. But I'm still hoping that he has the integrity to walk back that misstatement.

[Mz Pip]

178. I'm very disappointed

in Wes. I was a big supporter in 2004. I found these remarks offensive. There is no guarrantee that Clinton will be the nominee. Clark is just poisoning the well with remarks like these. I want a Democrat in the White House come 2009. These kind of attacks on a potential and probable nominee by someone from our own party is disgusting.

And I don't believe for a minute that Clinton will pick Wes for VP.

[rodeodance]

173. "That means knowing where you're headed before you start down the path," Clark said.

[Hepburn]

177. Nor is Hillary....

...so what EXACTLY was Wes's point??? That neither of the two Dems are qualified?

Oh great....another sound bite for McCain....:puke:

[krkaufman]

179. It's unfortunate that Wes has to contradict his 2004 positions ...

... in support of his preferred candidate. Wes was against the war from the beginning and promoted *his* statements of this position as proof of better judgment and a greater distinction from the certain Republican nominee.

Rather than looking for the candidate most likely to build a working majority of Americans, be they Democrats, independents or Republicans, he's putting his rhetoric behind a divisive candidate who's coalition of support is dwindling to a minority of even Democratic voters.

Most disappointing, Wes.

[BootinUp]

188. Your memory sucks

Clark said:

The IWR should not be used as a litmus test.

Clark defended Kerry and other Dems against such attacks from Dean.

[krkaufman]

191. Really? Then I guess my reading comprehension sucks, too...

... 'cause the following 2004 CNN report on the election, quoting candidate Clark, would seem to reinforce my recollection...

Candidate Wesley Clark, Feb. 4, 2004:


"I don't understand how John Kerry and John Edwards can criticize the war in Iraq, when they voted to give George W. Bush a blank check to go to war." (link)

Apology accepted, in advance, in regards to both the tone & content of your response).

Cheers!

p.s. Please note, separately, that the post to which you originally responded did not suggest that Wes had used his anti-Iraq war position as a point of contrast with other Democrats, as you suggest. My original statement left that fact aside, as I didn't feel it germaine, and instead focused on Wes' emphasis of this point as a difference with the "certain Republican nominee," Bush. Quoting...

"Wes ... promoted *his* statements of this position as proof of better judgment and a greater distinction from the certain Republican nominee."

[BootinUp]

192. I think he sharpened his criticism at the end

of his primary run, I don't recall him using that kind of rhetoric through the majority of his campaign. But the quote I provided above is factual and does apply to this discussion despite your attempt to parse it in some strange way.

[krkaufman]

194. oh, dear.

*I'm* parsing?!? I provided an *ACTUAL* quote, with reference link, fully-refuting your statement, and you're trying to claim your post was still accurate? (putting aside the fact that you were criticizing a point that I didn't even make! Ok, now it's not so aside.)

Come on, now, Parson Parsley McParserstein! Who's doing the parsing?

:rofl:

[BootinUp]

201. laugh it up while you read coverage of a debate in '03.

"This party's making a great mistake by trying to make a litmus test on who would have or did or didn't vote for that resolution last October."

http://www.slate.com/id/2091590/

[krkaufman]

212. You're right. I'm friggin' HOWLING at your referencing that particular link...

... as it characterizes Clark's statement as the "closet thing yet to a confession of his equivocation" on the issue. The article is stating that the quote does not mesh with his prior rhetoric on the issue -- as it also conflicts with his future rhetoric. Apparently, it was convenient for him to side w/ IWR supporters during this debate, when he was doing the Clintons' bidding and fighting against Dean, but otherwise criticized those who supported the Iraq vote.

I will confirm that Clark did, indeed, utter the "litmus test" quote in that debate; however, it carries little weight given that his stance against the war became a major plank of his platform as the election progressed. At best, then, one has to say that Clark is just another politician who will say whatever is politically convenient at the time his lips are moving. On that, I can agree with you.

[BootinUp]

216. Howl away, it only shows how little you understand

about Clarks position. Clark was always willing to admit the difficulty of the IWR vote for Senators. It was with the Republicans who favored invasion that he had the real issue.

[krkaufman]

217. Well, glad to see that Wes supports different standards for the two parties.

I'm also glad to see that we've come to agreement, noting that your final sentence pretty much concurs with my original statement: Clark promoted his Iraq position as a positive in comparison to the Republican nominee. (i.e. Bush)

As a final comment, please note that your original criticism of my post said that my "memory sucks" -- both rude and proven false. Yet you have still failed to acknowledge your error, or apologize for your tone.

p.s. Now that we're done, FYI... I supported Clark in '04, fully, and understand -- as I've demonstrated -- what his positions were. As another example, Clark also presaged Obama's calls, this cycle, for Democrats to reach beyond our traditional constituencies, communicating the need to go after independents and Republicans, even if they've voted for Reagan and Nixon. This cycle, Clark's preferred candidate has derided such talk of unity.

[BootinUp]

219. This is another case of someone who can't tell the

difference between the IWR vote and an actual invasion that neither Kerry nor Clinton ever called for. Good luck figuring it out someday. There has been no change in Clarks position of anti invasion, he has discussed the IWR vote and its complexity however and that it should not be used as a litmus test for Democrats which you seem to expect him to do in Hillary's case.

[krkaufman]

220. "the difference between IWR vote and an actual invasion Clinton (never) called for"

Channeling Condoleeza Rice, the name of the resolution was...

The AUMF: Authorization for Use of Military Force

Clinton: Yea

And she supported the authorization -- "a blank check to go to war", as Wes Clark has referred to it -- without doing the basic due diligence of reading the full, 92-page Iraq NIE beforehand, as her fellow Sen. Bob Graham implored her to do.

[BootinUp]

221. Yep, I was right, lol. Try reading her floor speech at the time of the vote in its entirety.

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=233783&&

Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

As Delivered

Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.

I am honored to represent nearly 19 million New Yorkers, a thoughtful democracy of voices and opinions who make themselves heard on the great issues of our day especially this one. Many have contacted my office about this resolution, both in support of and in opposition to it, and I am grateful to all who have expressed an opinion.

I also greatly respect the differing opinions within this body. The debate they engender will aid our search for a wise, effective policy. Therefore, on no account should dissent be discouraged or disparaged. It is central to our freedom and to our progress, for on more than one occasion, history has proven our great dissenters to be right.

Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980's, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.

In 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied Kuwait, losing the support of the United States. The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab states, and threw Saddam out after forty-three days of bombing and a hundred hours of ground operations. The U.S.-led coalition then withdrew, leaving the Kurds and the Shiites, who had risen against Saddam Hussein at our urging, to Saddam's revenge.

As a condition for ending the conflict, the United Nations imposed a number of requirements on Iraq, among them disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction, stocks used to make such weapons, and laboratories necessary to do the work. Saddam Hussein agreed, and an inspection system was set up to ensure compliance. And though he repeatedly lied, delayed, and obstructed the inspections work, the inspectors found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities.

In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the UN, unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits on inspections of designated "sovereign sites" including the so-called presidential palaces, which in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets.

In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?

Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.

However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.

Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it. This too has great appeal for different reasons. The UN deserves our support. Whenever possible we should work through it and strengthen it, for it enables the world to share the risks and burdens of global security and when it acts, it confers a legitimacy that increases the likelihood of long-term success. The UN can help lead the world into a new era of global cooperation and the United States should support that goal.

But there are problems with this approach as well. The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto, on occasion, for reasons of narrow-minded interests, it cannot act. In Kosovo, the Russians did not approve NATO military action because of political, ethnic, and religious ties to the Serbs. The United States therefore could not obtain a Security Council resolution in favor of the action necessary to stop the dislocation and ethnic cleansing of more than a million Kosovar Albanians. However, most of the world was with us because there was a genuine emergency with thousands dead and a million driven from their homes. As soon as the American-led conflict was over, Russia joined the peacekeeping effort that is still underway.

In the case of Iraq, recent comments indicate that one or two Security Council members might never approve force against Saddam Hussein until he has actually used chemical, biological, or God forbid, nuclear weapons.

So, Mr. President, the question is how do we do our best to both defuse the real threat that Saddam Hussein poses to his people, to the region, including Israel, to the United States, to the world, and at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations?

While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.

If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.

If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.

If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply, but forcefully, calls for Saddam's compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even that will be in an indefensible position. And, we will still have more support and legitimacy than if we insist now on a resolution that includes authorizing military action and other requirements giving some nations superficially legitimate reasons to oppose any Security Council action. They will say we never wanted a resolution at all and that we only support the United Nations when it does exactly what we want.

I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial. After shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable. While the military outcome is not in doubt, should we put troops on the ground, there is still the matter of Saddam Hussein's biological and chemical weapons. Today he has maximum incentive not to use them or give them away. If he did either, the world would demand his immediate removal. Once the battle is joined, however, with the outcome certain, he will have maximum incentive to use weapons of mass destruction and to give what he can't use to terrorists who can torment us with them long after he is gone. We cannot be paralyzed by this possibility, but we would be foolish to ignore it. And according to recent reports, the CIA agrees with this analysis. A world united in sharing the risk at least would make this occurrence less likely and more bearable and would be far more likely to share with us the considerable burden of rebuilding a secure and peaceful post-Saddam Iraq.

President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.

This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.

And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them.

My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.

Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections.

And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am.

So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.

Thank you, Mr. President.

[krkaufman]

222. ugh. The speeches don't matter...

... because they're just for political cover.

Look at her vote, as that overrides whatever she said. And look at Wes Clark's accurate characterization of the vote as "a blank check to go to war." Every sane person knew Bush would use the authorization to go to war.

[BootinUp]

223. I think you fail miserably to assess the realities

of the IWR vote in terms of whether a no vote would really have stopped Bush from war, how it would have damaged the parties strength because it would have been hugely unpopular to vote it down. In fact I could easily make a case that a no vote by all the Dems would have made it just as easy for Bush to invade in Mar '03.

[krkaufman]

224. Ok. I can't help what you think.

But I'm pretty comfortable that "no" was the correct vote. And I'm especially comfortable with the view that those supporting the resolution who failed to read the Iraq NIE failed the country miserably.

As reality stands, the appeasing Democrats gave Bush sufficient cover to invade. They took what they thought was, as you say, the popular thing to do, rather than what was right -- politics be damned.

[DrFunkenstein]

180. This is Exactly What Clinton Has Said Several Times (They Are Just Sinking Lower)

Sen. Clinton has said over and over that she will meet with the top military staff to develop an operational plan when she goes into office. This is a cheap shot and really lowers my estimation of Supreme Commander Clark.

[book_worm]

181. well that efffectively eliminates Clark as VP or even SOD

[1776Forever]

189. We need Sen. Webb to stand up & Say Why Obama would make a great Commander in Chief!

Dylan Loewe agrees with me in the Huffington Post Piece that Senator Webb would be a dream VP for Obama:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dylan-loewe/why-jim-webb-should-be-ob_b_86803.html

(snip)

There is one man, however, who fits the mold so utterly perfectly that his presence on the ticket, his presence in the universe for that matter, is the stuff of fiction, a choice that makes one wonder if any of this is real. But, in the unlikely story of Barack Obama, one should no longer be surprised.

Senator Jim Webb was elected to the U.S. Senate in a bitter battle against George Allen, a man who at the time was viewed as a likely presidential contender, and who will, instead, long be remembered as the creator of the "Macaca moment." Prior to the Senate, Webb served as Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan and before that, he was a decorated Vietnam Veteran. His rise in the Senate was remarkable in its speed and depth, and would likely be the subject of closer attention had his fellow Senator, Barack Obama, not coined the meteoric rise only two years before. On his first day in office, he introduced the 21st century version of the GI Bill, designed to provide identical benefits to post 9/11 veterans as those of World War II. He has offered amendments requiring that soldiers be given the same time at home as length of deployment, and most recently, he has threatened legal action against the Bush administration for reneging on its promise to redeploy 30,000 troops out of Iraq. He serves on the Foreign Relations Committee, the Armed Services Committee, and the Committee on Veterans Affairs. In short, his military credentials are substantial and his position on Iraq, unimpeachable.

..............

I am going to email Sen. Webb and beg him to speak up and I hope and pray he will be Obama's VP choice!!!

A great American - Senator Jim Webb!!!

[Divine Discontent]

198. Webb would be great

I still prefer Edwards, but Webb will be a great VP if chosen.

I think Clark really was 'asked' to speak these things at this crucial time for her campaign's last hurrah attempt at getting close enough to leave this to the superdelegates (as if that's right!), and he has made himself a very unliked man with most Democrats after doing Hillary's bidding.

And Wes Clark was my pick in 2004, I'm very upset he feels this way, because a president can get good people around him to advise if he wishes. Shrub had some, and he IGNORED them. Obama wouldn't do that.

[1776Forever]

213. Check the following link out - I started a post on this & HRC supporters are attacking me on it!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=108&topic_id=127120&mesg_id=127120

I am so tired of HRC people trying to sabatoge Obama supporters on purpose! If you can't be civil why reply! Start you own thread I say!!

Thanks!!!!!

:pals:

[libbygurl]

190. K! nt

[moondust]

195. Clark's comment is disturbing.

Someone with his experience should understand better than anybody that times and circumstances CHANGE. Adaptability is most important. Some kind of static, pre-planned defense policy is likely to be dangerous in a rapidly changing world.

Suppose Bush had a static plan ready to go when he took office in January 2001. For one thing it did not protect the country. For another thing it went straight into the dumpster on September 12.

So much for pre-planning everything.

Of course Clark owes almost everything to the Clintons. How much of the truth is he willing to compromise for them?

Rubin is a clown.

[OzarkDem]

196. kick

[brentspeak]

199. You're kicking a rumor thread on a "story" that's already been debunked?

What the heck is the matter with you?

[nonconformist]

202. Debunked?

Audio of interview
http://i.timeinc.net/time/2008/thepage/McCainAudioEdited.mp3

Partial trascript

Some transcript if you haven't listened to it yet. See downthread... or up...
_______________________________________________

WES(on the Samantha Power Iraq quote):
I found the comments quite disturbing - because to get out of Iraq is gonna be very difficult, and if you don't go into it with some fixed ideas in mind --and I think Senator Clinton's plan has it exactly right, You've got to do it with a responsible withdrawal- You've got to know when you're gonna begin, and you've gotta work it through -- if you simply show up and say "OK now what's this all about?" You're gonna own the war. (bad cell reception here)

Iraq ---there will be concerns of chaos and pandemonium, there'll be concerns about renewed civil war, neighbors in the region will be concerned--- It's gonna take a REAL STRENGTH OF CHARACTER to execute a pullback from Iraq and to preserve America's interests in the region at the same time. And that means KNOWING where you're headed before you start down the path. So, I think what you've got from senator Clinton is a real plan that indicates the strength of character necessary to lead the nation and be a Commander in Chief of the armed forces.

I'm quite concerned about what we've heard from the Obama camp today, because I'm not sure exactly where it leaves us, but I'm quite concerned that it will leave us... still at war.

Thank you General Clark - Next Jamie Rubin

JAMIE:
Yes, I think General Clark has spoken to the substantive importance of this and the words frankly speak to it directly and don't need much interpretation.

I think the point here is that on Monday this week Samantha Powers, described as probably the most influential of his advisers, with unlimitied access to the candidate, and given a very unique description as a unique Svengali guru-- wahtever you want to call it.... and frankly I feel very sorry for her. I know he... she's done great research on the subject of genocide... She's a very scholarly and intense person.

The problem here is at the TOP -- Senator Obama has created in his Foreign Policy team, an unworkable structure-- to have someone like this operating out on the side with unlimited access, and talking openly. And that's his fault- not her fault. She's a professor, she's a very enthusiastic person. I think her remarks were... awful about Senator clinton and about this, but I feel sorry for her that she's been put in a position where he can't seem to run a foreign policy team the way it's supposed to run.

Now Senator Obama has said in several of the debates that the way he's running his campaign is a good indicator of his ability to manage the incredibly challenging job of President. He said that in at least one debate. And on foreigh affairs, in particular....words matter. And frankly much of foreign affairs is making sure that the rest of the world understands what you say, what you mean, and that you mean what you say.

And to have two in a row...to have a private difference of view expressed on NAFTA by a top economic advisor, and then the next week to have- on the fundamental issue of this campaign - again the impression that one thing is said for political purposes perhaps, and another thing is what's actually gonna happen... um, is amateur hour on making foreign policy. I'm sorry to say that but that's what I think it is, having been involved a litte bit in the organization required and the discipline required to communicate in this area. The reason words matter in this case is because in many respects this election is going to be a referendum on Iraq.

WES REPLIES TO DAVID CORN of MOTHER JONES (a semi-hostile question like 'Aren't you all making much ado about nothing?')

WES:
--And Jamie, if I could just follow up on what you're saying ... The environment in which this is going to become operative -- were the Democrats to win, and were the Obama team to go in there -- Consider this: Both the General in charge, Dave Petraeus, and the Ambassador Brian Crocker, are scheduled to leave... So the strong leadership, the experienced hands on the ground... won't be there.

So the new team comes in-- there'll be all manner of predictions of catastrophe and calamity. That's the way these things are when you're trying to pull forces back. And if you don't have some strong principals to guide you - you'll end up owning the problem.

And what concerns me about the statement that Samantha made- and I know Samantha very well, she's a fine person-- But if this represents the position of the candidate....it suggests that what's going to happen is that there isn't strong guidance at the outset.. That, "Folks we're leaving. Now, let's get it going and then we'll talk about the details."

And we've got to have the strength of character to commence withdrawal and pull out of there. This is about strong leadership. Strong leadership is about operating from principals that can be looked at, and examined, and worked over, and defended. And that didn't come through. Maybe they're there, but we didn't see that. What we saw was basically, you know... everything's up for grabs.

ANDREA MITCHELL chimes in and tells them that they are not being FAIR to Obama -- and asks if they think this is a "fair attack"? (cough)... Then she tops it off with another question about Clinton having talked to Canada about NAFTA saying it's the same as Goolsbee did on behalf of Obama. She asks them again. They deny it again. She expresses doubt ... geez Andrea. Give it a rest...

WES (on Iraq pull out again)
I don't think you can say - as some of the Democratic candidates tried to say - long in advance of the circumstances -- Well this is it, they're all going to be gone, everything's going to be out of there, the last American soldier will have left - You can't say that. Because to say that is to say something that is probably not going to be _____ (done? inaudible word, cell going out)

I always thought, as an average American voter, that what people said in campaigns is what they intended to do.

And so I was very concerned when I heard candidates promising a hard end date... like... 16 months. That's it. They're outta there. I'm thinking, how can they possibly mean that? What does that say about their judgment? I think what you have to have is a hard beginning date. And that's what Hillary has. You have to have----

(and then, Wes's phone goes out-- and then he comes back!)

I'm on a highway in Oklahoma. It didn't come through, sorry.
What I was attempting to convey was the importance of a realistic position as a campaign pledge-- and what Hillary has is a realistic position. What we've heard from the others.... is not.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/14953#comment-289377

[brentspeak]

203. Thanks for proving my point, genius

Very sporting of you.

As the transcript shows, Clark never said that Obama was 'unprepared' or incapable of being Commander in Chief, which is what your thread-header (and RawStory) blares out.

[nonconformist]

205. I got the header from the RawStory article, however...

Listen to the audio, there's lots more there. It's very clear that's his point.

[brentspeak]

208. Yeah, I know you got it from the RawStory article, Charlie

And I also know from the audio that Clark didn't make any "point" concerning Obama's fitness or non-fitness to be CIC.

[nonconformist]

210. Then you didn't listen very carefully. nt

[Sparkly]

204. Where's the info on what Power said, and has the Obama campaign responded or commented? nt

[nonconformist]

209. Here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yzy3lObigF0

I haven't heard a response from the Obama camp yet.

[Sparkly]

211. I expect they'll walk that one back...

Depends on what she means by "plan," I suppose. Clinton, too, has said the details of her plan would be worked out by the Joint Chiefs, national security advisor, and SOD, if I'm not mistaken. So it could just be that Power was speaking too cautiously.

[nonconformist]

215. I think the real sticker is that Powers said that the promises Obama

makes on the campaign trail are just the "best case scenario" and that "we've never seen a best case scenario". It's a contradiction to what Obama has said, so it makes him seem disingenuous. It's especially ironic since Obama has criticized Hillary for not having a "clear" and "firm" withdrawal deadline.

[VotesForWomen]

206. of course he's right. nt

[ElsewheresDaughter]

218. Wesley Clark has the knowledge to judge such things.....you Obamabots don't

[krkaufman]

226. Ok, let's go with that premise.

... and listen to what Wes Clark has to say...

"I don't understand how (candidates) can criticize the war in Iraq, when they voted to give George W. Bush a blank check to go to war." (link)

So Wes viewed the AUMF/Iraq vote as giving Bush "a blank check to go to war." His criticism of Obama rings hollow, given Clark now supports a candidate foolish enough to give Bush a blank check on starting war with Iraq.

[CyberPieHole]

228. Kickety kick...n/t

[AtomicKitten]

230. Wes Clark: Not Gonna Be Obama's VP.

strike that off the list

[StevieM]

231. Obama: not gonna be President

strike that off the list.

Too many Democrats will vote for McCain before they vote for Obama after the reprehensible manner in which he has conducted himself in this primary.

Steve

[AtomicKitten]

232. What part of he's winning don't you understand?