You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #28: You left out the "within the next six months" part in your subject header. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-29-06 01:23 PM
Response to Original message
28. You left out the "within the next six months" part in your subject header.
Edited on Wed Nov-29-06 01:38 PM by Tom Rinaldo
That really really really effects the entire texture of his remarks. Elsewhere on this thread Bush is quoted saying that U.S. forces will not be pulled out of Iraq "until Iraq is stabalized" and that is not what Clark said here at all. If people actually read Clark's full plan as described in an Op-Ed that he wrote in USA Today (available to read at www.securingamerica.com ) for one thing Clark says that the United States needs to absoulely swear off of any intention to maintain any permanent bases inside Iraq, he says that the United States should clearly act with the understanding that the Iraqi people are the sole deciders of who gets Iraq's Oil revenues and how they are divided up and used. In other words Clark is saying that the United States has to be absolutely clear that we renounce any imperial ambitions inside of Iraq. I could just as easily take Clark's full statement and attempt to summarize it as: Clark says that U.S. must not stay in Iraq". This is not George Bush's "stay the course" policy.

What this says is that Clark right now doesn't advocate drawing down American troops during the next six months. People may have strong opinions about what Clark does say, but it should not be misconstrued into something he did not say. Clark did not say that the U.S. must stay in Iraq. The implications of that misleading summary phrase are far more sweeping than saying we shouldn't begin a withdrawal of troops during the next six months, while we among other things use those six months to conduct regional diplomacy that would include providing reasonable security guarentees for all of Iraq's neighbors. Not exclusively, but first and foremost that phrase should be read to emphasize two nations that the Bush regime has continually threatened to attack and/or overthrow in the past; Iran and Syria.

What Clark literally seems to have said is that this is not the right moment to fiddle with troop strength, to decrease OR increase it. It is the right moment to launch a major regional diplomatic effort. That is not the same as saying that the United States MUST STAY in Iraq, though obviously it would mean having the United States stay in Iraq for more than six months.

edited to add a few comments to the first paragragh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC