Reply #148: Actually I think Clark is saying this

[Tom Rinaldo]

IF the part about holding steady for 6 months is an accurate summary by the reporter of what Clark actually said, which, as was pointed out above, we really don't know since that was the Reporter making his own summary of what Clark sait in that part, not direct quotes as were featured elswhere. And we have all seen how distorted a summary of Clark's position written by someone else can be. So again, if that 6 month phrase accurately reflects Clark's thinking, then all I see that implying is:

No immediate troop withdrawal until either

1) These things (Political solution, peace agreements, mutual interests, "buying in")
are attempted or

2) It seems clear that they will not be attempted any time soon or

3) It is apparent that insufficient will exists in the region and in the U.S. to engage in the type of trust building measures needed for this type of framework to move forward.

Nowhere do I see Clark say: No troop withdrawal until these things happen, nowhere. All I saw him alleged to say say was: leave the troop levels where they are for 6 months while an effort like this gets off the ground.

In fact I am not certain that Clark would hold to that advice (assuming he gave that) if it became clear before six months that the Bush Administration would not agree to and commence this type of diplomatic process. Clark has a set of proposals, without the whole package it isn't clear whether he would stand by a 6 month freeze recommendation.

Also Clark doesn't believe in fixed timelines, remember? This is based on conditions as they exist now. If the civil war escalates to non stop full militia against militia frontal battles, if the current Iraq government totally implodes and fragments into a dozen seperate pieces that will not even talk to each other, there is nothing to say Clark wouldn't seriously revise his thinking on this.