Reply #35: Actually, not really......there are a few similar objectives

[FrenchieCat]

to Clark's plan.....but in its goals, tone, and reasoning the DLC statement it is not the same as what Clark proposes....(I don't know about "Clinton's".)

read my post in reference to this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2126278&mesg_id=2126448

Clark doesn't consider Tony Blair as the voice of reason nor does he advise that we should listen to him.

Clark doesn't propose that we should use Saudi Arabia to PUSH Syria (he states that we should talk to all of the neighbors) into cooperating, although he does suggest that we use DIPLOMACY by giving Iraqi's neighbors have a sizable seat at the table. That's not pushing, its called reasoning and listening and dialogue. The way that the DLC letter discusses "diplomacy" is in conjuction with how "easy" it would be for the U.N. to jump in -- That is a very optimistic view of something that won't be "easy", but would require an awful lot of consessions. So even their emphasis on "diplomacy" doesn't accurately portray the task at hand.

Clark wants the American economic monopoly in Iraq to end. Give Iraqis a bigger stake in the reconstruction and involve other nations (including Arab nations)as well.

Clark urges that Bush be held accountable for the biggest Foreign policy blunder in history. When you fuck up, you must fess up but that doesn't mean that you are "off the hook".

Clark says that if Bush doesn't change the direction...like now, then we should get our asses out of there within 6 months time and that we, the people, will be justified in demanding out of Iraq.

Clark wants the US to publicly forswear permanent US bases(much stronger and the DLC statement).

Clark suggests that training of Iraqi troops to be done by us AND our NATO allies....in Iraq, in the US, and in Europe, i.e., everywhere and anywhere that is a logical and plausible location in order to speed up the process (i.e., on our German bases, etc.) in order not lose a lot of Iraqi troups in the process.

Clark understands that language is important in framing, e.g., Insurgents are not necessarily "Terrorists" ....just like Katrina evacuees were not Refugees.

Clark acknowledges that there is no victory in the horizon possible, and that the most we can hope for is the least of the losing scenarios, considering that civil war has already started.

Clark knows that we have already lost all international credibility, and unless the leadership of this endeavor is changed, there will be no restoration of this.

Clark wants a relatively quick "Exit Strategy"(six months or else fuck it!)....not a "Let's stay and work on this indefinitely Strategy".

There's more difference.....but those listed are enough, I think to differenciate Clark's views from those in that letter..