Reply #111: This is nonsense 1932

[Tom Rinaldo]

I just did a rough count. The entire text you are trying to dissect and somehow blow up into a manifesto of Clark's personal beliefs comes to approximately 150 words. They were written in the context of examining what U.S. options relative to Iraq currently are. Those 150 words are an extremely cursorary overview of the primary U.S. national interests that essentially every member of Congress concedes currently requires a degree of American attention in the Middle East. That overview was given to provide a context for Clark making the argument that American interests are regional, they are not confined to what happens next inside Iraq, and therefor efforts to resolve the disasterous American occupation of Iraq should also take larger regional issues into consideration also, because ALL of the players, not just the U.S., including factions inside Iraq and all of Iraq's neighbors, have regional interests at stake also. Enough of hiding our head in the sand and pretending that what is going on inside Iraq is confined to a problem created by Al Qaeda.

And you are playing with words again for God knows what purpose since I never see you do this with anything said by any other Democrat about the Middle East. Granted most other Democrats rarely say anything of substance about the Middle East, maybe because if you keep your mouth shut no one can attack you for what you say. But OK, if you insist:

Clark wrote; "At the most benign level, the US is in hot competition economically to capture its share of oil exports and earnings, and to sell its share of goods and services." Clark never interpreted all U.S. activities as benign hot competition, did he? That is your spin on Clark's words. Clark said "at the most benign level..." which to me directly implies that there are less benign levels also, since you can only have a most bengn level if there also are other levels that are less benign. In so many words Clark said here that right now, as matters stand, the U.S. economy needs access to large amounts of Middle East Oil so as not to go into a depression. He didn't advocate invading nations to steal their oil. He didn't advocate bribing fledling dependent governments into giving sweetheart deals to American energy corporations. He didn't advocate policies that keep the United States dependent on Middle Eastern Oil reserves. He stated a fact. Do you disagree with that fact? Do you think the U.S. economy could withstand a cut off of oil from the Middle East without serious harm?

Overall what Clark was doing here is rattling off a check list of the Middle East issues that most Americans acknowledge that America has some type of legitimate concern regarding. Again, this is a side bar to the heart of his presentation which was about Iraq, but Clark used his testimony to repeatedly point out that decisions America makes about Iraq and our relatios to Iraq's neighbors including Iran relative to their stance regarding Iraq, should not be viewed in a vacuum. He was not laying out a defense of an ideology, and it is disingenuous of you to twist his comments now in that fashion.

So lets go back to Clark words and how you spun them, becasue I think it is damn ugly and you should know and write better than that. The post I am replying to created a straw man set of beliefs that you force onto Clark. Here is your subject line:

"What about Clark's sense of US entitlement to a share of ME'ern wealth?" That's absolute bullshit 1932. I suppose you construct that Clark has a sense of U.S. entitlement from this phrase; "to capture its share of oil exports and earnings" but you ignore the next phrase which gives a clear indication of how Clark was actually using the term "share"; which of course is "market share" which has nothing whatsoever to do with "entitlement", it is a basic measurement of trade in both directions. Clark's next phrase was; "and to sell its share of goods and services". Wake up and smell the coffee 1932, we live in a Capitalist nation. The last time I looked none of the Democratic candidates running for President were Marxists, certainly not your boy John Edwards who just earned half a million advising a Hedge Fund and attended the Bilderberg conference: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F05E3DA103BF932A25754C0A9629C8B63

Every company wants to hold onto or expand "it's share of the market", this is basic economic language, not necesarilly a theory involving some kind of divine entitlement. Clark was not speaking at an afternoon long session at some confernence devoted to the means by which major nation states pursue national objectives. He stated basic facts. The American people do not want the supply of oil that the U.S. now receives from the Middle East to be suddenly and dramatically restricted 1932, trust me on that one. I have enough faith in most American's basic sense of fair play to add that I doubt most Americans want us to steal oil either, but they do want America to acquire it as long as we need it. And there is competition for oil contracts. China, for example, is moving aggressively (which is not the same as ruthlessly) to lock up future access to strategic oil, and so is Western Europe even though they are "our friends".

As for your question about US "dependability" that helped the US "penetrate" ME markets and not the US's willingness to subvert (and invade) governments that don't play ball; may I remind you that you are supporting a candidate for President who not only voted for the IWR (and co-sponsored it) but one who actually agreed with George Bush that Iraq NEEDED TO BE INVADED, and later stood by that assessment supporting the invasion of Iraq for months ATER the American occupation of Iraq began, even AFTER it was discovered that Iraq had no WMD's. Do you perhaps have a double standard going here?

Clark's comments were in the context of reminding Congress that the U.S. had a consistent policy toward the Middle East for several decades under Presidents of both Parties. In specific, although we always guarenteed Israel's existence and maintained close ties with Israel, we also were able to be just objective enough to play a role as a peace broker between Israel and it's Arab neighbors because until George W. Bush, the U.S. periodically was willing to apply economic and military pressure (by witholding arms) to Israel when that nation acted in a manner against U.S. forein policy interests. Oil rich nation's in the Gulf beleived that their concerns in tbat regard would at least be given serious consideration and that the U.S. State Department was not tucked safely into the back pocket of Likud.

Here are the words Clark said: "Our long term dependability has been a winning factor in building enduring US influence and commercial penetration in the region". Note the phrase "winning factor". Again, Clark did not rule out other factors at play, he stressed the factor that was relevent to the reason for his testimony before Congress, whcih was an exploration of the policy choices facing America right now and how that impacts on the situation in Iraq. Under George W. Bush the American stance toward Israel has taken a hard right turn, and yes, that may well end up endangering our access to Middle Eastern Oil supplies.

Kindly point me to the comments of your preferred candidate for President where he attacks American imperialist aims inside the Middle East and the history of American intimidation that allowed American energy corporations to rape that region of it's oil. I have already read his comments advocating an American invasion of a middle Eastern nation when there still was a chance to stop it.