Clark Comments on Rumsfeld Admission (re: Rumsfeld's MTP Appearance)

[DoveTurnedHawk]

Clark Comments on Rumsfeld Admission that the Bush Administration Has No Answers to the Growing Crisis in Iraq

General Wesley Clark made the following statement to address Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's appearance on NBC's Meet the Press:

"Today, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld made clear that the Administration has no answers to the increasingly violent situation in Iraq. More than six months after the 'end of major hostilities', when the President boasted that the American mission was 'accomplished', they still have no plan to stabilize Iraq, return control to the Iraqi people, and protect our troops. After months of saying his capture was imminent, Rumsfeld also acknowledged that Saddam Hussein was probably still alive and at large.

"The failure of the Administration to present an adequate success strategy is an example of the leadership gap that has emerged at a time when the country needs direction most. We need a president who leads, a president who takes responsibility. We need a plan."

http://clark04.com/press/release/058/

[efhmc]

1. Good info. thanks.

[tabasco]

2. Clark has been hitting them hard!

And it is music to my ears.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. Both dean and Clark have been

and you are right it is musing to all our ears

[Malva Zebrina]

4. Clark has been right on the ball

almost immediately--reminds me of Carville in Clinton's war room. I am grateful he is there saying it with such aplomb--it does remove a little of the frustration I feel with the Democrats in congress who cannot seem to find a voice to criticize these Bushevik crimes.

[VolcanoJen]

5. Clark is ALL OVER IT

One can only imagine how he contains his rage, as a soldier, in the face of this immoral action, and its tragic aftermath, in Iraq.

He's doing an admirable, eloquent job. Thank you, General Clark.

[caledesi]

6. You go Wes. Hit 'em hard.

[imhotep]

7. What is Clark's plan?

I have never heard him do anything but state the (obvious)problem.
No solutions from him about anything.
Anyone think Clark as President would pull us out of Iraq? Hell no.

[Old and In the Way]

8. Not true.

Clark was on the NewsHour Thursday and gave a very detailed and specific plan with how we should extricate ourselves from this mess. Basically, he knows that only the UN has the authority and credibility to transition Iraq to a post-Saddam country. I totally agree and think he has the experience, vision, and intelligence to fix what these corporate war-profiteers have broken. He also noted that Halliburton's role should not be nation building on a no-bid contract, but to provide logistics for the military.

BTW, I'm a Kerry supporter.

[roguevalley]

9. Hell yes he can.

He has said he would go to the europeans with a very senior
person and get the UN involved. That would mean we could pull
back and then out with others helping share the burden like
it should have been all along. He has ideas and plans. He just
needs to be President to make it happen. Is there anyone in the
world who doesn't believe that the Euros will work with ANYONE
but Bush?

[librechik]

10. Clark's plan: turn over rule to the Iraqi people ASAP

DOn't wait for them to have a constitution (like the BushCo excuse goes--that could take decades! Cede control of everything to an agreed-upon international body (some UN assistance) even before that. Downgrade our role to one of several benevolent powers who are helping Iraq become a democracy. Look to Bosnia for a role model (no more US troops there as of December last year; it took 3 years for the transition to an international ruling body.

Bushmonkey won't let go his grasp on the oil inside the coconut--He's too greedy!

The monkey must let go.


You seem to be uninformed about Clark. Try listening to him.
Clark has a good conversation with Margaret Warner on the NewsHour. Watch it here:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec03/clark_10-30.html

BTW, I haven't chosen my candidate yet. Until the convention, I want to hear what they all have to say.

[Chomskyite]

11. I love both those guys

And they're both getting some money from me. I suggest you all stop your squabbling and think of doing the same.

[VolcanoJen]

13. If the economy were better...

... I'd give far more to Kerry and Clark than I already have.

I love these guys, too. They deserve our support just for being vocal and protesting in a way that garners media attention. They're amazing, and I'm beaming with pride that they have the guts, especially as veterans, to show their utter disgust in a dignified, statesman-like manner.

[LittleApple81]

12. Iraq is AMERICA'S problem.... Article in the Nov 10 Newsweek edition

Iraqification—A Losing Strategy
by Fareed Zakaria

If the U.S. footprint is reduced, guerrillas will not stop fighting. They will probably step up their attacks on the Iraqi Army and politicians
snip....

When we speak of sending “Iraqis” on raids into the Sunni Triangle, who would these soldiers be? Sunnis? They might not want to hunt down Baathists, or might easily be bought off. Shiites and Kurds? That would galvanize the Sunni populations in support of the guerrillas. If the goal is to stabilize Iraq, fomenting intragroup violence might not be the best path.

If the American footprint is reduced, it will not make the guerrillas stop fighting. (“Hey, Saddam, we’ve scared the Americans back into their compounds. Let’s ease up now and give them a break.”) On the contrary, the rebels will step up their attacks on the Iraqi Army and local politicians, whom they already accuse of being collaborators. Iraqification could easily produce more chaos, not less.

The idea of a quick transfer of political power is even more dangerous. The Iraqi state has gone from decades of Stalinism to total collapse. And there is no popular national political party or movement to hand power to. A quick transfer of authority to a weak central government will only encourage the Shiites, the Sunnis and the Kurds to retain de facto autonomy in their regions and fragment the country.
For the neoconservatives in the Pentagon, a quick transfer fulfills a pet obsession, installing into power the Iraqi exiles led by Ahmad Chalabi. Last week The Philadelphia Inquirer quoted a senior administration official as saying, “There are some civilians at the Pentagon who’ve decided that we should turn this over to someone else and get out as fast as possible.” But every indication we have is that the exiles do not have broad popular support.

There are no shortcuts out. Iraq is America’s problem. It could have been otherwise, but in the weeks after the war the administration, drunk with victory, refused to share power with the world. Now there can be only one goal—success. The first task of winning the peace in Iraq is winning the war—which is still being waged in the Sunni heartland. And winning it might take more troops, or different kinds of troops (send back the Marines). It might take a mixture of military force and bribes—to win over some Sunni leaders. But whatever it takes, the United States must do it. Talk about a drawdown of troops sends exactly the wrong message to the guerrillas. In the words of one North Vietnamese general, “We knew that if we waited, one day the Americans would have to go home.”

more...

http://msnbc.com/news/988000.asp?0cb=-313190131

[Voltaire99]

15. Zakaria is full of it

He's an establishment shill. This is merely the administration's position, offered up with tepid criticism.

For a more realistic point of view, compare Robert Fisk's and Patrick Cockburn's reports in The Independent as well as Tariq Ali's commentary via Znet.

[LittleApple81]

18. I do believe you. But the reality is that Bush took the US there for

his own benefit and now we have Iraq as a completely ruined country where religious fanaticism, baathism, ambition and arms are going to make a horrible poisonous cocktail for a population we "rescued". A population that had nothing to do with 9/11.

[Voltaire99]

14. Iraq is Clark's issue - for better or worse

The economy could rebound. Corpses in Iraq won't. Ultimately, our allies will forgive us for being led by insane neocons. But Arabs won't. Every day we remain in Iraq deepens the price we will pay in terrorism abroad and at home.

That's why the moral case for withdrawal from Iraq and swift handover to the UN and, ultimately, Iraqis is overwhelmingly compelling - and why it makes good strategic politics for 2004. Good for Clark.

I suspect that if he hammers this repeatedly and eloquently, he'll both weaken Bush and drain support from Dean.

Whether or not the latter is a good thing is debatable, and not of much interest to me. True, I doubt that Dean has what it takes; yet I'm not entirely sold on Clark, either.

As the crisis in Iraq deepens, it's time to hammer the White House with every available argument. Among the leading candidates, Iraq is Clark's issue - he alone among them is an easy sell to Wal-Mart America by virtue of his uniform. He should gradually up the pressure and expand his critique to highlight the other dimensions of this debacle (dishonesty, profiteering, long-term strategic interest in the Middle East, the need to repair our shattered alliances).

[frank frankly]

16. he is getting really quick on press releases! and they are great!

beat though media lapdogs to the spin! go General!

[goforit]

17. Circle the wagons boys!!!..............No mercy!!!

:bounce: