Clark: "I think Iraq's going to go away as an issue...Democrats fell right into the Republican trap"

[calteacherguy]

General Wesley Clark on the Stephanie Miller Show
November 20, 2007

<snip>

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think Iraq's going to go away as an issue, because the truth is that after hundreds of thousands of Iraqi casualties and 4,000 American dead and 800 billion dollars, the conflict has played itself out for now. The Iranians are basically controlling the, the, the, the sense of conflict there. They want a quiet spell. They're working to get their nuclear weapons in place o-or developed. And so, it's going to look like a victory, and I think the President's going to declare a victory and try to have a parade and try to take this issue off the table for 2008.

Stephanie Miller: Mmm. How, wha- I mean, how is he going to do that though? I mean how are we ge- We're not going to get out, r-right, if it's up to President?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I think, first of all, you can see a decline in the number of casualties i- by May, if it, if it stays like it is today. Keep the number of casualties down. You announce a hundred thousand-man pullback, but you implement it ten thousand troops at a time. And you have a parade in Washington, bring them down Constitution Avenue. And hey, I mean, it'll fade off. It's already faded off the front pages of most of the newspapers.

Stephanie Miller: Well, what do you, what about the latest funding, the Iraq war funding fight? What do you make of that and what you think the Democrats should do now?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think the Democrats always should've attacked the policy as being wrong strategically. Instead of arguing about troop strength, argue about the strategy and argue about the effectiveness. They should be looking at the tremendous waste and fraud and abuse-

Stephanie Miller: Mm hm.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: -that's gone on.

Stephanie Miller: Well, and General Clark, I still don't understand what the strategy is. W-what do we do now? It's like yeah, of course if you send a zillion more troops in like we've done, violence goes down temporarily, but what now? Well so, what now?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think the real issue is that we-

Stephanie Miller: I-if we're not going to change, if we're not really going to do anything different diplomatically or, they've made no political progress in Iraq, which is what this was supposed to be for, w-w-what's the strategy?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I think the truth is that they've, they've fought for four and a half years, and Iran is stronger and we're weaker. It's a pretty bad strategy, but that's the strategy that the Bush administration stuck, and they stuck it to the Democrats, who have never really spoken up against the strategy. Instead, they've argued about trying to get troops out. It's been a mistake.

Stephanie Miller: But General-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I said for, for two years-

Stephanie Miller: Mm hm.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: -we've got to talk about strategy and policy, not about troops and tactics-

Stephanie Miller: But General-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: -but they fell right into the Republican trap.

http://securingamerica.com/node/2808



I don't agree with his choice of who to endorse, but I think on this issue he's spot on.

[Gman]

1. You've got to listen to Clark

and yeah, they may do all the things Clark says, but none of it will make a difference in the amount of Bush fatigue in the country. And nothing will make a difference in how fed up people are with batshit crazy Republicans.

I think Clark may well be right on the money, but it will only keep the GOP losses in the House down to 30 and in the Senate down to maybe 5. The WH is ours regardless.

[surfermaw]

4. You go that right

today on cspan, one of the Bush officials was on taking calls, one man told him if he met him in person he would knock his block off, both democrats and republican was giving the neacon hell, he was speaking about Iraq and the war, and how it got started. I have never heard people talk to so mean on cspan like that before, that is as many and so stern

[Wesin04]

19. Don't be so sure!

It's misplaced confidence like this that will lose the election. Please do not be so certain that a Democrat will win. After all, didn't we all believe that there was no way that Bush could win after what we saw during the first 4 years? Wham. We lost and Bush has had 3 more years to wreak havoc on the world.

Clark is right. He's been right for years, but unfortunately, not enough people listened to him. Even he says now that this win is not in the bag. Fer cripes sake, listen to the man!

[Basileus Basileon]

2. Clark's on the money here, espec. re: Iran and violence levels. Fortunately, it seems the Dems are

positioning themselves for economic issues, not Iraq.

[Bolo Boffin]

3. Interesting.

If Iraq isn't crazy, the Republicans may have been "right" (finally), but Americans will focus on domestic issues again, the traditional Democratic stronghold.

And the Republicans have all been squeaking about how the Democrats need the war to be going badly. It's actually the Republicans who need problems in the foreign field.

Hmmm.

[surfermaw]

5. Not true

We have had almost 4,000 men killed and about 35,000 wounded that isn't going to be forgotten, Clark, was a republican, ran on the democrat ticket because the republicans wouldn't let him run on the republican ticket.

[Basileus Basileon]

8. You vastly overestimate the memory of Americans. If Iran decides to keep the violence levels low,

Iraq becomes a wash. The instant we leave (or announce a departure), Iraq is no longer an issue.

[cali]

18. And you may be vastly overestimating the ability of Iran

to do so in the face of a substantive American withdrawal. And I don't see Americans forgetting quite that quickly. If we leave and violence spreads, that simply highlights the disaster of the Iraq policy from start to finish. Furthermore, the repukes can't claim Iraq as a success unless there's stability and real political process. That's unlikely to occur.

[Cameron27]

10. Clark never was a Republican

he was an Independent.

[Wesin04]

21. You are sadly misinformed

Wes Clark espouses Democratic ideals and has given his life over the last two years to electing Dems.

[Cameron27]

25. And when he wasn't doing that he was

getting the word out about votevets.org. and when he wasn't doing that he was putting the Democratic point across in the den of inquity, Fox news. He also lectured and taught classes in CA, and went on fact finding missions all over the globe... and somewhere in there he found time to sleep.

[dogman]

37. This Country has forgotten the lessons of Vietnam.

The numbers were greater by far. The GOP learned a lesson, control the media and control the message. BTW, the GOP would have been thrilled to have Clark as a candidate. The problem being that he is not a Republican. The Democratic Party missed a great opportunity.

[LandOLincoln]

62. Oh for god's sake! are you really going to Drudge up that tired old lie

again?

That's pathetic.

On edit: changed "dredge" to "Drudge," as I thought it was more appropriate.

[cali]

6. we'll see.

a relative lull in violence without any political progress may not be the decisive moment that Clark thinks it is. Furthermore, what if he's right about bushco pulling out large numbers of troops next may, and what if Iraq immediately devolves into even worse violence?

[calteacherguy]

7. Excellent points.

I would only add that Clark seems to believe Iran is pullling most of the strings.

[cali]

13. well, he certainly knows far more than I do

but even if Iran is pulling the strings, can they control the situation once the US starts pulling large numbers of troops out?
Iraq is still so unstable, with such a damaged infrastructure, massive corruption, millions of displaced people, etc., that it seems like almost anything could happen- except, sadly, for national reconciliation and peace. Maybe I'm all wet, and the the violence is running its course, but it seems like it's still simmering away.

[calteacherguy]

14. Again, excellent points.

Anyone who tells you the know what is going to happen in Iraq for sure is lying.

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. Iran has a huge amount of influence inside Iraq

The real test will be whether they use it to encourage Shiite forces to reach an accomodation with Sunnis who have turned against Al Quada.

[cali]

20. Even with a huge amount of influence

they're still operating in a very unstable environment. There are milions of refugees- in fact, 10% of the country. What influence do they have with the Kurds? Have the Sunnis really turned from Al-Quada permanently? Can sectarian ill will be effectively countered? What about the infrastructure failures? What about corruption? It's a volatile situation.

[Tom Rinaldo]

26. Yes of course it is uncertain

One of my favorite song lyrics was in a Grateful Dead song off of Workingman's Dead:

"Nothing's for certain, it can always go wrong".

But the world and even Iraq's citizens to an extent have been numbed by the degree of violence that was unleashed inside of Iraq with the U.S. invasion. What passes now as "improved security" there would be described as terrifying violent chaos by any standard less liberal than comparing Iraq's capital today with how it was 5 months ago. If the trend line keeps moving toward less conflict a great deal of conflict can continue without undermining a sense that stability is slowly returning to Iraq.

Clark has always believed that the only way Iraq would ever regain any semblance of stability would be if and when most if not all of Iraq's neighbors in the region found it in their interest to use their combined influence to tamp down conflict inside Iraq rather than inflame it. The Bush neocon foreign policy gave some of Iraq's regional neighbors no such incentive, at least not until the U.S. was sufficiently bled dry by the Iraq conflict. Perhaps that point now is coming into reach.

Just because it is possible that Iran may now find reasons to use their influence inside Iraq to promote regional stability does not mean that other players, including the U.S., will not also use their influence at times toward the same ends. Bush wants less violence inside Iraq for obvious reasons also. The U.S. has influence with the Kurds and we are N.A.T.O. members with Turkey which remains a threat to the Kurds, so the Kurds may want us to negotiate with Turkey for them, to give one example, and may give up some demands in return that will help prevent Iraq from spinning out further again.

Or it may all still totally fall apart.

[Basileus Basileon]

11. While I don't think dampened violence would be a "decisive moment,"

I also don't think a relatively-peaceful but politically stagnant Iraq has any political benefit for either party in '08.

[Donna Zen]

28. Announcing the pull out...not an actual pull out

Clark said that it would be about 10,000 a month. The republicans will make a big deal about this. I would expect that the media will cooperate by showing lots and lots of happy homecomings. While there will many of troops remaining in Iraq in November, the story line will have changed.

Baghdad was 65% Sunni before the war began. The last stat I saw was that the city is now about 70% Shi'ite. Ethnic cleansing is nearly complete. We have disarmed the remaining Sunnis. That is why violence is down which has nothing to do with the surge, but I don't expect the American public to be informed about any of this.

Sadr has recently announced that his army will continue to stand down another 6 months. After all, without risking a single member of his militia, Sadr has increased his influence in Baghdad thanks to us.

As for the millions of Iraqis trapped in exile, I doubt that anyone in Washington or the Green Zone will make that an issue.

Eventually there will be major blowback and major unrest in the region. The policy is a failure.

There will be plenty of foreign policy disasters to go around.

[madfloridian]

9. That is bs....Iraq will never go away as an issue. Nor should it.

Downplaying Iraq as our soldiers continue to die is just wrong.

It is defining us now as a country. Saying it isn't an issue is just being in denial.

[Cameron27]

12. He's not downplaying our soldiers,

he gave his opinion about how much attention Americans will continue to pay to the war.

[Tom Rinaldo]

16. I think that is too literal a read

The Iraq war has cost America a great deal, and Clark did not deny that in the slightest. He says it has left us hundreds of billions more in debt with thousands of deaths and the United States weaker now than we went into it. The political damage to the Republican Party from the Iraq war is also starkly evident. They lost Congress over it already and Rove's entire vision of a Republican century is in total shambles, not completely because of Iraq but mostly because of it.

Clark knows that the Iraq war has come very close to destroying our volunteer Army and the National Guard system, and that damage is continuing. He doesn't need to be convinced that what is happening in Iraq still matters. Clark knows that what happens in Iraq now remains important. It has dramatic strategic consequences, but because Democrats have not been discussing the overall strategic implications of Bush's Iraq/Middle Eastern policy those consequences will not be so evident to many Americans. What Clark is saying is that Iraq is a political issue that has been "priced into" all the political equations by now. He is sayinag that the Republicans will likely be able to stem further political bleeding over Iraq now. The war has already weakened the G.O.P., but it will not weaken them further than they already have been hurt, rather they might rebound somewhat from their low point in regard to Iraq if Iran uses it's influence to help stabalize Iraq and thus Bush is able to start pulling troops home.

Bush will attempt to take credit for Iraq being less violent and for bringing our troops home, and those are the matters Democrats have focused on, not on the disasterous strategy Bush has pursued and the ways it has weakened America.

[Truth2Tell]

29. If the Republicans

decide to play it this way - and try to make Iraq disappear as an issue - smart money says they just might get away with it.

Factor in the huge amount of cash driven spin that will be spun in the next year with an American media more compliant and right leaning than ever, and the Republicans have a recipe to set the table however they like. Wes Clark understands their power - he's been inside the belly of the beast.

And if, following primary season, a corporate beholden Democratic nominee decides that Iraq is not a strong general election issue - then we can forget about it. Does anyone really think the leadership of our Party wants to fight the media on this issue? I'll believe it when I see it.

[jimshoes]

23. I have to agree with you

who in their right mind is just going to forget about Iraq after 5 long years? That seems like wishful thinking at the least. I know I'm not going to soon forget being lied into this war that is costing a cool trillion or 2 dollars.

[stillcool]

15. Not for me it isn't...

regardless of how many troops are in Iraq in 2008, or what strategy and policy is being invoked at that time...because...Iraq symbolizes everything that is fucked up with our secretive, global reaching, corporate greed controlled government, and the lying liars that continuously sell out the American people to the highest bidder.

[Seabiscuit]

22. Saw Clark on TV a few weeks ago, and now this... I think he's lost his marbles. n/t

[Larkspur]

54. He lost them when he endorsed Hillary for President

Hillary is the most compromised candidate on Iraq. Clark has to tie himself in knots to both support her and give his public evaluation about Iraq.

[Seabiscuit]

61. Indeed, the TV reference was to him talking about endorsing Hillary.

It may have been on the Bill Maher show. It was the first time I saw him engage in such mindless double-talk. I was shocked and appalled. Hillary must have promised him a cabinet post in exchange for the endorsement, because this is an entirely different Wes Clark than the one I know during the 2004 campaign.

[dpbrown]

24. The Vichy Democrats sold out the entire nation just to not make Bush "look bad"

[C_U_L8R]

27. Bush surely can't leave office

without throwing a parade for himself.

That's about all the legacy he's got.

[madfloridian]

30. This sounds like Clark is fine with leaving the troops there.

Yeh, I know, I am reading it too simplistically. That's what I always get told if I say something critical about him.

Here are his words:

"GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I think the truth is that they've, they've fought for four and a half years, and Iran is stronger and we're weaker. It's a pretty bad strategy, but that's the strategy that the Bush administration stuck, and they stuck it to the Democrats, who have never really spoken up against the strategy. Instead, they've argued about trying to get troops out. It's been a mistake."

There is nothing wrong with arguing to get the troops out.

[lyonn]

33. About 2 years ago Murtha had a plan

It was to get us out and at the same time working with Iraq's neighbors to help them heal. Biden also has been discussing a very similar plan. Not just a bailout in Iraq but negotiating with the different Iraqi factions and the neighbors. Plans have been discussed just not mentioned more than a day or two at a time in the print and tv media.

[rucky]

52. Biden didn't just discuss it...

It passed the senate by 75 votes. It's viable and it's ready to go, and being completely ignored by the WH.

[calteacherguy]

43. Except it's what Bush is going to do anyway, and claim victory.

Possibly.

[Tom Rinaldo]

45. The key word is "arguing" MF

If we had the ability to get the troops out, that would be another matter, but we didn't. You can either say that we didn't have that ability because the Rpublicans control the executive branch with all of its powers (Nixon kept us in Viet Nam also after getting elected in 1968), or you can say that we didn't have that ability because too many elected Democrats are centrists. Bottom line remains the same. Democrats have not done enough to challange the underlying disasterous Middle Eastern policy of the Bush Administration. Instead we talked numbers of troops to little avail.

[klook]

31. I don't think these guys and their families will

forget about Iraq any time soon:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wounded/la-na-wounded-series,0,936394.special

Official count of U.S. military wounded in the Iraq war: 28,530; estimated: 23000 - 100,000
Sources: http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/ and http://www.antiwar.com/glantz/?articleid=9937#wounded

[lyonn]

64. The Time feature was an ugly bite of reality

Thank goodness this info doesn't go out on the evening news. It could be disturbing to some (sarcasm!!)

This shit must happen every day. I would say it is time to stop destroying our military, their families, the Iraqis and start leaving. It seems that since the U.S. citizenery started voting against staying in Iraq their govt. is making a feeble attempt to take care of their own problems. We have not been able to fix it for them. They are not dumb, they know what to do and that is to get a real govt. in action.

[sandnsea]

32. Then why is he supporting Hillary

She's the one that pushed the war, pushed criticizing the strategy and not the lies, fought troop withdrawal, the whole thing. Everything Clark is complaining about is what the Clinton people wanted. Maybe if Clark listened to different Democrats he'd have heard people advocating troop withdrawal as part of a change in strategy.

This sounds a lot like his comments before the IWR vote, when he said Saddam was dangerous and we should have a resolution - and then pretended he did't have anything to do with why we went to war.

[dogman]

38. You should read your sig line.

Troop withdrawal is not a strategy, as he pointed out many times. That is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic and is what distracted from the point that there was no strategy. He called for no invasion since Iraq was already contained. He sated the IWR should require the President return to Congress.

[sandnsea]

39. It is most certainly part of a strategy

Just because he doesn't agree with the premise of the strategy, it doesn't mean withdrawing troops isn't key to changing direction in Iraq.

He said Saddam was a threat, spouted all the same lines the rest of the Clinton people were spouting, didn't offer any of the counter intelligence that was out there. He supported a resolution that threatened force. I know the facts.

[Texas_Kat]

40. "Part of a strategy" is called a tactic

Clark supported the Levin amendment (not the ultimately accepted IWR) and even then had to defend Kerry's vote for the IWR all during the 04 general campaign.

What Clark is saying is already beginning to happen. Bush is going to declare victory in Iraq and motorcade down Pennsylvania Avenue -- just in time for the 08 elections.

US commander gives part credit to Syria for military gains in Iraq http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iF-MIeUMXqLDJqEqqRBYVqAGGGRA

US general says Iran helping stop Iraq bloodshed http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iF-MIeUMXqLDJqEqqRBYVqAGGGRA )

[sandnsea]

44. Yes, in an overall strategy

"It's a pretty bad strategy, but that's the strategy that the Bush administration stuck, and they stuck it to the Democrats, who have never really spoken up against the strategy. Instead, they've argued about trying to get troops out."

Yes, Democrats have repeatedly spoken up against Bush's Iraq strategy. They have argued for months that the tactic of increasing troops did not mean the strategy of political reconciliation would occur. I don't know how Clark has missed it. Only a few people on the far left were calling for withdrawal for the sake of withdrawal. The rational Dems have been calling for withdrawal as a method of reducing Iraqi animosity towards the US and increasing pressure on their need to govern.

Bush pretended he was getting ready to pull troops out in 2004 too. Why aren't we reminding people? Why isn't the Democratic front runner saying anything about this? What's Clark bitching about?

And, when Clark spoke of Iraq amendments in Sept 2002, there wasn't anything specifically on the table. He spoke of an amendment that would threaten force. He spoke of Saddam as a threat, just like he's speaking of Iran as a threat. He hasn't learned a thing either.

[Tom Rinaldo]

47. See, that's just it

"Yes, Democrats have repeatedly spoken up against Bush's Iraq strategy."

It is much larger than an Iraq strategy that needs to be spoken up against. Minimally Bush had a strategy encompassing the entire middle east, and the invasion of Iraq was one tactic in that strategy. But the real case that should have been made against Bush deals with the concepts of international law, the use of international institutions, a debate on the concept of "national security" in today's world and how it can be obtained, the preemptive use of force, the role of the State Department vs. the role of the Pentagon, and accountability for actions, among many other facets.

And when Clark spoke of Iraq amemdments in September 2002, there indeed were amendments on the table. Levin was just as much a real and hard copy potential then as the Lieberman version. When Clark testified before Congress before there were actual amendments, he spoke of Iraq not posing an imminent threat to us that would justify taking military action against it, and he said that use of force without first exhasuting all diplomatic options AND without an imminent threat even if all diplomatic channels were to be exhausted could not be justified. That is one reason why Paul Wellstone reacted to Wes Clark by saying "I think I've found my General".

[Orwellian_Ghost]

34. I find this disturbing

Political positions carved from flesh and blood.

Who are these people to so easily discuss the war torn?

[gulliver]

35. I do think the Dems, particularly the base, have fallen into the trap.

I'm hoping we can resurrect the very simple idea that the Iraq war was a stupid, reckless move based on false premises. The American people need to have the cost of it rubbed in their face if they forget. And the return for the cost has been less than nothing.

But the focus on troop reductions did give Bush an alternative definition of success. Create a surge, take credit for the reduction in violence. And then hope the American people are really, really stupid and don't remember the whole thing was the cracked act of a half-wit and a bunch of stupid, crazy old men who don't know their asses from their elbows when it comes to security.

In 2008, I would like to see a full frontal assault on Republican security credibility. They are idiots. They are nothing but screw-ups. It's a proven fact now.

[MalloyLiberal]

36. Doesn't Clark wish it would go away as an issue

The person he endorsed hasn't even apologized for her vote.

[Texas_Kat]

41. No, he wishes Iraq would end without the ME erupting in more war

He's been 'wishing' and working towards that goal for years.

[Guaranteed]

42. I don't think it's the casualties so much anymore as the issue itself.

I think people are sick of hearing about this thing called "Iraq" that we're involved in- and, as long as we're still involved in it, they're not going to want to hear about it.

They don't want to hear about the bombings and the beheadings and the lawlessness. They don't want to hear about Iraq. They don't want anything to do with it. And as long as what is going on there is our problem, they're not going to be pleased.

[Perry Logan]

46. When you start talking about how clever Republicans are, it's time to take a breather.

Get away from the computer for a while. Lie down. Drink a cup of valerian tea.

[dmosh42]

48. Clark is misleading by saying the Dems have control over this issue...

I think the media, that's controlled by a few conglomerates, has let this drop in air time and priority. This only underscores the ability of the corporations to control our lives. But I do agree that the Dem leadership has made a mistake in not keeping the appropriations debate out in the open and ongoing. I think the people would like more courage shown in their positions in not funding this disaster. Unless they might be thinking of folding again.....

[Tom Rinaldo]

50. Clark is predicting how the media will cover Iraq

He has warned for a long time that if the brunt of Democratic criticism of Bush's foreign policy remained focused on the number of troops deployed inside of Iraq without exposing the larger "misguided" foreign policy agenda and strategy of the Bush Administration, that this coming day would indeed come. Now the primary media debate on Iraq, to the extent that there is much of one, is dominated by the question of whether or not the surge is working, i.e. a debate over the effectiveness of 30,000 troops. Clars saw this coming and thought Democrats should have also. He is not raising a new concern in light of this week's war coverage.

If Bush announces that 100,000 troops will be withdrawn (10,000 at a time) the media debate will be over whether or not Democrats were wrong to have wanted to pull out 75,000 troops a little bit prematurely, rather than being on the shambles that Bush has made of our national security.

[dmosh42]

51. Yes, I can see that.......

And all the more reason for the Dems to keep the debate alive on the appropriations. The last we heard on this is how Gates is going to shut down the employment of thousands of base workers around the country. I haven't seen any reply to this from the Dem leadership, which, again looks like their inability to control any of this. As long as they keep congress going on the debate of funding the war, the more they can get out their point for a political settlement, and the mistakes of this administration. Keep the country focused on Iraq!

[BootinUp]

49. Clark understands the politics of war

and the failed foreign policies of the Bushies.

[Larkspur]

53. Iraq won't go away as an issue as long as we're sending billions of dollars

over there every Friedman Unit (6 months) and we have hundreds of thousands of troops over there. There is no way that Bush and Cheney will bring most of our troops home before election next year because the political situation is still a disaster. They need to protect those oil fields for US oil companies.

We may have gotten Sunni tribal lords to help us get rid of Iraqi Al Queda, which was home grown and only composed at most 7% of the insurgent fighting force, but those same Sunni lords told us that they would not support the Shiite led government. And we've armed them and the Shiite led government has ordered thousands of AK-47s and other weapons from Chian. What makes Clark think that those Sunni chieftons won't use those arms against the Shiite dominated government?

I think we're starting to see a calm before the next storm.

[Tom Rinaldo]

56. As I commented somewhere above

You may be right, there may only be a calm before a storm. But it is also possible that the full storm may never blow in. If the players inside of Iraq are not being prodded and supported to continue and/or expand the violence inside of Iraq, it may continue to simmer below a full boil. It isn't only Iran supporting Shiites. Sunnis are receiving support through Saudi Arabia and others, and ex Baathists continue to receive support through Syria.

And a bottom line may be reached where the people of Iraq themselves say "No" to continuing open violent conflict that engulfs the entire fabric of their society, especially if outside backers start reigning in their proxy elements inside of Iraq who are most engaged in the military conflicts. The IRA laid down their arms in Northern Ireland inside the framework of certain difficult to achieve agreements. While it would be naive to underestimate the passions and hate that Iraq is now engulfed in, it would also be foolish to underestimate the desire of fathers and mothers in any land for stability that allows them to feed cloth and educate their children. Much is up in the air and yet to be determined.

[Inuca]

55. I do not agree that the dems "have never really spoken up against the strategy"

Many did. Repeatedly. And they also linked the troop withdrawals to a change in strategy (or better said to DEFINING a strategy, since the administration does not really seem to have one). Listen/read to what Kerry, Biden, Feingold and others have said in recent years, not to mention Hagel who on this is more democrat than many card-carrying party members. They have all emphasized the need for a shift in strategy. Clark is wrong on this. WHy he says it... I am not sure...

[Tom Rinaldo]

57. You need look no further than to Iran to answer this question

How long has it taken most Democratic politicians to forcefully oppose the Bush Administration confrontational policy toward Iran? Not just lip service comments about "needing to be willing to talk", but actual real, deeply founded opposition?

To my eye it wasn't until it became grist for judo one-upsmanship among Democratic candidates for President that most Democrats stopped sounding Republican lite at best toward Iran. And for the most part only a few Presidential candidates bother to speak out against Bush on Iran even now.

Clark has been advocating for direct all issues on the table no preconditions diplomacy with Iran for at least three years now, and he repeatedly has made the case that without our at least addressing Iran's national security concerns that Iran had the power to turn up the heat in Iraq any time they wanted to. And Clark goes further and states that the issue of Palestine and Israel's security are bound up in the knot that our relations with Iran and Syria (Iraq's two most important neighbors) have become also, and the Palestine conflict feeds anti-Americanism in the region, and threatens the world ecomony among other things.

[Inuca]

58. My comments were about Iraq

not Iran. Of course there is a connection between the two.

[Tom Rinaldo]

59. Understood, but...

Clark has always stressed the connection between Iraq and Iran in the framework of overall foreign policy toward that region of the world. He was blowing the whistle on PNAC's plan for serial middle east invasions dating back to 2002. Clark knows that the Bush Administration viewed invading Iraq as a tactic in a larger strategy and he here is saying that Democrats have not forced Bush to articulate, explain, and/or defend Bush's larger strategy, to our disadvantage.

[BootinUp]

60. He is saying that

the argument over troop strength has distracted from the real issue.

[Bucky]

63. This is what I've been afraid of too. But of course Clark understood where I only feared

We're a weaker country for not making him president three years ago. I don't really care that much about him, tho. He's just a guy with a career. What really bothers me is all that time we've lost, the damage, the wasted assets, the wasted good will, and most of all the dead people. Thousands of Americans, over a hundred thousand dead Iraqis, millions displaced, and at least three strains of radical Islamic extremism bolstered in the world for another generation...

all because of one man's ignorance.