Did Wes Clark sink Hillary tonight?

[grasswire]

Wes Clark was on Hardball tonight, opposite a young veteran who is a hawk and perhaps a Bushie. Clark kept talking about how our troops can best be supported by passing the amendment that will allow them to rest before redeployment to Iraq, and proper equipment that will allow them to be there for the long haul, and he used a lot of language that drew a picture of an extended war; a long long occupation of Iraq.

As Clark (whom I supported in campaign 2004) has endorsed Hillary, does this mean that her plan for Iraq is little different from Bush's plan for Iraq? An extended war; a long, long occupation?

For me, Clark presented a policy assumption that is alarming.

[Double T]

1. Doesn't matter who is elected President when it comes to the Iraq 'war'............

the USA has dug their own hole and we're going to be 'occupying' Iraq for decades if we don't go bankrupt first. Wes Clark was just being his normal self, HONEST.

[ShortnFiery]

18. That's what they said about Vietnam - we can and we MUST pull our troops out a.s.a.p. nt

[FrenchieCat]

2. No....I believe that he was playing the Devil's advocate in making the

point that "Since the GOP wants to stay there forever, they should be voting in favor of supporting the troups and their family".

He was making the point that since Bush ain't asked no one else to sacrifice, why ask so much from the troups.

The snotty nose GOP representative was attempting to say that the Webb amendment was "putting troups in danger" since there wouldn't be enough of them to rotate in and out. Clark was merrily stating that IF this is supposed to be such a compelling cause, then Bush should think about a draft, etc....

In other words, Clark was pointing out the hypocracy in the GOP not wanting to allow the troups any equitable rest time for a never ending war.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. Well, Mrs. Clinton Does Want To Keep A Substantial But Smaller Force In Iraq

for the indefinite future, but that's a weird fantasy - given what the Iraqis are inflicting on 160,000 or so troops now, one can pretty much figger' out what will happen if that number goes down substantially.

[paulk]

13. she's not the only candidate suggesting that

and the strategy envisioned does not involve putting our troops in the situations they are in now, where they are constantly exposed to danger. Give these candidates some credit for being, at least, smarter than Bush.

[FrenchieCat]

4. Here's the link.....

so that folks can judge for themselves...instead of depending on your "concerned" post.

http://www.ptnine.com/091907.WMV

[grasswire]

15. I don't know what your snarkiness is all about

But I wish you'd set it aside.

[Cameron27]

5. Absolutely not,

I don't know how you came up with that. Wes was using the RW jerk's own talking points against him.

[papau]

6. "allow rest" means max troop level drops to 70-80 thousand - better than Bush offer of 132000 - as

to troops staying in Iraq past draw down, the force protection and training numbers I hear are about 25,000 - about half what we have in Korea.

[illinoisprogressive]

7. He was on some program the other day about Hillary and talking Iran!

[FrenchieCat]

8. and......?

That's not enough data........give more.

I have all of the transcripts. Which appearance would you be talking about?

PS: I don't want to get turned off during my candidate shopping.......but you're starting to make it easy

[Rick Myers]

9. I personally believe that no matter who wins in 08 we are gonna be in Iraq for a while

The question is, in WHAT role and HOW MANY?

It's pretty damn obvious that what we're doing now is a clusterfuck.

I support the Federal solution, Baghdad as a capital with three semi autonomous regions.

I think most Iraqis would support that form of government.

Our military can stay to protect the embassy (fuck Blackwater's Christian Death Squads). We can train the army and police forces. We can have Fast Reaction Forces to quell hotspots.

But it's time to give the Iraqis their country. Mission(s) accomplished. No WMD, no Saddam, an elected government. But that was NEVER the idea. It was an invasion about oil. But not about GETTING the oil, anbout KEEPING it in the ground.

The Iraqis will not allow Osama's goons to exist in their neighborhoods.

And so it goes.

[karynnj]

10. Unless Clark said Clinton's position is ...

It is not necessarily true that it would be Hillary Clinton's position. Unless he is specifcally saying that he is a surrogate - he can be himslf, an expert.

I didn't hear him, but from what you wrote, having law require rest and proper equipment SHOULD not have to be specified because they are so obviously needed. Given what has happened, it would be good to have it as law - even if we hope it's never needed.

[sandnsea]

11. That's the Webb Amendment

It was supposed to be the bi-partisan method of drawing down troops, which they couldn't get Republican support for either.

[calteacherguy]

12. We're going to be in Iraq for awhile, to some degree.

Many Republicans would prefer a kind of never-ending war. That's not Clark's position.

One thing Clark has said is we need a public commitment to no permanent bases in Iraq. That's the long-term goal, but the next President is likely to inherit an Iraq with over 100,000 U.S. troops still present. Like or not, we are going to have to manage the mess the Republicans have left us, and we won't be able to simply leave as soon as physically possible when the Democratic President is inaugurated. We don't know what the situation is going to be, exactly, when we inherit the mess. Will, for example, the Republicans have bombed Iran, destabilizing the whole region? Will Iran respond by becoming more aggresive in Iraq? What then? So, we need to be prepared for a wide range of developments. Hopefully, somehow, the message that we need real diplomacy with Iran to stabilize iraq and deal with the nuclear issue will get through to the administration. If it doesn't, there are likely to be bombs falling on Iran before the next election, and it's hard to predict what all the results of that will be geopolitically...except that they won't be good.

[grasswire]

14. thanks for your thoughtful message

As a former Clark supporter, I was a bit surprised to hear him talking in those terms, as if forgetting that a good portion of the Dem base is anti-war and wanting a withdrawal from Iraq soon. He's a very wise man, and I admire him a lot, but he is not really a political strategist and may not appreciate the fact that predicting an unhappy future to the base is something to be avoided on national television.

The transcript will be out tomorrow and we'll have his precise words.

[ShortnFiery]

19. We'll be in Iraq until our Miltary is Broken and we're kicked out: No more than 5 years more. nt

[Steve_in_California]

16. Biden is gaining ground.

His timing couldn't be better: just as the Dems and GOP are at loggerheads over whether to fund the Iraq war and whether timetables must be part of the bill--along comes Joe Biden with a solution. He just introduced an amendment that calls for the adoption of his long-tenured proposal to separate the warring factions into three semi-autonomous regions under a decentralized federal system. There is simply no other viable option on the table. As journalist Jeff Greenfield noted, Iraqis are already adopting this plan on a de facto basis.

The Biden amendment has won wide endorsement and you can expect the Senate sinking deeper in to this quagmire to grab this life preserver of an amendment.

FORMER SECRETARIES OF STATE IN SUPPORT OF THE BIDEN-GELB PLAN:
Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright
Former Secretary of State James Baker
Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger

FOREIGN POLICY EXPERTS IN SUPPORT OF THE BIDEN-GELB PLAN:
Former Iraq Defense Minister Ali Allawi
Former UN Ambassador Richard Holbrooke
Ambassador Dennis Ross, Counselor and Ziegler Distinguished Fellow, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Ambassador Richard Haass, President Council on Foreign Relations
Michael O'Hanlon, Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution
Yahia Said, Director, Iraq Revenue Watch
Ambassador Peter W. Galbraith
Dr. Ted Galen Carpenter, Vice President for Defense and Foreign Policy Studies, CATO Institute
Walter Russell Mead, Council on Foreign Relations
Anne Marie Slaughter, Dean of Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University
Eric Leaver, Institute for Policy Studies Research Fellow
Juan Cole, Middle East scholar and prominent blogger
David Phillips, Council on Foreign Relations, author of Losing Iraq

PUBLIC OFFICIALS IN SUPPORT OF THE BIDEN-GELB PLAN:
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico (D)
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS)
Former Congressman Harold Ford, Jr. (D-TN)
Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)
Muwaffaq al-Rubaie, National Security Advisor of Iraq
Congressman Chris Van Hollen
Iowa House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy
Iowa House Assistant Majority Leader John Whitaker
Iowa State Rep. Doris Kelley
Rep. Lisa Heddens of Ames (assistant majority leader, Iowa house)
Rep. Mike Reasoner of Creston (assistant majority leader, Iowa house)
Rep. Dick Taylor of Cedar Rapids, Iowa
Jack Carter, the son of former President Jimmy Carter, and Democratic candidate, Nevada
New Hampshire officials:
State Representative-Elect Jim Webber (D-Kensington)
Former State Representative Scott Green
Sanbornton Town Democratic Chair Andy Sanborn
State Rep. Bill Hatch (D-Gorham)
Rep. Stephen Shurtleff (D-Penacook)
Eileen Foley, who served for 16 years as Mayor of Portsmouth
Bob Preston of Hampton, a former Democratic Leader of the New Hampshire State Senate
Joseph Russell, former Secretary of the Stratham Democrats
Representative Michael Marsh (D-Greenland)
New Hampshire State Representative and Police Sergeant Mark Preston
Manchester Fire Commissioner and New Hampshire State Representative Robert Haley
Detective Steve Arnold, former President of the New Hampshire Police Association

Former Clinton White House Public Affairs Director Bob Weiner

EDITORIAL PAGES AND COLUMNISTS IN SUPPORT OF BIDEN-GELB:
Tony Blankley, Washington Times
Michael Hirsh,
Las Vegas Review-Journal, Editorial Board
Thomas L. Friedman, New York Times columnist
David Brooks, New York Times
Philadelphia Inquirer, Editorial Board
David Broder, Washington Post columnist
Jackson Diehl, Washington Post columnist
David Ignatius, Washington Post columnist
Bill O'Reilly, Fox News
George Packer, The New Yorker
Portland Press Herald (ME) editorial board
Delaware News Journal editorial board
The Barre Montpelier Times Argus (VT) editorial board
St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial board
The Journal Standard (IL) editorial board
Marilou Johanek, Toledo Blade (OH) columnist

[Texas_Kat]

17. Actually Wes was talking about Congress's Constitutional Authority

to 'raise and maintain' an Army versus Bush's insistence that Bush was the only 'decider'. Essentially the Webb amendment required that all troops (not specifically those in Iraq) be provided as much time 'at home' as 'deployed'.

While the Bushbot rattled off talking points from the White House, Clark discussed the long-term disintegration of the Army and Marines, the horrible impact on families and the fact that what the Webb amendment included exactly the same provisions for length of deployment vs length of stateside rest that the military had agreed was essential to proper care of the troops before Bush got his hands on them.

This wasn't about Iraq (though Iraq is just a current example of the Bush's abuse), it was about long term policy as it relates to military. The same problem exists in Afghanistan and anywhere else soldiers serve away from home.

Bush is breaking the military, and Wes's anger over Bush using them as his personal 'toy soldiers' is palpable.

You may recall the following article by Richard Cohen from the 04 campaign:

Karl Rove's Nightmare | Washington Post | Thursday, January 15, 2004; Page A21

(snip...) "Wes Clark does not like what George Bush has done with Wes Clark's Army. Make no mistake: It's his Army. He can hardly go a sentence without mentioning the military -- and how, in his mind, Bush has abused it. He sent it to war precipitously and then used its men and women as "props," he says. Clark's sincerity on this point is patent. In a conversation on his campaign plane, he suddenly turned intense, a kind of growling, low-grade rage that lifted my nose from my note-taking. His Army has been abused."(...snip)

Just having read Clark's new book and finally understanding how he and his team virtually revolutionized the volunteer army after Vietnam, it's clear and completely in character.

[ima_sinnic]

20. I HOPE SO!!! sheesh, she needs to be sunk ASAP!

a vote for HRC is a vote for endless war, astronomical corporate profits, esp. by insurance and Big Pharma, and the Same Old Shit. which I guess is okay if you're a CEO or some equally greedy, unconscienable pig rolling out the trojan horse known as HRC.

ever since Clark endorsed HRC, he is dead to me. I am totally and absolutely disillusioned about Clark now, and I used to be very enthusiastic about him. I have written him a nasty letter telling him so. If he is that dumb, who needs him?