Wesley Clark 2004

123578

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 146
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Splinemodel

    West Point: not exceptional

    Rhodes Scholar: nice, but not necessarily exceptional. I don't really care to explain myslef, but Rhodes isn't entirely based on brain power.

    Experience: He was a general, and from what I've found, wasn't considered to be a good one. Besides, I don't think ex-generals should be holding political office. He has a completely un-diversified life history.



    But more of the point is that his extremely vanilla campaign platform is extremely worthless. You can't beat an incumbent with as boring a campaign as Clark's. Bush isn't my fav, and I'm not voting for him, but all in all I'd prefer a simpleton in office than a guy with just enough brains to fook things up considerably.



    Also a curiosity: Are you behind Clark? I thought liberal dems like you didn't support completely neutral candidates like Clark?




    I was originally enthusiastic about Clark's candidacy, but now I find him even less compelling than Dean. I think Clark has exceptional qualifications for the Presidency- especially compared to our current President. He would be a good leader, unlike our current President (who always sides with hard-liners). But ideologically he's not there for me.



    Now, Dean seems to be saying all the right things, yet he's not my ideal candidate either. I'll probably support Kucinich in the primary. However, I expect Dean to win the nomination. You can be sure that I would support almost any candidate to defeat Bush in the general election (except sanctimonious joe).



    I'd like to see Hillary run as well.
  • Reply 82 of 146
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ShawnJ

    . . .But ideologically he's not there for me.





    which, dare I say it, solidifies my position.



    and as for Kucinik? . . . how can you actually consider a man who supports immediate withdrawal from Iraq?!

    that is such a horrible idea . . . it would result in a vacuume where the guys with the bombs would go toe to toe with the other guys with the bombs without any mediating factor . . . civil war followed by the return of Hussein
  • Reply 83 of 146
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pfflam

    which, dare I say it, solidifies my position.



    and as for Kucinik? . . . how can you actually consider a man who supports immediate withdrawal from Iraq?!

    that is such a horrible idea . . . it would result in a vacuume where the guys with the bombs would go toe to toe with the other guys with the bombs without any mediating factor . . . civil war followed by the return of Hussein




    Well, that's not his platform. I think he wants to get the US out and the UN in instead. That seems reasonable.
  • Reply 84 of 146
    Quote:

    Originally posted by majorspunk





    And most importantly, he's not Bush..



    In 6 months the US is going to significantly reduce its visibility on the streets of Baghdad as a new 100,000 ~ 200,000 local paramilitary force will be taking over from the American coalition forces.








    Iraqification will be a disaster. If a well trained American army cannot hold stability in Iraq, a bunch of poorly-if-at-all trained Iraqi "security officers" will fare even worse.



    I'm a Democrat, I'm for Clark, but pulling troops out is exactly the wrong course to take at this point. We have to stay there and stay there en masse until the situation is settled. We need more troops in Iraq in the short term, or we'll be facing a hostile Iraq again in the long term.



    Of course, no one from either party is ready to support this reality.
  • Reply 85 of 146
    My my...did I hit a partisan nerve?

    Quote:

    Originally posted by MaxParrish

    valid, that is, until one realizes that he once thought the Iraq war worthy of victory parades



    Quote:

    Josef K. Respone

    Please stop spreading misinformation. Ever since that ridiculous FAIR article surfaced, it has become conventional wisdom (on the "prestigious internet"!) that Clark once said, "Let's have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue," as if he were merely suggesting: "Hey y'all, let's have a parade! Woohoo!" ..Yes, Clark praises the efficacy of the military operation, and he was even magnanimous enough to give credit to Bush and Blair for their resolve in seeing it through (remember, we'd just won the first major phase of the war.)? ?Let's have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue -but don't demobilize yet.?? (Etc., on for many more paragraphs)



    Well, too bad you gave an exhaustive brief on someone else?s (FAIR?s) arguments and which was only tangentially related to my subordinate clause. But for all of your rationales for, and qualifications of, Clark?s comment, you do confirm that he thought the war worthy of celebration - which was my quote.

    Quote:

    Originally posted by MaxParrish

    He told the reporter his objections were based on the Iraq war being ?based on false pretenses?. Again, this is at least a debatable point, until you discover that Clark does not have in mind the administration's claim of WMD (he?s already opined that WMDs were absolutely there), or the causalities or cost of the war (which he has lauded as proof of unchallengeable allied power)



    Quote:

    Josef K. Response

    He said that WMD were probably there, but that they didn't pose any immediate threat and that we had more pressing priorities to contend with. There is nothing inconsistent in Clark's position. Saddam would give bioweapons to terrorists to deploy over Manhattan. It's patently obvious that this is what Clark is referring to. Paul Wolfowitz is even on record admitting that the WMD issue was chosen more for political expediency than for any honest perception of urgency. Clark is simply arguing that the administration sold the Iraq war to the American people by exaggerating the nature of the threat. For you to pretend that Clark's position is somehow illogical, inconsistent or "weird" (as below) is simply ridiculous.



    Oh really, the WMD only ?probably there?? The New Yorker reporter, Boyer, stated: ?As the liberal media-watchdog group Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting has noted, Clark had reservations about force structure before the war, but his reservations seemed to fade as American progress became apparent. Clark said that Saddam -->?absolutely?<-- had weapons of mass destruction, and added, ?I think they will be found. There?s so much intelligence on this.? If you wish to contend that Boyer is misquoting (CNN I believe), do tell. In the meantime, start with your own quote ?Saddam has no nuclear weapons today? and probably won't gain them in the next few months?Although Saddam has chemical and biological weapons??. Heck, Clark says that Saddam will "probably" won't have nuclear weapons "in the next few months" (this is in Oct 2002) - you think this endorses your recast of Clarke's "real" position of being "they didn't pose any immediate threat and that we had more pressing priorities to contend with"

    Quote:

    Josef K.

    ?It's patently obvious that this is what Clark is referring to (in ?false pretenses?).?



    Now objecting to a public quote of CNN is one thing, but are we to believe you were in the room with Boyer so you KNOW what Clark REALLY meant? Although you have implied telepathic abilities, let me repeat Boyers statement:
    Quote:

    ??the war in Iraq, he (Clark) said, was waged under false pretenses. He then told me?as he has told others?how he came to learn of a secret war scheme within the Bush Administration, of which Iraq was just one piece. Shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Clark said, he visited the Pentagon, where an old colleague, a three-star general, confided to him that the civilian authorities running the Pentagon?Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his team?planned to use the September 11th attacks as a pretext for going to war against Iraq. ?They made the decision to attack Iraq sometime soon after 9/11,? Clark said. ?So, rather than searching for a solution to a problem, they had the solution, and their difficulty was to make it appear as though it were in response to a problem.? Clark visited the Pentagon a couple of months later, and the same general told him that the Bush team, unable or unwilling to fight the actual terrorists responsible for the attacks, had devised a five-year plan to topple the regimes in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Iran, and Sudan.?



    Boyer's experience is buttressed by public sources. For example in an exchange in the debates, Clark again refers to the source of Administrations duplicity and covert intent
    Quote:

    Questioner:You have not only praised the president that you now want to defeat but, according to the Arab Institute Voting Guide, in February of 2003, you said this, quote: "Saddam Hussein has these weapons, and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this, and the rest of the world has got to get with us," unquote.



    But you have also so far refused to take a firm position on the president's request for more money. Can you tell us exactly where you do stand?



    CLARK: I'd be happy to tell you where I stand. I think I've been very consistent from the beginning.



    Right after 9/11, this administration determined to do bait and switch on the American public. President Bush said he was going to get Osama bin Laden, dead or alive. Instead, he went after Saddam Hussein. He doesn't have either one of them today.



    Clark implies that the Bush team, and covertly, deliberately ignored Bin Laden in order to go after Iraq-- "right after 9/11." Of course, that?s historical nonsense. The months after 9/11 were consumed with the war against the Taliban and al Qaeda, and the hunt for Bin Laden. There was no "bait-and-switch right after 9/11?.



    By the way, "Wofowitz is on record" as saying that the WMD issue was the single concern that all policymakers could agree was an urgent problem that justified prompt action ? many, but not all, had felt routine mass murder, terrorism, and rearmament to be of equal or greater concern.
    Quote:

    Digby puts this slanderous bit of bullshit to bed. Just click here.



    I did. Although I didn?t read every detail, Digby doesn?t directly confront the main point of Boyer?s: ?[Clark] then told me--as he has told others--how he came to learn of a secret war scheme within the Bush Administration, of which Iraq was just one piece? and that ?Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his team?planned to use the September 11th attacks as a pretext for going to war against Iraq? that the Bush team, unable or unwilling to fight the actual terrorists responsible for the attacks, had devised a five-year plan to topple the regimes in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Iran, and Sudan.?



    Did I miss something? Even without further fact checking or seeking the real context of Digby's quotes, he merely serves up a flurry of statements from different parties, and lends no support to a ?secret war plan?. As I said, the administration has made clear that it considers the ?axis of evil? to be a danger to the U.S. and that those who support or harbor terrorists (and WMD) are candidates for diplomatic, economic, subversive, or military action (without committing to what and when an option will be used). Digby?s quotes confirm that, according to the specific insiders, several countries are problems that will require action. So what?



    Once again, the major point is not refuted, that Clark believes the administration is operating off of a specific covert scheme for war with a five year timeline - one that Clarke admits he has no proof.



    I don't have time, at the moment, to address all of the remaining partisan nonsense. But in the future, let me suggest you focus on the actual points made and not get sidetracked by knee jerk "code words" that trigger defensive blasts.



    I'm more than willing to revise my assessment of Clark, but not in the face of unecessary hairpulling and theatrics.
  • Reply 86 of 146
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Splinemodel

    I'm a libertarian. I don't like government.



    I have some degree of compassion and fundamental human decency. I don't like libertarianism.



    (I should probably put some kind of a smiley here, but I'm not gonna.)



    EDIT: ok...I will:



    Quote:

    Originally posted by Splinemodel

    Clark wants to set up more civil services, etc, that I don't think should exist.



    Well, if you want to translate "fucking things up" as "supporting federal programs," then I'll retract my earlier claim that your position "doesn't make sense," and we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by Splinemodel

    When you have a guy like Bush in office, and he has a whole lot of advisors and does a great deal of task delegation, there's less possibility for legislation to go through. I think that's a good thing.



    Bush doesn't appear to have had any particular difficulty whatsoever in getting the overwhelming majority of his initiatives passed. The "delegation implies inaction" theory wants revisiting.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by Splinemodel

    Honestly, Clark has some good academic credentials, yes. But as far as I know that's it. Scholars have academic work to show the world.



    But you've moved the goalposts. Nobody ever claimed that Clark was an accomplished "scholar" in the same sense as that of a career academic who has devoted his life to research and intellectual inquiry. He simply has an impressive academic record, that's all.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by Splinemodel

    All Clark has are 34 years (correct me if I'm wrong) of military service and a few diplomas.



    It's amazing how you can dismiss an entire four decade career with just a wave of your hand. Are you suggesting that you could personally have [effortlessly?] faced every challenge, overcome every difficulty, solved every problem, taken every bullet and handled every awesome responsibility over the lives of millions as Clark has over those 34 years?



    Quote:

    Originally posted by Splinemodel

    With all due respect, even Bush has more accomplishments



    Bush has more accomplishments than Wesley Clark??? I'd love to hear some details on this...



    Quote:

    Originally posted by Splinemodel

    , and is undeniably a much better salesman. . . a skill that can get overlooked. I'm no Rhodes scholar, but I do have patents pending and am working on some technology that will turn a lot of heads.



    Just to hammer home the message, my ideal president is one who is a self made man and understands money and markets, and who regularly promotes legislation that cuts government.




    I'm getting the impression that your idea of a "made" man is simply someone who has padded his bank account in some fashion or other. Clark is about as "self-made" as any man on the face of the earth- but he didn't patent any inventions or get his uncle's friends to give him a multi-million dollar oil company; instead, he chose to devote his life to national service. I respect men for their actions, not for the size of their retirement accounts.
  • Reply 87 of 146
    fellowshipfellowship Posts: 5,038member
    "I'm not here to bash George Bush, I'm here to replace him"

    -Clark



    Video



    Fellowship
  • Reply 88 of 146
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MaxParrish

    My my...did I hit a partisan nerve?



    No, you just wrote a bunch of gibberish and I responded to it.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by MaxParrish

    Well, too bad you gave an exhaustive brief on someone else?s (FAIR?s) arguments and which was only tangentially related to my subordinate clause. But for all of your rationales for, and qualifications of, Clark?s comment, you do confirm that he thought the war worthy of celebration - which was my quote.



    Clark devoted his entire life to military service. He is obviously an intensely patriotic man who deeply cares for the men and women of the armed forces and takes tremendous pride in their efforts. I defy you to provide so much as a single compelling piece of evidence why anyone should believe otherwise. He had his differences with the administration about the need for war and the manner in which they misrepresented the case to the American people.



    But we did go to war...and those same people (many of whom Clark obviously knows personally) did their jobs with honor and professionalism and Clark took great pride both in their efforts and in their success. For you to pretend that there is any kind of disconnect between Clark's opposition to the administration's handling of the whole Iraq situation and his pride in the success of the mission is bullshit.





    Quote:

    Originally posted by MaxParrish

    Oh really, the WMD only ?probably there?? The New Yorker reporter, Boyer, stated: [...snip stuff about Clark saying WMD are definitely there...] In the meantime, start with your own quote ?Saddam has no nuclear weapons today? and probably won't gain them in the next few months?Although Saddam has chemical and biological weapons??.



    Oh Jesus, you're a pain in the ass. Several months ago on Buchanan and Press, Clark said something like, "Look, Saddam probably has weapons of mass destruction, some... but blah blah blah..." I was thinking about that quote when I wrote what I did. I most certainly was not trying to pull some kind of a fast one on you by pretending that Clark didn't believe there were WMD in Iraq. My god, you even show where just moments later I quoted Clark claiming that very thing!! Why the fuck would I try to pretend one thing and then provide you with a direct quote disproving my own claim???





    Quote:

    Originally posted by MaxParrish

    Heck, Clark says that Saddam will "probably" won't have nuclear weapons "in the next few months" (this is in Oct 2002) - you think this endorses your recast of Clarke's "real" position of being "they didn't pose any immediate threat and that we had more pressing priorities to contend with"



    Um, are you honestly suggesting that when Clark said that Saddam "probably won't gain [nukes] in the next few months" that he meant to imply that he actually thought that Saddam was only a few months away from having nuclear weapons? "I don't have a million dollars today, and I probably won't be getting a million dollars in the next few months." Does that mean I'm gonna be rich real soon now?



    Not only are you having difficulty applying rational interpretations to simple English statements, but I guess you also missed Clark's testimony before the House Armed Services Committee. Here's what he said about Saddam's nuclear timeline:



    "The best public assessment is that if he were to acquire fissionable material he might field some type of weapon within two years._ If he has to enrich the uranium ore itself, then a period of perhaps five years might be required."



    Quote:

    Originally posted by MaxParrish

    [...major snip...]



    Ok...you've just lost me on the whole "Clark and the secret war plan" gambit. Not for the life of me can I figure out what you're playing at here. Clark said that a guy in the Pentagon told him that there was a plan to knock off a number of states in the Middle East. Numerous sources support this claim, and you even admit it yourself when you quote that "several countries are problems that will require action. So what?"



    "So what?" That's a good question. What great crime is Clark supposed to have committed here?



    Quote:

    Originally posted by MaxParrish

    I don't have time, at the moment, to address all of the remaining partisan nonsense. But in the future, let me suggest you focus on the actual points made and not get sidetracked by knee jerk "code words" that trigger defensive blasts.



    Quite frankly, I don't even understand what this means.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by MaxParrish

    I'm more than willing to revise my assessment of Clark, but not in the face of unecessary hairpulling and theatrics.



    I don't believe this for a second.
  • Reply 89 of 146
    My personal theory is that Bush made a critical error when he chose Collin Powell as his Secretary of State. That was the poor populist move to make and a strategic blander. Powell, I believe, is largely to blame for the diplomatic box the US found itself in going into Iraq, and a more capable man, like Richard Holbrook for example, would've managed the situation with the Europeans much more effectively. After all, it is more of their interest at stake here since Saddam is a problem of their making, and is of their neighborhood..
  • Reply 90 of 146
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by majorspunk

    My personal theory is that Bush made a critical error when he chose Collin Powell as his Secretary of State. That was the poor populist move to make and a strategic blander. Powell, I believe, is largely to blame for the diplomatic box the US found itself in going into Iraq, and a more capable man, like Richard Holbrook for example, would've managed the situation with the Europeans much more effectively. After all, it is more of their interest at stake here since Saddam is a problem of their making, and is of their neighborhood..



    While agree that Hoolbrook is a clearly a more capable man, I think that you are wrong about Powell being responcible for the Foriegn relations catastrophe that preceeded this foriegn catastrophe of a war . . . (even if it couuld forseeably have good results) I think that it clearly was Bush and Cheney . . and with them, Perle and Wollfowitz . . . they wanted Iraq as soon as possible no matter what and with no matter who . . . it was in the Pax Americana agenda and they had to get things going . . .
  • Reply 91 of 146
    Quote:

    Originally posted by majorspunk

    That was the poor populist move to make and a strategic blander. Powell, I believe, is largely to blame for the diplomatic box the US found itself in going into Iraq



    Why do you place the blame with Powell? It seemed to me that he was constrained quite severly by other parties in the Bush admin.
  • Reply 92 of 146
    screedscreed Posts: 1,077member
    Um, no majorspunk. Powell is at the tail end of this train. The White House poo-pooed the very idea of UN inspections. Add to that Rumsfeld's comment about EU members that disagreed being part of "Old Europe." On and on... The whole lot of them, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, all have distinct disdain and contempt for international organizations and laws.



    Powell, with experience from the previous pro-diplomacy Bush administration, may have suggested a larger role for international involvement but essentially he's just a guy who likes to keep his job.



    Screed
  • Reply 93 of 146
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by majorspunk

    My personal theory is that Bush made a critical error when he chose Collin Powell as his Secretary of State. That was the poor populist move to make and a strategic blander. Powell, I believe, is largely to blame for the diplomatic box the US found itself in going into Iraq, and a more capable man, like Richard Holbrook for example, would've managed the situation with the Europeans much more effectively. After all, it is more of their interest at stake here since Saddam is a problem of their making, and is of their neighborhood..



    Is this some PNAC outreach program or something you're part of? You have to be crazy to eliminate one of the only "moderates" on Bush's staff. He doesn't listen to Powell anyway, which is better than, I suppose, listening to another hard-liner in his place.
  • Reply 94 of 146
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Josef K.

    I have some degree of compassion and fundamental human decency. I don't like libertarianism.



    (I should probably put some kind of a smiley here, but I'm not gonna.)



    EDIT: ok...I will:







    You make plenty of legitimate claims, but I don't think you seem to be able to understand that I value totally different qualities in people than you do. I find Clark to be a boring, boring man who has led a life full of risk averse decisions. You don't think so, because our evaluations of "risk" are probably different.



    To clear up a few things:

    -I'm not a life long academic.

    -The core feature of libertarianism is a belief that humans are inherently good and a more thorough understanding of compassion.

    -I don't look at 34 years in the military and see a life of accomplishment. Military men are followers more oft than creative leaders. They're not supposed to be creative, or people die. And he didn't spend 34 years as a general either. Most of it involved him bowing to the chain of command.

    -I don't really like Bush, but he does have a much more diverse life experience that I think gives him a better understanding of America. Indeed, his family had money. Big deal. Bush tried illegal drugs, he made trouble, later he cleaned himself up a bit, he has been involved in a number of business deals, etc. All in all, I think he represents the American people a lot better than a lofty general who has spend most of his life off shore or on a military base. Talk about an ivory bunker.
  • Reply 95 of 146
    We are all over the map, let?s clear the decks, and recap my concerns:



    Patriotism, and the related subjects are immaterial. What I am concerned about is that:



    A)\tClark seems to have supported the war, celebrated the military with hubris (something about the U.S. can waste anyone in another statement) then seemingly flip-flopped on the war resolution, accused Bush of a huge blunder in conducting the war without UN authorization, and now you claim that ?Clark is on record going all the way back to summer 2002 saying that this war is "elective surgery" and that Saddam didn't pose any serious or immediate threat to the US and that fighting Saddam now risked distracting us from fighting Al-Qaeda.?



    The more links you provide, and claims you make, only make the man murkier (and support my belief that he is ambivalent and confused). The congressional statement of Clark you provided simply expand on those concerns:
    Quote:

    Our President has emphasized the urgency of eliminating these weapons and weapons programs. I strongly support his efforts to encourage the United Nations to act on this problem. And in taking this to the United Nations,the President?s clear determination to act if the United Nations can?t provides strong leverage under girding further diplomatic efforts. ?



    If efforts to resolve the problem by using the United Nations fail, either initially or ultimately, the US should form the broadest possible coalition, including its NATO allies and the North Atlantic Council if possible, to bring force to bear?



    Ideally , international and multinational organizations will participate in the readying of such post-conflict operations, including the UN, NATO, and other regional and Islamic organizations??



    If we proceed as outlined above, we may be able to minimize the disruption to the ongoing campaign against Al Qaeda, reduce the impact on friendly governments in the region, and even contribute to the resolution of other regional issues such as the Arab-Israeli conflict, Iranian efforts to develop nuclear capabilities, and Saudi funding for terrorism. But there are no guarantees.



    .
    Quote:

    Yes, there is a risk that inspections would fail to provide the evidence of his weapons programs, but the difficulties of dealing with this outcome are more than offset by opportunity to gain allies and support in the campaign against Saddam.



    My reading is that in Sept of 2002 his stance was, for all practical purposes, that of George Bush. Other than desiring post-war rebuilding efforts include international agencies, I can?t see where any of it does not dovetail with Bush's administration policy and efforts, and it confirms his war resolution support (the purpose of the hearing). In fact, as you might notice in the last quote, AND he even worries that inspections may not show WMD and alludes to the "difficulties" it would present (not as a resolution to WMD and Iraq).



    Given these statements, this brings up a couple of glaring concerns:



    1)\tWhat?s his beef about needing U.N. approval now? He didn?t even maintain (in this statement) that a Regional security agency?s vote was required for war ? in fact he said any to any coalition is useful (which the President got). And the fact that his/Clinton?s war was vote without a U.N. mandate only makes his actual beliefs questionable.



    2)\tHere he talks about the necessity of eliminating the WMDs and their programs w/ or w/o UN backing (not very "elective" to me) ? although he clearly supports assessments of nukes deployment to be at least 2, maybe 5 years away. But then his WMD statement a month later was quite unequivocal; and he was only willing to say probably not nukes in the next few months. Unlike your "millionare" comment, it wasn't made as flippant or off-hand remark - Yes, I do think his beliefs changed, and it certainly implies urgency.



    B)\tBoyer?s article makes an assertion that, if true, suggestd Clark is a bit Perot loopy. According to his research and discussion with him, Clark believes the administration is operating off of a specific covert scheme for war with a five-year timeline - one that Clarke admits he has no proof. Clark?s further assertion is that the whole thing was a contrived 'bait and switch' without an intention of dealing with terrorism. Apparently, Clarke didn't think there was a phoney war in September 2002.



    My only conclusion is that Clark did support and believe in the war and he would have voted for the war resolution. Now, given the exigencies of politics, he?s claimed there were false pretenses; i.e. a covert scheme for regional warfare, a covert bait-and switch plan, and an absolute need for U.N. approval.



    IF he really believes this, then his ideas are little more than loopy, demonstrably false, and, given his experience in Kosvo, hypocritical. However, I would like to believe that he doesn?t hold any of these beliefs and that, somehow, he?s been misquoted?
  • Reply 96 of 146
    Ohhh just a nice and fun to watch Wesley Clark Video



    Fellows
  • Reply 97 of 146
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ShawnJ

    Is this some PNAC outreach program or something you're part of? You have to be crazy to eliminate one of the only "moderates" on Bush's staff. He doesn't listen to Powell anyway, which is better than, I suppose, listening to another hard-liner in his place.





    I don't care if he's a "moderate". I don't even care that he's probably a democrat. What I do care about is him being affective at his job, and being affective at the task(s) assigned him. And on that front, he's been a miserable failure. There's just no arguing around that.
  • Reply 98 of 146
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sCreeD

    Um, no majorspunk. Powell is at the tail end of this train. The White House poo-pooed the very idea of UN inspections. Add to that Rumsfeld's comment about EU members that disagreed being part of "Old Europe." On and on... The whole lot of them, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, all have distinct disdain and contempt for international organizations and laws.



    Powell, with experience from the previous pro-diplomacy Bush administration, may have suggested a larger role for international involvement but essentially he's just a guy who likes to keep his job.



    Screed






    Don't try to revise history sCreeD. The UN inceptors had practically forever to get Saddam to comply, and they failed. I'll also remind you that deploying and redeploying 150,000 troops every time Saddam decided to jerk the inceptors around isn't really an option any sane body would contemplate.
  • Reply 99 of 146
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by majorspunk

    I don't care if he's a "moderate". I don't even care that he's probably a democrat. What I do care about is him being affective at his job, and being affective at the task(s) assigned him. And on that front, he's been a miserable failure. There's just no arguing around that.



    You're right. Mr. Powell is just not in the least bit affective, that is, emotional. Miserable failure in that regard. Oh wait you mean effective. You're right on that one too. I'm not okay with that, but like I said: I'd rather have President Bush not listen to him than have another hard-liner replace him.
  • Reply 100 of 146
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kirkland





    Iraqification will be a disaster. If a well trained American army cannot hold stability in Iraq, a bunch of poorly-if-at-all trained Iraqi "security officers" will fare even worse.



    I'm a Democrat, I'm for Clark, but pulling troops out is exactly the wrong course to take at this point. We have to stay there and stay there en masse until the situation is settled. We need more troops in Iraq in the short term, or we'll be facing a hostile Iraq again in the long term.



    Of course, no one from either party is ready to support this reality. [/B]







    Again, what's with all the optimism?



    I think you're overlooking one critical difference. The new Iraqi Force will know the country, know the people, and most importantly, will know the language. There's no longer a need for US Abrams tanks and Apachi helicopters in Iraq. And should a firefight breaks out, one B-52 ran will more than do the job.
Sign In or Register to comment.