The whole lot of them, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, all have distinct disdain and contempt for international organizations and laws.
.
.
If so, I share their contempt. Laws are meaningless if they're not enforced, or are enforced selectively. The UN is the perfect example. If they enforced their own charter, 90% of their members would be required the forfeit their membership. As it stand you have contries like Iraq chairing the committee on WoMD. Cuba or some other unsavory dictatorship chairing the committee on human rights. etc. It's an Orwellian bizarro world.
No. I tried to imply that tanks and helicopter gunships are probably an overkill at this point. The B-52 reference was my attempt at humor. (Therefore the smiley). But thanks for thinking the worst. Somehow I knew you would.
No. I tried to imply that tanks and helicopter gunships are probably an overkill at this point. The B-52 reference was my attempt at humor. (Therefore the smiley). But thanks for thinking the worst. Somehow I knew you would.
Mmm yeah.... Tanks and helicopters are overkill because one B-52 could cause mass-destruction. Ha ha.
Patriotism, and the related subjects are immaterial.
There was nothing immaterial about my comments on Clark's patriotism; I made them for a reason. You maintained that Clark was inconsistent in opposing the administration's handling of the war while simultaneously praising the swift military victory. My comments were simply intended to frame Clark's appreciation of the military campaign in the context of a career military man who is disinclined to inhibit his pride in the strength and efficacy of the US armed forces- regardless of the circumstances under which they were deployed. This is a slight variation on the fundamental problem for many on the right to come to grips with: the idea that someone can "support the troops" while opposing the war. Clark was proud of what the military, his military, had accomplished.
What's more, it is precisely the fact that Clark praised (with reservation) the early success in the war that elevates him in my estimation. Many of my fellow lefties were far too quick to scream "QUAGMIRE!" at the first signs of trouble during the campaign, but Clark doesn't seem to be burdened by that particular brand of party politics. If Bush gets positive results, Clark is prepared to give credit where due. That should earn him respect and trust, not derision and condemnation.
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxParrish
A) Clark seems to have supported the war, celebrated the military with hubris (something about the U.S. can waste anyone in another statement)
This is just more of the same kind of misinterpretation as I described above. I'll address this further in a moment.
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxParrish
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).
That's funny, because I had exactly the opposite experience.
Clark never "flip-flopped" on the resolution. He didn't say that he would not have voted for the resolution, he said that he wouldn't have voted for the war:
"Let's make one thing real clear, I would never have voted for this war...I've got a very consistent record on this. There was no imminent threat. This was not a case of pre-emptive war. I would have voted for the right kind of leverage to get a diplomatic solution, an international solution to the challenge of Saddam Hussein."
He was trying to say that his consideration for voting for the resolution didn't necessarily imply that he supported the war (resolution -/-> war), but that he saw it as an important diplomatic bargaining tool. Now, when I first heard this, it just sounded like an attempt to excuse his misstep from the previous day. But then I read his ASC testimony and was surprised to discover that he had said the exact same damned thing a year earlier: "The United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be further strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing US determination to act if the United Nations will_not...etc." That seems pretty consistent to me. Clark had also said (a year earlier) that "The more nearly unanimous the resolution, the greater its impact in the diplomatic efforts underway." So when asked if he would have voted for it, he gave a half-hearted "probably" but clarified that he "was against the war as it emerged because there was no reason to start it when we did."
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxParrish
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).
To say that Bush and Clark had the same policy on Iraq is to ignore some pretty significant differences, not the least spectacular of which is that, had he been president, Clark would never have done any of this in the first place.
But there are any number of other differences in their positions leading up the the conflict. Bush never took the inspectors seriously at all, even going so far as to seemingly mock their efforts with all of that "fool me once...can't get fooled again" business and with persistent asseverations of the futile nature of the whole enterprise. He certainly didn't have any interest in stepping up the inspection regime with more intrusive, "backed by force" inspections which some have proposed (and Clark mentions in his testimony. The "force" in question suggests, for example, targeting of suspected weapons sites in the event of Iraqi noncooperation at those sites, etc.)
Clark said that "Force should not be used until the personnel and organizations to be involved in post-conflict Iraq are identified and readied to assume their responsibilities. This includes requirements for_ humanitarian assistance, police and judicial capabilities, emergency medical and reconstruction assistance, and preparations for a transitional governing body and eventual elections, perhaps including a new constitution.__ 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." To say that the Bush administration failed on this point would be a pretty massive understatement.
Bush says that he believes that force should be a last resort, but all available evidence suggests the contrary. Hell, the PNAC people driving this administration's policy have been chomping at the bit to invade Iraq since the mid 90's. Their whole policy of reshaping the Middle East requires military intervention. Force as a last resort? Force is the prime mover behind their entire foreign policy.
Remember that Time magazine article?
"'Fuck Saddam. We're taking him out.' Those were the words of President George W. Bush, who had poked his head into the office of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. It was March 2002, and Rice was meeting with three U.S. Senators, discussing how to deal with Iraq through the United Nations, or perhaps in a coalition with America's Middle East allies. Bush wasn't interested. He waved his hand dismissively, recalls a participant, and neatly summed up his Iraq policy in that short phrase. The Senators laughed uncomfortably; Rice flashed a knowing smile. The President left the room."
I'm sure much more could be said about Bush's many diplomatic failures. But let's return to the key point of tremendous contrast between Bush and Clark:
Recalling your earlier statements about "hubris" and about how the U.S. can "waste anyone," there is nothing inconsistent in Clark's boasting about the unmatched power of US military force and our inability to use that force to politically restructure the world- and that is precisely the policy of the Bush administration. They wish to employ the military as a force to reshape the political landscape in the Middle East. To say that Clark shares the same policies as Bush is completely off the wall.
Clark talks at length about the whole issue of US military might vs. US imperialism:
"Our difficulties in Iraq are not just evidence of careless planning for the postwar--though they are that. More fundamentally, they call into question the whole theory that America is capable of--or that it is in our interest to create--an empire founded on force of arms. The American military has never been and probably cannot be made into an imperial force along neo-Roman lines. This is not to say that America lacks sufficient power to defend its interests in the world, including spreading values such as democracy and free-market economics. We've had that power for decades, and wielded it successfully. But while a powerful military has been vital, the chief means of our influence has been an interlocking web of international institutions and arrangements, from NATO to the World Bank to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. This network of mutual interdependence, though marginalized by the Bush administration, was largely devised by America, which has also been its chief beneficiary. It is, for all practical purposes, a kind of empire--but to use a contemporary term, a virtual one. Properly used and expanded, it can be the secret to a secure and prosperous future."
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxParrish
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).
It's not fair to say that he "worries" about the inspections failing. He simply acknowledges the risk, but then says that "the difficulties of dealing with this [potential failure] are more than offset by opportunity to gain allies and support in the campaign against Saddam." And this also ignores the suggestion of an improved inspection regime combined with limited force.
This is another good example, btw, of your habit of taking a quote and extrapolating to absurdity. I could just as well take some quote where Clark warned about worst-case scenarios in which Saddam, in a last act of desperation under US attack, might deploy chemical weapons killing thousands or millions of people and then conclude that Clark's position was that Saddam's use of chemical weapons was an inevitability and so he must have been entirely opposed to the war.
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxParrish
Given these statements, this brings up a couple of glaring concerns:
1) What?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) Here 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.
I think I've pretty much addressed most of this, but, regardless, so long as Clark believes that "Force should be used as the last resort; after all diplomatic means have been exhausted," and so long as there is any possible room for Clark to believe that Bush had failed to exhaust those diplomatic means, then all bets are off.
As far as the nuke timeline, I just don't know what more to tell you. When you look at Clark's specific statements regarding Saddam's nuclear timeline, the only logical conclusion is that Clark most certainly did not think that Saddam might be a "few months away."
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxParrish
Boyer?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.
Again, apart from the "five-year plan" part of it, nothing here should be news to anyone. Look, here's yet another one:
"The Bush administration_on Tuesday_defended its strategy of pre-emptive action against Iraq - even while admitting that US intelligence had been imperfect - and warned that the US was ready to use all options against five other 'rogue states'.
"John Bolton, under-secretary of state for arms control and international security, singled out Iran, North Korea, Syria, Libya and Cuba as being "hostile to US interests" during a speech in Washington."
The only "loopy" conspiracy mongering I see here is coming from you.
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxParrish
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.
Ok, now you've gone off the deep end. "Without an intention of dealing with terrorism"? Are you suggesting that Clark thinks that the administration is somehow intentionally taking a dive in the terrorist fight? Look, these guys have wanted to go into Iraq for YEARS. 9/11 gave them the excuse to move forward, the "modern day Pearl Harbor" they were talking about in their PNAC articles from years ago, and they pulled important troops, equipment, money and intelligence out of Afghanistan and other places and sent them into an indefinitely open commitment in Iraq when they could be better deployed elsewhere. It's a simple matter of prioritizing, and the Bush administration has overcommitted finite resources in one place at the expense of another, and they have done all of this under the banner of "fighting terrorism." That's your "bait and switch." It's just that simple.
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxParrish
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?
Sometimes misquoted, but more often misinterpreted and misrepresented.
What's more, it is precisely the fact that Clark praised (with reservation) the early success in the war that elevates him in my estimation. Many of my fellow lefties were far too quick to scream "QUAGMIRE!" at the first signs of trouble during the campaign, but Clark doesn't seem to be burdened by that particular brand of party politics. If Bush gets positive results, Clark is prepared to give credit where due. That should earn him respect and trust, not derision and condemnation.
In my estimation it is still too early to judge the Iraqi operation as either a success or a failure. So your statement would be just as applicable to todays quick to jump on the "QUAGMIRE!" bandwagon partizans as it was to yesterdays quick to jump on the "QUAGMIRE!" bandwagon partizans. But, at least you're honest enough to admit this is nothing more than a leftist partizan tactic..
In my estimation it is still too early to judge the Iraqi operation as either a success or a failure. So your statement would be just as applicable to todays quick to jump on the "QUAGMIRE!" bandwagon partizans as it was to yesterdays quick to jump on the "QUAGMIRE!" bandwagon partizans. But, at least you're honest enough to admit this is nothing more than a leftist partizan tactic..
Nobody has said that the Iraq mission has been a complete and total failure- it's obviously too soon to tell. Many have opined, however, that we shouldn't have done it in the first place, one way or the other. And many have objected to the manner in which the administration planned for and are executing the post-war occupation. Nothing partisan about it. And "quagmire" doesn't ring as hollow today as it did in April when Baghdad fell in a few short weeks with minimal casualties and no great catastrophic WMD attacks. The military campaign was clearly successful up to that point. How things have gone since that time is another matter entirely.
EDIT: Let me clarify this real quick because I don't think I made my point but I've got to go...
The initial military campaign was generally expected to be relatively painless- we would "shock and awe" them into submission, etc. Calling it a "quagmire" just because the supply lines stalled for a couple of days was clearly unfair.
However, it is also true today that: "The Defense Department had predicted that by now the Iraqi would be well on their way to self- government, and troop levels would be down to 30,000. Instead, America still has 140,000 in place. It's costing the United States a billion dollars a week to keep them there. The number of soldiers who have died since the end of hostilities is now higher than the number killed during the fighting, and every day it seems the number goes up."
When you go from claiming "down to 30000 troops by September" to asking "will they be reinstating the draft?" then you know you've got some serious problems on your hands.
In my estimation it is still too early to judge the Iraqi operation as either a success or a failure. So your statement would be just as applicable to todays quick to jump on the "QUAGMIRE!" bandwagon partizans as it was to yesterdays quick to jump on the "QUAGMIRE!" bandwagon partizans. But, at least you're honest enough to admit this is nothing more than a leftist partizan tactic..
Great Scott!
The only person not on these boards that I've heard describe Iraq as a "quagmire" was a soldier after returning from duty.
Many have opined, however, that we shouldn't have done it in the first place, one way or the other. And many have objected to the manner in which the administration planned for and are executing the post-war occupation. Nothing partisan about it.
Yes, and they claim that now with the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Saddam, and the rest of them modern "Saladins" on the run, the world is a less safer place than it was before..
It's very obvious that if you scratch the surface, you will find that many such critics are hostile to the US because they perceive the US as a threat to the Islamic Empire. The leftist media and politicians pandering to this pro-Islamic crowd to bolster their dwindling demographics and bankrupt ideology is nothing short of scandalous..
Yes, and they claim that now with the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Saddam, and the rest of them modern "Saladins" on the run, the world is a less safer place than it was before..
No, they claim that Bush has done an unacceptable job in Afghanistan, is wasting important resources chasing guerrillas in Iraq instead of terrorists elsewhere and that the future of Iraq (and, consequently, the safety and stability of the region) is very much uncertain.
Quote:
Originally posted by majorspunk
It's very obvious that if you scratch the surface, you will find that many such critics are hostile to the US because they perceive the US as a threat to the Islamic Empire. The leftist media and politicians pandering to this pro-Islamic crowd to bolster their dwindling demographics and bankrupt ideology is nothing short of scandalous..
It is equally obvious that you're pulling this out of your ass.
Yes, and they claim that now with the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Saddam, and the rest of them modern "Saladins" on the run, the world is a less safer place than it was before..
It's very obvious that if you scratch the surface, you will find that many such critics are hostile to the US because they perceive the US as a threat to the Islamic Empire. The leftist media and politicians pandering to this pro-Islamic crowd to bolster their dwindling demographics and bankrupt ideology is nothing short of scandalous..
they're are so disarmingly UNpolitical . . . I like them . . . it is hard to imagine that there could be a politician position who's 'video/diaries-for-public-release' would be natural enough for me not to dislike them . . . --I am veeery picky about video . . . its my thang!!
I mean, they seem like semi aesthetically-intelligent videos in their form and looseness and yet well constructed too . . . rather than what I would expect for public release by a politicia . . . these are not 'safe' enough to seem like the average political pablum. . .
I wonder what sort of impact these have in the general populace?
It is equally obvious that you're pulling this out of your ass.
Really?! Page 2 of this very thread..
Quote:
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Fellowship's my man.
And the world isn't as safe as it was. Last week, for the first time, suicide bombers have attacked British concerns abroad. Did you see the news? Now there's massive concrete blocks all around consulates in Argentina and Turkey, and other places too I suppose. This is new. A "suicide bomber" was arrested on Thursday in England, for goodness' sake. This war has pissed people off and has quite obviously, demonstrably done nothing to prevent terrorist attacks.
An Al'Qaida spokesman's threatened attacks in central Tokyo if Japan doesn't take its troops back.
Comments
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
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.
Because I feel he deserves much of the blame.
I can't recall ever any other SoS who has been less out there and less visible than Collin Powell. What the hell is he doing with all his time?!
Originally posted by majorspunk
And should a firefight breaks out, one B-52 ran will more than do the job.
Because killing is so *FUN*!
Originally posted by majorspunk
Because I feel he deserves much of the blame.
I can't recall ever any other SoS who has been less out there and less visible than Collin Powell. What the hell is he doing with all his time?!
I still don't quite follow...you don't know what he was doing, so you feel he is to blame?
Originally posted by sCreeD
.
.
The whole lot of them, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, all have distinct disdain and contempt for international organizations and laws.
.
.
If so, I share their contempt. Laws are meaningless if they're not enforced, or are enforced selectively. The UN is the perfect example. If they enforced their own charter, 90% of their members would be required the forfeit their membership. As it stand you have contries like Iraq chairing the committee on WoMD. Cuba or some other unsavory dictatorship chairing the committee on human rights. etc. It's an Orwellian bizarro world.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Because killing is so *FUN*!
No. I tried to imply that tanks and helicopter gunships are probably an overkill at this point. The B-52 reference was my attempt at humor. (Therefore the smiley). But thanks for thinking the worst. Somehow I knew you would.
Originally posted by majorspunk
No. I tried to imply that tanks and helicopter gunships are probably an overkill at this point. The B-52 reference was my attempt at humor. (Therefore the smiley). But thanks for thinking the worst. Somehow I knew you would.
Mmm yeah.... Tanks and helicopters are overkill because one B-52 could cause mass-destruction. Ha ha.
Originally posted by MaxParrish
Patriotism, and the related subjects are immaterial.
There was nothing immaterial about my comments on Clark's patriotism; I made them for a reason. You maintained that Clark was inconsistent in opposing the administration's handling of the war while simultaneously praising the swift military victory. My comments were simply intended to frame Clark's appreciation of the military campaign in the context of a career military man who is disinclined to inhibit his pride in the strength and efficacy of the US armed forces- regardless of the circumstances under which they were deployed. This is a slight variation on the fundamental problem for many on the right to come to grips with: the idea that someone can "support the troops" while opposing the war. Clark was proud of what the military, his military, had accomplished.
What's more, it is precisely the fact that Clark praised (with reservation) the early success in the war that elevates him in my estimation. Many of my fellow lefties were far too quick to scream "QUAGMIRE!" at the first signs of trouble during the campaign, but Clark doesn't seem to be burdened by that particular brand of party politics. If Bush gets positive results, Clark is prepared to give credit where due. That should earn him respect and trust, not derision and condemnation.
Originally posted by MaxParrish
A) Clark seems to have supported the war, celebrated the military with hubris (something about the U.S. can waste anyone in another statement)
This is just more of the same kind of misinterpretation as I described above. I'll address this further in a moment.
Originally posted by MaxParrish
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).
That's funny, because I had exactly the opposite experience.
Clark never "flip-flopped" on the resolution. He didn't say that he would not have voted for the resolution, he said that he wouldn't have voted for the war:
"Let's make one thing real clear, I would never have voted for this war...I've got a very consistent record on this. There was no imminent threat. This was not a case of pre-emptive war. I would have voted for the right kind of leverage to get a diplomatic solution, an international solution to the challenge of Saddam Hussein."
He was trying to say that his consideration for voting for the resolution didn't necessarily imply that he supported the war (resolution -/-> war), but that he saw it as an important diplomatic bargaining tool. Now, when I first heard this, it just sounded like an attempt to excuse his misstep from the previous day. But then I read his ASC testimony and was surprised to discover that he had said the exact same damned thing a year earlier: "The United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be further strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing US determination to act if the United Nations will_not...etc." That seems pretty consistent to me. Clark had also said (a year earlier) that "The more nearly unanimous the resolution, the greater its impact in the diplomatic efforts underway." So when asked if he would have voted for it, he gave a half-hearted "probably" but clarified that he "was against the war as it emerged because there was no reason to start it when we did."
Originally posted by MaxParrish
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).
To say that Bush and Clark had the same policy on Iraq is to ignore some pretty significant differences, not the least spectacular of which is that, had he been president, Clark would never have done any of this in the first place.
But there are any number of other differences in their positions leading up the the conflict. Bush never took the inspectors seriously at all, even going so far as to seemingly mock their efforts with all of that "fool me once...can't get fooled again" business and with persistent asseverations of the futile nature of the whole enterprise. He certainly didn't have any interest in stepping up the inspection regime with more intrusive, "backed by force" inspections which some have proposed (and Clark mentions in his testimony. The "force" in question suggests, for example, targeting of suspected weapons sites in the event of Iraqi noncooperation at those sites, etc.)
Clark said that "Force should not be used until the personnel and organizations to be involved in post-conflict Iraq are identified and readied to assume their responsibilities. This includes requirements for_ humanitarian assistance, police and judicial capabilities, emergency medical and reconstruction assistance, and preparations for a transitional governing body and eventual elections, perhaps including a new constitution.__ 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." To say that the Bush administration failed on this point would be a pretty massive understatement.
Bush says that he believes that force should be a last resort, but all available evidence suggests the contrary. Hell, the PNAC people driving this administration's policy have been chomping at the bit to invade Iraq since the mid 90's. Their whole policy of reshaping the Middle East requires military intervention. Force as a last resort? Force is the prime mover behind their entire foreign policy.
Remember that Time magazine article?
"'Fuck Saddam. We're taking him out.' Those were the words of President George W. Bush, who had poked his head into the office of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. It was March 2002, and Rice was meeting with three U.S. Senators, discussing how to deal with Iraq through the United Nations, or perhaps in a coalition with America's Middle East allies. Bush wasn't interested. He waved his hand dismissively, recalls a participant, and neatly summed up his Iraq policy in that short phrase. The Senators laughed uncomfortably; Rice flashed a knowing smile. The President left the room."
I'm sure much more could be said about Bush's many diplomatic failures. But let's return to the key point of tremendous contrast between Bush and Clark:
Recalling your earlier statements about "hubris" and about how the U.S. can "waste anyone," there is nothing inconsistent in Clark's boasting about the unmatched power of US military force and our inability to use that force to politically restructure the world- and that is precisely the policy of the Bush administration. They wish to employ the military as a force to reshape the political landscape in the Middle East. To say that Clark shares the same policies as Bush is completely off the wall.
Clark talks at length about the whole issue of US military might vs. US imperialism:
"Our difficulties in Iraq are not just evidence of careless planning for the postwar--though they are that. More fundamentally, they call into question the whole theory that America is capable of--or that it is in our interest to create--an empire founded on force of arms. The American military has never been and probably cannot be made into an imperial force along neo-Roman lines. This is not to say that America lacks sufficient power to defend its interests in the world, including spreading values such as democracy and free-market economics. We've had that power for decades, and wielded it successfully. But while a powerful military has been vital, the chief means of our influence has been an interlocking web of international institutions and arrangements, from NATO to the World Bank to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. This network of mutual interdependence, though marginalized by the Bush administration, was largely devised by America, which has also been its chief beneficiary. It is, for all practical purposes, a kind of empire--but to use a contemporary term, a virtual one. Properly used and expanded, it can be the secret to a secure and prosperous future."
Originally posted by MaxParrish
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).
It's not fair to say that he "worries" about the inspections failing. He simply acknowledges the risk, but then says that "the difficulties of dealing with this [potential failure] are more than offset by opportunity to gain allies and support in the campaign against Saddam." And this also ignores the suggestion of an improved inspection regime combined with limited force.
This is another good example, btw, of your habit of taking a quote and extrapolating to absurdity. I could just as well take some quote where Clark warned about worst-case scenarios in which Saddam, in a last act of desperation under US attack, might deploy chemical weapons killing thousands or millions of people and then conclude that Clark's position was that Saddam's use of chemical weapons was an inevitability and so he must have been entirely opposed to the war.
Originally posted by MaxParrish
Given these statements, this brings up a couple of glaring concerns:
1) What?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) Here 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.
I think I've pretty much addressed most of this, but, regardless, so long as Clark believes that "Force should be used as the last resort; after all diplomatic means have been exhausted," and so long as there is any possible room for Clark to believe that Bush had failed to exhaust those diplomatic means, then all bets are off.
As far as the nuke timeline, I just don't know what more to tell you. When you look at Clark's specific statements regarding Saddam's nuclear timeline, the only logical conclusion is that Clark most certainly did not think that Saddam might be a "few months away."
Originally posted by MaxParrish
Again, apart from the "five-year plan" part of it, nothing here should be news to anyone. Look, here's yet another one:
"The Bush administration_on Tuesday_defended its strategy of pre-emptive action against Iraq - even while admitting that US intelligence had been imperfect - and warned that the US was ready to use all options against five other 'rogue states'.
"John Bolton, under-secretary of state for arms control and international security, singled out Iran, North Korea, Syria, Libya and Cuba as being "hostile to US interests" during a speech in Washington."
The only "loopy" conspiracy mongering I see here is coming from you.
Originally posted by MaxParrish
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.
Ok, now you've gone off the deep end. "Without an intention of dealing with terrorism"? Are you suggesting that Clark thinks that the administration is somehow intentionally taking a dive in the terrorist fight? Look, these guys have wanted to go into Iraq for YEARS. 9/11 gave them the excuse to move forward, the "modern day Pearl Harbor" they were talking about in their PNAC articles from years ago, and they pulled important troops, equipment, money and intelligence out of Afghanistan and other places and sent them into an indefinitely open commitment in Iraq when they could be better deployed elsewhere. It's a simple matter of prioritizing, and the Bush administration has overcommitted finite resources in one place at the expense of another, and they have done all of this under the banner of "fighting terrorism." That's your "bait and switch." It's just that simple.
Originally posted by MaxParrish
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?
Sometimes misquoted, but more often misinterpreted and misrepresented.
Originally posted by Northgate
Common Sense for a New Century
AAAAAARRRRRRRGGGHHHH!!!!! VOTE FOR MEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!
Originally posted by Josef K.
What's more, it is precisely the fact that Clark praised (with reservation) the early success in the war that elevates him in my estimation. Many of my fellow lefties were far too quick to scream "QUAGMIRE!" at the first signs of trouble during the campaign, but Clark doesn't seem to be burdened by that particular brand of party politics. If Bush gets positive results, Clark is prepared to give credit where due. That should earn him respect and trust, not derision and condemnation.
In my estimation it is still too early to judge the Iraqi operation as either a success or a failure. So your statement would be just as applicable to todays quick to jump on the "QUAGMIRE!" bandwagon partizans as it was to yesterdays quick to jump on the "QUAGMIRE!" bandwagon partizans. But, at least you're honest enough to admit this is nothing more than a leftist partizan tactic..
It's a mistake.
Eventually something good will come out of it.
Despite the administration poor planning and rush to war.
Liberals aren't MAKING UP the difficulties in Iraq.
Or the fact we have little support from the world community.
Or that Afghanistan is far from being a stable muslim democracy.
Originally posted by majorspunk
In my estimation it is still too early to judge the Iraqi operation as either a success or a failure. So your statement would be just as applicable to todays quick to jump on the "QUAGMIRE!" bandwagon partizans as it was to yesterdays quick to jump on the "QUAGMIRE!" bandwagon partizans. But, at least you're honest enough to admit this is nothing more than a leftist partizan tactic..
Nobody has said that the Iraq mission has been a complete and total failure- it's obviously too soon to tell. Many have opined, however, that we shouldn't have done it in the first place, one way or the other. And many have objected to the manner in which the administration planned for and are executing the post-war occupation. Nothing partisan about it. And "quagmire" doesn't ring as hollow today as it did in April when Baghdad fell in a few short weeks with minimal casualties and no great catastrophic WMD attacks. The military campaign was clearly successful up to that point. How things have gone since that time is another matter entirely.
EDIT: Let me clarify this real quick because I don't think I made my point but I've got to go...
The initial military campaign was generally expected to be relatively painless- we would "shock and awe" them into submission, etc. Calling it a "quagmire" just because the supply lines stalled for a couple of days was clearly unfair.
However, it is also true today that: "The Defense Department had predicted that by now the Iraqi would be well on their way to self- government, and troop levels would be down to 30,000. Instead, America still has 140,000 in place. It's costing the United States a billion dollars a week to keep them there. The number of soldiers who have died since the end of hostilities is now higher than the number killed during the fighting, and every day it seems the number goes up."
When you go from claiming "down to 30000 troops by September" to asking "will they be reinstating the draft?" then you know you've got some serious problems on your hands.
Originally posted by majorspunk
In my estimation it is still too early to judge the Iraqi operation as either a success or a failure. So your statement would be just as applicable to todays quick to jump on the "QUAGMIRE!" bandwagon partizans as it was to yesterdays quick to jump on the "QUAGMIRE!" bandwagon partizans. But, at least you're honest enough to admit this is nothing more than a leftist partizan tactic..
Great Scott!
The only person not on these boards that I've heard describe Iraq as a "quagmire" was a soldier after returning from duty.
Originally posted by Josef K.
Many have opined, however, that we shouldn't have done it in the first place, one way or the other. And many have objected to the manner in which the administration planned for and are executing the post-war occupation. Nothing partisan about it.
Yes, and they claim that now with the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Saddam, and the rest of them modern "Saladins" on the run, the world is a less safer place than it was before..
It's very obvious that if you scratch the surface, you will find that many such critics are hostile to the US because they perceive the US as a threat to the Islamic Empire. The leftist media and politicians pandering to this pro-Islamic crowd to bolster their dwindling demographics and bankrupt ideology is nothing short of scandalous..
Originally posted by majorspunk
Yes, and they claim that now with the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Saddam, and the rest of them modern "Saladins" on the run, the world is a less safer place than it was before..
No, they claim that Bush has done an unacceptable job in Afghanistan, is wasting important resources chasing guerrillas in Iraq instead of terrorists elsewhere and that the future of Iraq (and, consequently, the safety and stability of the region) is very much uncertain.
Originally posted by majorspunk
It's very obvious that if you scratch the surface, you will find that many such critics are hostile to the US because they perceive the US as a threat to the Islamic Empire. The leftist media and politicians pandering to this pro-Islamic crowd to bolster their dwindling demographics and bankrupt ideology is nothing short of scandalous..
It is equally obvious that you're pulling this out of your ass.
Originally posted by majorspunk
Yes, and they claim that now with the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Saddam, and the rest of them modern "Saladins" on the run, the world is a less safer place than it was before..
It's very obvious that if you scratch the surface, you will find that many such critics are hostile to the US because they perceive the US as a threat to the Islamic Empire. The leftist media and politicians pandering to this pro-Islamic crowd to bolster their dwindling demographics and bankrupt ideology is nothing short of scandalous..
Your a joke
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Ohhh just a nice and fun to watch Wesley Clark Video
Are these 'official' videos?
they're are so disarmingly UNpolitical . . . I like them . . . it is hard to imagine that there could be a politician position who's 'video/diaries-for-public-release' would be natural enough for me not to dislike them . . . --I am veeery picky about video . . . its my thang!!
I mean, they seem like semi aesthetically-intelligent videos in their form and looseness and yet well constructed too . . . rather than what I would expect for public release by a politicia . . . these are not 'safe' enough to seem like the average political pablum. . .
I wonder what sort of impact these have in the general populace?
Originally posted by Josef K.
It is equally obvious that you're pulling this out of your ass.
Really?! Page 2 of this very thread..
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Fellowship's my man.
And the world isn't as safe as it was. Last week, for the first time, suicide bombers have attacked British concerns abroad. Did you see the news? Now there's massive concrete blocks all around consulates in Argentina and Turkey, and other places too I suppose. This is new. A "suicide bomber" was arrested on Thursday in England, for goodness' sake. This war has pissed people off and has quite obviously, demonstrably done nothing to prevent terrorist attacks.
An Al'Qaida spokesman's threatened attacks in central Tokyo if Japan doesn't take its troops back.
World a safer place my arse.