Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

elleng

(130,912 posts)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 09:19 PM Nov 2014

Wesley Clark defends low-income cell phone program during speech in Baton Rouge. +ISIS.

Clark, a former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO and 2004 Democratic candidate for president, also touched on ISIS during his visit to Baton Rouge. He said the region is sorting out 300 years of disagreement among schools of Islamic thought, which couldn't be solved by putting American troops back on the ground in Iraq.

"We tried to put democracy in Iraq but we failed," Clark said. "Without legitimate governance in the region, all the boots on the ground won't make a difference, just like they didn't in Iraq and just like they haven't in Afghanistan."

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/11/wesley_clark_defends_low-incom.html

22 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Wesley Clark defends low-income cell phone program during speech in Baton Rouge. +ISIS. (Original Post) elleng Nov 2014 OP
Really? Still pushing the lie that the US war on Iraq was for "democracy"? delrem Nov 2014 #1
Sounds like he is saying democracy failed. Thinkingabout Nov 2014 #2
Well, doh! delrem Nov 2014 #3
Did not think he was "pushing" democracy, just stated it failed. Thinkingabout Nov 2014 #4
"We tried to put democracy in Iraq but we failed," delrem Nov 2014 #7
WRONG! elleng Nov 2014 #5
"We tried to put democracy in Iraq but we failed," he said. delrem Nov 2014 #6
'the region is sorting out 300 years of disagreement among schools of Islamic thought, elleng Nov 2014 #8
Yes, he claimed the Iraq war was for a noble purpose, for democracy, delrem Nov 2014 #9
It was superficially for that reason, and he knows the facts and the truth. elleng Nov 2014 #10
The Iraq war was not even "superficially" for democracy. delrem Nov 2014 #11
'While the Bush White House promotes the possibility of armed conflict with Iran, a tantalizing elleng Nov 2014 #13
Exactly. He knew that "for democracy" was flat out lie. delrem Nov 2014 #14
You are either one dumb mthrfkr Legalequilibrium78 Nov 2014 #15
Thanks. elleng Nov 2014 #16
You two are so civil. delrem Nov 2014 #17
We means the previous American govt. that were elected Legalequilibrium78 Nov 2014 #18
Thanks again, Legal (me too!) elleng Nov 2014 #19
Oh no need to thank me Ellen, Legalequilibrium78 Nov 2014 #20
You're welcome. Happy to see you here. elleng Nov 2014 #21
"We tried to put democracy in Iraq but we failed," he said. delrem Nov 2014 #22
the people of Iraq are tribal. quadrature Nov 2014 #12

delrem

(9,688 posts)
1. Really? Still pushing the lie that the US war on Iraq was for "democracy"?
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 09:36 PM
Nov 2014

And americans still pretend to believe it?

That's pretty damn shameless.

delrem

(9,688 posts)
3. Well, doh!
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 09:41 PM
Nov 2014

Next time use more bombs, kill more Iraqis, arm more militias, firebomb more cities. Since that's how "democracy" is spread, according as you and Wes.

elleng

(130,912 posts)
5. WRONG!
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 09:55 PM
Nov 2014

Wes Clark has said, forever, that is NOT how democracy is spread. Did you read his statement?

"Without legitimate governance in the region, all the boots on the ground won't make a difference, just like they didn't in Iraq and just like they haven't in Afghanistan."

delrem

(9,688 posts)
6. "We tried to put democracy in Iraq but we failed," he said.
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 10:13 PM
Nov 2014

And he blamed it on the intransigent Muslims

elleng

(130,912 posts)
8. 'the region is sorting out 300 years of disagreement among schools of Islamic thought,
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 10:19 PM
Nov 2014

which couldn't be solved by putting American troops back on the ground in Iraq.'

delrem

(9,688 posts)
9. Yes, he claimed the Iraq war was for a noble purpose, for democracy,
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 10:28 PM
Nov 2014

for freedom, and it failed because Muslims are backward.

And that is a flat out lie. The Iraq war had nothing to do with noble purposes, however "mistaken".

I suppose that you think the US war on Syria is "for democracy"?

elleng

(130,912 posts)
10. It was superficially for that reason, and he knows the facts and the truth.
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 10:46 PM
Nov 2014

As to 'backwards,' he appears to understand the cause of the long-term antagonism among Muslims, '300 years of disagreement,' and he does not refer to anyone as 'backwards.'

delrem

(9,688 posts)
11. The Iraq war was not even "superficially" for democracy.
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 11:01 PM
Nov 2014

To say it was is to utter a flat out lie.
That he uttered the lie doesn't contradict the fact that he undoubtedly knows the truth, just as you do.

To be sure, americans might *feel better* about themselves by believing that lie, so when the lie is told often enough by both political parties will tend to believe it and to repeat it and totally forget the actual facts of the matter, but that doesn't make the lie into a truth. On the contrary, it makes the US's mass slaughter of Iraqi citizens all the more awful. These continual lies and denials make the continuing US bombings, mercenary proxy wars, regime changes, etc., in the ME absolutely *creepy*.

elleng

(130,912 posts)
13. 'While the Bush White House promotes the possibility of armed conflict with Iran, a tantalizing
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 11:25 PM
Nov 2014

passage in Wesley Clark’s new memoir suggests that another war is part of a long-planned Department of Defense strategy that anticipated “regime change” by force in no fewer than seven Mideast states. Critics of the war have often voiced suspicions of such imperial schemes, but this is the first time that a high-ranking former military officer has claimed to know that such plans existed.

The existence of that classified memo would certainly cast more dubious light not only on the original decision to invade Iraq because of Saddam Hussein‘s weapons and ambitions but on the current efforts to justify and even instigate military action against Iran.

In “A Time to Lead: For Duty, Honor and Country,” published by Palgrave Macmillan last month, the former four-star general recalls two visits to the Pentagon following the terrorist attacks of September 2001. On the first visit, less than two weeks after Sept. 11, he writes, a “senior general” told him, “We’re going to attack Iraq. The decision has basically been made.”

Six weeks later, Clark returned to Washington to see the same general and inquired whether the plan to strike Iraq was still under consideration. The general’s response was stunning:

“‘Oh, it’s worse than that,’ he said, holding up a memo on his desk. ‘Here’s the paper from the Office of the Secretary of Defense [then Donald Rumsfeld] outlining the strategy. We’re going to take out seven countries in five years.’ And he named them, starting with Iraq and Syria and ending with Iran.”

While Clark doesn’t name the other four countries, he has mentioned in televised interviews that the hit list included Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Sudan. Indeed, he has described this same conversation on a few occasions over the past year, including in a speech at the University of Alabama in October 2006, in an appearance on Amy Goodman’s “Democracy Now” broadcast last March, and most recently in an interview with CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer on “The Situation Room.” On “Democracy Now” he spoke about the meetings and the memo in slightly greater detail, saying that he had made the first Pentagon visit “on or about Sept. 20.”

Clark says he didn’t read the memo from Rumsfeld’s office. When the general first held it up, he remembers asking, “Is it classified?” Receiving an affirmative answer, he said, “Well, don’t show it to me.” He also says that when he saw the same general last year and reminded him of their conversation, the officer said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!”

During the Blitzer interview, Clark backed off slightly, conceding that the memo “wasn’t [necessarily] a plan. Maybe it was a think piece. Maybe it was a sort of notional concept, but what it was, was the kind of indication of dialogue around this town in official circles … that has poisoned the atmosphere and made it very difficult for this administration to achieve any success in the region.”'

http://www.salon.com/2007/10/12/wesley_clark/

delrem

(9,688 posts)
14. Exactly. He knew that "for democracy" was flat out lie.
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 11:28 PM
Nov 2014

Not even "superficially" true.

Seems that the PNAC plan is still going strong, too.

 

Legalequilibrium78

(103 posts)
15. You are either one dumb mthrfkr
Tue Nov 18, 2014, 12:58 AM
Nov 2014

or you are purposely being obtuse, to keep inferring something completely opposite to what Gen.Wesley Clark said. I swear sometimes some people on this site are just completely unhinge and here I thought Liberals are supposed to be smart and have a fine reading comprehension, I guess not.

 

Legalequilibrium78

(103 posts)
18. We means the previous American govt. that were elected
Tue Nov 18, 2014, 10:31 AM
Nov 2014

by us the American people. You may not like the results of that election and as Pres.Bush being the president who presided that nonsense, but he was re-elected in 2004 by our friends, neighbours, and yes families. One more time sir or maam, quit being a yammering idiot.

 

Legalequilibrium78

(103 posts)
20. Oh no need to thank me Ellen,
Tue Nov 18, 2014, 04:37 PM
Nov 2014

but you are WELCOME Do you mean to say you are a lawyer? Thanks for welcoming me again.

elleng

(130,912 posts)
21. You're welcome. Happy to see you here.
Tue Nov 18, 2014, 04:48 PM
Nov 2014

Yes, I'm a lawyer, retired, worked at ICC for 20+ years, regulated rail mergers. Always happy to see one of us setting the record straight!

 

quadrature

(2,049 posts)
12. the people of Iraq are tribal.
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 11:22 PM
Nov 2014

they don't want democracy.
they want their tribe to be
on the winning side.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»Wesley Clark defends low-...