What General Clark wrote about Iraq and 911 only TWO months ago

[Hoppin_Mad]

"The U.S. Army that defeated Iraq is a great force, unique really--but our soldiers aren't the Roman legions who marched into Brittany, across the Rhine, and conquered England, or the hardy Brits who sought fortune and fame along the Northwest Frontier in 19th-century India. No, these are Americans, unchallengeable in combat, fighting for their country's self-defense, committed to strike back at those who might be responsible for the attacks of 9/11 --even though no link between Iraq and the terrorists has ever been established. "

This is the EXACT same "conjecture without evidence" that Dick Cheney, Perle, Wolfie and the other Neocons were spinning.

Yikes !

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0311.clark.html

-edit spelling-

[HumanPatriot]

1. You say this as if your surprized?

But come on now...he's super duper electable based on an imaginary poll Im thinking of!!!! Vote for Clark for the republ...I mean, er, democratic nomination.

[slinkerwink]

2. hmph......

again, this is why I'm suspicious of Clark. He seems extremely naive....

[Hep]

3. Ack!

The disclaimer, "even though no link..." comes across like, "Not that there's anything wrong with that" following a criticism of a gay guy. Ugh. What side is he on again?

[Bolo Boffin]

9. Reeeee-eeeee-eeeeaching there, aren't you?

It comes across as someone committed to the facts.

What is it with Dean supporters and unsubstantial bashing of Clark with ludicrous gay analogies?

[Hep]

26. Ludicrous gay analogies

Explain why it's ludicrous, thanks!

[Bolo Boffin]

32. Why it's ludicrous

You've misread the piece. The Seinfeld gay quote is a coverup of an inappropriate sentiment, from the speaker. The speaker excuses his unwelcome statement.

Clark is exposing a Bush deception on the soldiers, who would willingly fight those they thought might have commited the 9/11 attacks. He then states that no link between Saddam and al-Qaeda has been proven. He's not covering up his indiscretion - he's brandishing Bush's.

So your analogy is ludicrous, and combined with the recent ludicrous analogy of Clark promoting gay people vs. Dean promoting African Americans, that's two ludicrous gay analogies from certain Dean supporters.

What is it with certain Dean supporters and ludicrous gay analogies? I ask this as a gay man myself...

[ArkDem]

4. But people change.

He isn't the same person as he was then. He has found his way.

[EXE619K]

8. Bush.....

was a "party boy".
Then, he found Jesus.





DEAN LEADS THE WAY!

[cprise]

5. bump!

.

[NV1962]

6. "...who *MIGHT* be responsible..."

Wes Clark isn't spitting on the soldiers carrying out Bush's dirty policies - and he shouldn't.

Non-issue.

[Bolo Boffin]

7. Incredible

You slam him for acknowledging something that many soldiers may actually believe, while he makes sure to include that "no link between Iraq and the terrorists has ever been established."

Ye gods.

And why this isn't a duplicate thread to this thread is beyond me:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=105036&mesg_id=105036

It's talking about exactly the same subject. Why must we have three or four threads on every slam on Clark you can brainstorm, Hoppin_Mad?

Don't you understand that campaigns are won on positives? Why don't you try posting some positive info on your candidate?

[Hoppin_Mad]

12. That was a tape OF him - This is an article HE wrote

2 entirely different sources of Clark linking Iraq to 911

"Don't you understand that campaigns are won on positives? Why don't you try posting some positive info on your candidate ? "

I wrote plenty of positive things about President-elect Dean in the 7 letters I sent to Iowa undecideds ! AND I didn't mention Clark once ! :-)

[Bolo Boffin]

14. Exactly the same issue with two headlines bumping up and down...

...the forum list.

Propanganda at its finest.

[helleborient]

10. Now wait...this is a comment about the soldiers, isn't it?

And, unfortunately, I think many if not most or all of the soldiers do believe they are fighting for self-defense...and many of them thought they were fighting for those who might be responsible for the attacks of 9/11

I think Clark is right here...Clark wasn't saying that's his opinion of what the administration is doing...it's what he thinks the soldiers think they are doing.

[returnable]

11. Bingo!

Reading comprehension is really a lost art :toast:

[Hoppin_Mad]

17. Clark is very intelligent and a fine writer - I'll admit that

If he wanted to point out he thought the soldiers believed that, not him, he could have written:

"No, these are Americans, unchallengeable in combat, fighting for their country's self-defense, committed to strike back at those who ( they believe ) might be responsible for the attacks of 9/11 --even though no link between Iraq and the terrorists has ever been established. "

[Bolo Boffin]

18. The Saddam/al-Qaeda "non-link" was conclusively proven in 3/2003?

There wasn't a possibility at the time that evidence of a collaborative link might be found after the invasion?

Please pay attention to what I'm saying. No link has been proven, nor will one be at this point. This is common knowledge now. I'm not disputing that.

Clark's statement here is an academic stance. He's leaving room open for the opposite of what he believed to be proven true, but still stated his strong preference for a Saddam/al-Qaeda non-link.

I'm sorry if this distinction is one you're unable to grasp.

[helleborient]

21. You're stretching now...

As is obvious, Clark isn't my first choice of candidates...but I think this is an innacurate unfair attack.

[LiberalBushFan]

13. it's an article written for intelligent people

Clark likes to make long statements in one direction before giving an even longer disqualifier. Read the whole article if you care, it's entirely critical and pessimistic about the war. As much as some people like to cry "out of context" when negative quotes from their candidate are given, many ignore when it's actually true. Not to mention the sentence you put in bold is meant to describe the mindset of the soldiers themselves.

[lib 4 all]

15. This will be used by Bush to validate his claims in the general election

It will be used to destroy Democrats because we won't be able to counter his assertions since our candidate said the same thing. Clark's statements are perhaps even more direct that anything said by Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, ect.

[Bolo Boffin]

23. Baloney.

Clark stated emphatically that no link had been proven between Saddam and al-Qaeda. Bush was doing everything in his power to allude otherwise.

[AntiCoup2K4]

16. The General seems to have forgotten his own words following 9-11

OK, I'll say it, but where's your evidence

And without evidence, the only thing the soldiers "might" be doing is getting themselves killed for nothing more than the imperical fascist delusions of criminals and their corporate buddies.

[elixir]

19. Wow, seven letters to Iowa. Your hand must really hurt.

I encourage everyone to read the entire article. Put the statements in prospective and judge for yourself. I find the following quote from the same article indicative of Clark's outlook.

"This is modern war, and no state or society is better able to wage it than us. We must, however, develop the appropriate strategy and use both the military forces and the full array of means at our disposal. We don't need a new American empire. Indeed, the very idea of classic empire is obsolete. An interdependent world will no longer accept discriminatory dominance by one nation over others. Instead, a more collaborative, collegiate American strategy will prevail, a strategy based on the great American virtues of tolerance, freedom, and fairness that made this country a beacon of hope in the world.

America's primacy in the world--our great power, our vast range of opportunities, the virtual empire we have helped create--has given us a responsibility for leadership and to lead by example. Our actions matter. But we certainly cannot lead by example unless we are sustained by leadership."

[kayleybeth]

20. Try reading the whole article, people.

If you read the entire article you'll see where Clark slams the *Bush administration, exposes the neo-con plan, and calls for a multilateral approach with war as a last resort ONLY.

Sheesh, the Clark critics on this board are becoming increasingly desperate and overreaching.

[Bolo Boffin]

25. You're right - this article is fantastic!

I wish I had time to read it more, but scanning it - it looks incredible.

And it becomes clear that the "might be responsible" is a thump on Bush! The abstract of the article is this:

U.S. soldiers are great warriors, but unwilling imperial guards. If we want to secure our interests, we must draw on other sources of power.

The soldiers are willing to fight whoever was responsible, and Bush's irresponsible rhetoric might have convinced many in the military that Saddam might be responsible. If they turned around and discovered that they had been duped into becoming imperial guards (which it appears they have), then Bush's moral leadership is further damaged, and Clark therefore reiterates his stance that no link between Saddam and al-Qaeda has been proven.

You've misread this article, Hoppin_Mad. Thanks for bringing it to our attention, though. Next time, try actually reading it, instead of just scanning your Google search for "Clark 9/11 Saddam" and posting any article you think proves your point.

[Hoppin_Mad]

35. Actually -A friend sent it to me in an email - No googling at all -eom-

[elixir]

22. I don't get your point, what's wrong with this...

"fighting for their country's self-defense, committed to strike back at those who might be responsible for the attacks of 9/11"

[KittyWampus]

28. You Forgot The Next Line---even though no link between Iraq

--even though no link between Iraq and the terrorists has ever been established. "

Clark testified before Congress and said there was no link.

[KittyWampus]

24. The Entire Piece Is An Indictment Of The PNAC Agenda

and the Bush Agenda and their mishandling of the war. He also talks about the what the Army's role SHOULD be and it is NOT IMPERIALISM NOR OCCUPATION.

Clark is saying, if you read the whole article and in no uncertain terms, that our Army is INTENDED for self defense.
You cut the rest of the passage out... and have tried to REVERSE THE MEANING.

The U.S. Army that defeated Iraq is a great force, unique really--but our soldiers aren't the
Roman legions who marched into Brittany, across the Rhine, and conquered England, or
the hardy Brits who sought fortune and fame along the Northwest Frontier in 19th-century
India. No, these are Americans, unchallengeable in combat, fighting for their country's
self-defense, committed to strike back at those who might be responsible for the attacks of
9/11-- even though no link between Iraq and the terrorists has ever been established. But
they are utterly void of any interest in the gains and glory of occupation duty far from
home. Indeed, unless there is a speedy reduction of such requirements there, or a
wholesale call-up of the reserves, we might lose the essence of the Army that fought its
way so valiantly into Iraq, a casualty not of enemy fire but of over-commitment and
under-resourcing, as its soldiers and officers opt out. We simply do not have an Army of
empire.

[Bolo Boffin]

27. You said this better than me.

I thank Hoppin_Mad for finding it for us, though.

:hug: :yourock: :toast:

You're the best, Hoppin_Mad. I don't care what anybody says about ya...

[kayleybeth]

29. Yes, if everyone will read the entire article

this thread will backfire in a major way.

Not only are the Clark critics getting desperate, they are also getting sloppy.

[info being]

30. He's a trained killing machine. What else would you expect?

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

40. I wonder if you

would have the balls to stand at the airport and say that to the soldiers of the 101st returning home from Iraq?

Come on info...let's see you tell them, "you're a trained killing machine."

Put your ass on the line & your money where your mouth is.

[Renew Deal]

31. Even when he says something you agree with he is wrong?

"even though no link between Iraq and the terrorists has ever been established."

Hate to break it to you but I still want to get the MoFo's that did 9/11. I don't care if they cluster bomb Osama with depleted Uranium. That guy has to go.

[Hoppin_Mad]

33. *** I retract the essence of my assertion ***

I had not read the entire article - only that paragraph. Upon reading the entire article it is clear that Clark was chastising bush*s policy re Iraq.

[kayleybeth]

34. Thank you. -eom-

[KittyWampus]

37. Thank You

No grouphug at this time though... maybe later. :)

[Bonobo]

38. So wouldn't it be fairer to create a new thread retracting this one?

I say it's unfair to keep this thread alive. Should be locked or something IMO.

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

41. Thanks

Good on ya'. :-)

[cthrumatrix]

36. well....it seems like he is playing both sides --- O"neill set us right

[kayleybeth]

39. Read the whole article please.

And see post #33.

[mmonk]

42. Spin things the way you want

he's talking about our military, not bush or his policy.

[Moderator]

43. Locking.......

Hoppin_Mad (967 posts) Mon Jan-12-04 05:17 PM
Response to Original message

33. *** I retract the essence of my assertion ***


I had not read the entire article - only that paragraph. Upon reading the entire article it is clear that Clark was chastising bush*s policy re Iraq.
==================================


DU Moderator