|
 |
November 15, 2003 COMPARE AND CONTRAST....Just for the hell of it, I was curious to see how the current Bush plan for Iraqi sovereignty compares to Wesley Clark's, delivered a week ago in South Carolina. Clark, of course, favors internationalizing the mission much more than Bush, but aside from that here's the relevant part of Clark's speech:
Aside from the fact that Clark appears to be a stronger proponent of democracy, Bush now seems to be on pretty much the same page as him. There have been a number of occasions when Bush has ended up doing something that Democrats have been suggesting for a while, but they rarely seem smart enough to take any credit for it. In this case, I assume that Clark approves of Bush's change in plan and I hope that rather than instinctively attacking it he's smart enough to say so — while still sticking to his guns about other things he thinks Bush should do. Clark is scheduled to be on Meet the Press on Sunday, so I guess we'll find out soon. Posted by Kevin Drum at November 15, 2003 03:32 PM | TrackBackComments
But Clark's proposal was Ross-perot crazy. Andrew and Glenn told me. Does this mean that Bush's proposal is....brain melting down....help.. Posted by: MBF at November 15, 2003 03:45 PM | PERMALINKBut didn't Clark say increase troop strength by bringing in NATO, and only then could you draw down the US troops? It still seems very different from Bush's plan, unless I missed something. McCain also said reducing troop strength could disasterous. Posted by: Poputonian at November 15, 2003 04:05 PM | PERMALINKThe detail from Clark's speech 11-06-03 http://clark04.com/speeches/009/ Posted by: mesopotamian_tar_baby at November 15, 2003 04:21 PM | PERMALINKMBF: get a clue. Sullivan was talking about Clark's claim: "hopscotching around the Middle East and knocking off states," as he put it. He has acknowledged, "I'm not sure that I can prove this yet." Nothing to do with Clarks Iraq plans at all. Sheesh. Here is what Sullivan though was crazy: "The war against Saddam was not an alternative to going after Al Qaeda. It was a supplement. You can argue whether it is or was necessary; you can argue about how deeply it is or was connected to the war on terror in terms of tactics, philosophy, and strategy. But the notion that the Bush administration decided to go after Saddam instead of Al Qaeda is just contrary to what we know happened. The idea that this was also some subterfuge is also loopy. The Bush administration and its supporters have long argued that something drastic was needed to turn the culture and politics of the Middle East around. They openly eschewed the notion that the only thing that mattered was the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. And September 11 showed all too clearly how true that analysis was. The narrow arguments about the threat to the West from the combination of terrorists with WMDs was always supplemented by the broader argument that democracy had to come to the Middle East as a whole if we were to turn off the spigot of intolerance and murder and dysfunction at its source. Again, you can argue whether the war against Saddam made sense as part of this strategy. But there was no top-secret plan; no cabal; no hidden agenda. It was all out in the open--to be attacked, supported, dissected." Sullivan was wrong on both accounts. 1. The Iraq war has undermined the war against Al Qaeda. Nothing crazy about saying so. 2. The Bush administration's reasons for the war are not above board. Why else do we have these endless debates about why we went to Iraq? The public was sold on the war by appeals to WMD and terrorism. There was never an effort to convince the public about reshaping the Middle East. For good reason: Americans wouldn't buy it if it meant killing our own men and women to bring democracy to Iraq, Syria and whereever. Posted by: nameless at November 15, 2003 04:57 PM | PERMALINKIn other words, Sullivan is not saying Clark is crazy because there is no plan to hopscotch around the Middle East. He is saying Clark is crazy because there obviously is such a plan - it's just not secret. You make up your mind who is crazy. I say Sullivan. Posted by: nameless at November 15, 2003 04:59 PM | PERMALINKIt's funny. I remember when people called me a crazy conspiracy theory lefist for thinking there was a cunning plan to topple multiple governments in the ME. Then, suddenly, people called me crazy for talking about it as if it had been secret - it had been out in the open all along! Which, of course it had, but everyone had been denying it up to that point. All hail dear leader I really can't tell if Bush's plan is the same as Clark's. Are the regional councils elected in popular elections? Does anybody get to run, or are the candidates SELECTED by the US? Anytime the candidates are selected, we know that the election is unlikely to address some serious issues for Iraqis: what to do about Israel, what to do about Iraq's oil, what to do about the US Army. Unless those things are addressed, it will not be a step towards
democracy, but pseudo-democracy. And a pseudo-democracy is MORE
dangerous to US security than either a totalitarian regime or a real
democracy. KOSOVO and Serbia!!!! Yes, let's get the people who have cured the ills of these lands in to fix Iraq. Maybe, they can take the next 5 years and get it done right. I would argue that if the U.S. had asserted more authority in that part of the world after the war they would be much better off than today. I would also argue that if the U.S. can maintain a strong leadership role in Iraq and get the support of our entire country that Iraq will be far better off in 5 years than they will in 10!! Posted by: Mark at November 15, 2003 05:26 PM | PERMALINKI would argue that if the U.S. had asserted more authority in that part of the world after the war they would be much better off than today. If they'd done that, we would be in President Quayle's second term, which would indeed be a vast improvement over what we've got now. Posted by: Boronx at November 15, 2003 05:36 PM | PERMALINKwellbasically, the clark program for iraq is more comprehensive than what we are doing now, and as kevin has noted, more aggressively "democratic," and yes, clark wants more boots on the ground, not fewer, at least in the near term. mark, whatever do you mean? genocide was occurring; it no longer is. what are you talking about? Posted by: howard at November 15, 2003 05:43 PM | PERMALINKwellbasically- The local councils were not chosen. They came about through the Iraqis doing it on their own. Posted by: mesopotamian_tar_baby at November 15, 2003 05:48 PM | PERMALINKYou are right on the money Kevin, Bush is selectively plucking Clark's idea and calling them his own. Bush also took Clark's Chinook Helicopter recommendation (actually he was talking to a pundit on television) of alternating the landing patterns and routes so that they would be less vunerable to attacks. Senator Biden also has been replaying Clark's plans without proper attribution. Guess that Biden should endorse Wes Clark, since he is repeating Clark's plan. Further, Senator Lugar and McCain both are speaking elements of the Clark plan. Guess that Clark's plan is a great plan in all of it's various facets. It feels good to have a candidate running who is being listen to as attentively as Clark, finally! It only goes to show that he is the true heavyweight contender in this race....and that includes the lightweight President that we currently have. Posted by: Frenchie at November 15, 2003 06:03 PM | PERMALINKHoward, I certainly didn't mean to imply that it is bad as it was... thank goodness it is not. I meant to imply that after 5 years they still have huge problems with security and crime. Remember the Serbian Prime Minister was assasinated last March. http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/13/1047431109166.html An attempted murder of a witness http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/990284/posts U.S. soldiers death in April 2003 http://www.marshallcenter.org/site-graphic/lang-en/page-mc-news-pressrelease/xdocs/mc/news-pressrelease/03-06.htm The list goes on... it just isn't in the news as much. My point is that the U.N. and NATO are still working on fixing the problems there in their own backyard. And there are many more problems to resolve there. I completely agree that they are better off, but they still have tons of problems. I stand by my original intent. If we, Americans would work together
instead of all this bickering we could really make a huge difference in
the situation in Iraq. Maybe, we could call it the Mark plan. I mean all these points have been debated and discussed all over the place. Most, of the things Clark mentions are just rehashed options. I certainly discussed some of the details in HIS plan with my associates. Can we call it the Mark Plan? Posted by: Mark at November 15, 2003 06:13 PM | PERMALINKYes, let's call it the Mark Plan. I have a brother named Mark of whom I am very fond. In the meantime, the fact that you've got nine blind mice running
around in circles trying to differentiate themselves practically
guarantees that one of them will eventually squeak something that could
be described as foreshadowing the Administration. Jagcap, why not? Nine random wannabees can come up with better ideas than the goobers we have in charge. Mark - I agree with the idea that Americans should work together. My first suggestion is removing Bush & Co from office, and getting somebody more honest and competant in office. Posted by: Barry at November 15, 2003 06:32 PM | PERMALINKPoputonian: yes, Clark has spoken out against reducing troop strength. In fairness, though, it's awfully hard to see how we can avoid that at this point. Posted by: Kevin Drum at November 15, 2003 06:33 PM | PERMALINKHmmm, it's not really all that tough to come up with "ideas" when you have no responsibility. Heck, even Kucinich has "ideas" (OK, maybe "slaverings" is a better term). Posted by: jagcap at November 15, 2003 06:37 PM | PERMALINKAnother thought... I think it's time for the Democrats to really suck it up and get behind Bush. Not because they agree, not because they like him... But, because we have soldiers over their suffering and dieing from emboldened regime leftovers and terrorists. I'm fine if you think we should have more international support... keep up the pressure on Bush to get it. Or if you think we need more troops. But, the way some of the disagreement is presented makes us look like we aren't unified.
OK, I know you guys can't read his mind, but what can Clark do if the
elected Iraqi government decides to say thank you, you can go now, to
the US army? On the ground right now, our soldiers are suffering... maybe from bad leadership... maybe?! whether you think it is bad leadership from the Bush administration or whether you think it is bad leadership from the Democrats. The president is the Comander in Chief.
I don't know wether to laugh or cry at the naked partisan attempt to blame criticism of incompetence - rather than the incompetence itself - for the poor state of our soldiers in Iraq. Posted by: WillieStyle at November 15, 2003 06:47 PM | PERMALINKSee Barry... that attitude is part of the problem not the solution. You know as well as I do that isn't going to happen in the next year. So how does your comment help create a tone that would send a message to those who want to kill our troops? Seriously, please tell me how you think your comments help them? Posted by: Mark at November 15, 2003 06:48 PM | PERMALINKIn the meantime, the fact that you've got nine blind mice running around in circles trying to differentiate themselves practically guarantees that one of them will eventually squeak something that could be described as foreshadowing the Administration. Translation: God it would be so sad to get killed now, on the way out, what is the point... WillieStyle, I would like to quote from my post to answer your question...
No matter what their job is tough! Also, I admit I think the regime holdouts and the terrorist became more emboldened because they see us as a divided country and think that they can break our will to stay the course. I blame that on bad democratic leadership. "Why is it even a question whose bad leadership is responsible?" Have you not seen how this has played out with both dems and repubs on T.V.? You don't think U.S. public opinion has an impact on the bad guys? You don't think the dems bashing Bush every chance about everything
isn't encouraging to them. The have to find a better way at influencing
Bush's decision than their current path. For the sake of the troops. I'll say this again: Suggesting that the insurgents are attacking our troops with rpgs not because: "I think it's time for the Democrats to really suck it up and get behind Bush. Not because they agree, not because they like him... But, because we have soldiers over their suffering and dieing from emboldened regime leftovers and terrorists. I'm fine if you think we should have more international support... keep up the pressure on Bush to get it. Or if you think we need more troops. But, the way some of the disagreement is presented makes us look like we aren't unified." Is this the Peter Pan "clap harder" theory of international relations? I really don't think any show of unity is going to make one whit of difference to what is going on in Iraq, unless you believe in magic. Posted by: nameless at November 15, 2003 07:14 PM | PERMALINKEven a recent poll in Army Times, hardly a bastion of liberal thinking, concluded that Bush's macho "Bring It On" comments were stupid, dangerous, reckless and probably ended up costing additional American lives. I get so angry when I think of that impotent cowboy making those comments, complete with his trademark smirk to be sure. Posted by: HeadRanger George at November 15, 2003 07:25 PM | PERMALINKWell, war is tough and I disagree with the assumption that Bush or the military has been incompetent. Having worked for the Airforce for quite a few years I would acknowledge mistakes are often made in a military campaign. But, I don't see any incompetence... armchair quaterbacking is quite easy! It's not quite like playing in the game now is it? But, I take great offence at being accused of partisan stupidity. Why do you feel the need to lash out at someone who disagrees with your assessment. I think it would help our troops more if everyone conducted themselves in a more rational manner. Posted by: Mark at November 15, 2003 07:32 PM | PERMALINKYeah - the pressure comes from the media, not from the democrats, and it helps, not hurts, the soldiers' plight. Posted by: Poputonian at November 15, 2003 07:33 PM | PERMALINK"Is this the Peter Pan "clap harder" theory of international relations? I really don't think any show of unity is going to make one whit of difference to what is going on in Iraq, unless you believe in magic. " Did you originally think that Bush should try and get more internation support and that would have been the path to take? If so, why? Dream on, Mark. Bush is incompetent. He is a careless risk taker. He has been all his life. It doesn't matter whether he is a drunk adult driving his car off the road, or if he is frying innocent people in Texas just to prove how tough he is, or whether he is taunting terrorists with 'bring 'em on' inciting them to increase their attacks. Clark pointed out how Bush's axis of evil comment caused NK and Iran to accelerate their nuclear programs..the opposite of what Bush wanted, but he's too impetuous to avoid making the taunt, and he's too reckless to understand cause and effect. It's a whole life pattern and you and others are in complete denial because you think you are less of an American if you question him. In truth, you are more of an American if you question what he has done. Posted by: Poputonian at November 15, 2003 07:39 PM | PERMALINKMark is right. The incompetence line only works if you think we
should have had the invasion, EXCEPT with more troops, EXCEPT with more
international support, and are now ready to run on that. Mark, A simple example of incompetence. The Bagdad airport gets mortared and rocketed daily because the green zone around it is two miles in radius. Move the green zone out five miles, no more mortars and rockets. No more bombing empty buildings. But, the US Army can’t expand the radius. Why? No enough boots on the ground. Lets get more. Can’t because no conscription. Can’t because the US Army is stretched beyond the breaking point. Can’t because of the hell bent rush to war pissed off our Allies and they won’t send troops to Bush II’s Folly. Can’t use Iraqi’s because CPA dismissed the Iraq Army. Can’t know which Haji to trust inside the green zone because the US is an infidel invader of the Iraqi homeland. Posted by: Jim S at November 15, 2003 08:05 PM | PERMALINKMark is right. The incompetence line only works if you think we should have had the invasion, EXCEPT with more troops, EXCEPT with more international support, and are now ready to run on that. That's essentially the position of half the Democratic candidates. Posted by: WillieStyle at November 15, 2003 08:10 PM | PERMALINKIf our coalition partners had supported the invasion of Iraq, if there had really been an imminent threat, if the intelligence was as absolute and certain as Colin Powell said it was, if we had an adequate post-war plan, if the UN had approved the attack; then war would have been justified. The only thing that was successful was the military execution. Bush uses "stretch management" which is setting unachievable goals to keep his subordinates hopping; it's what every insecure chief executive does when each of his subordinates his smarter than he is. It's how he stays in control. I've seen too many sloppy corporate bureaucrats operate the same way. Unfortunately, in the game of war, the cost of incompetence is human lives, whereas in the corporate world it is just sloppy products or services. Posted by: Poputonian at November 15, 2003 08:20 PM | PERMALINKI know, Williestyle. It's not surprising to me that Dean is doing so well compared to them. I think we are seeing a turnover in power from the Clinton establishment, and the senators who voted his way for bombing Iraq. They are just tainted. I really don't see how more troops would help, because the problem is one of politics, not police. The Iraqis have several really serious political differences, life and death differences, with us. Posted by: wellbasically at November 15, 2003 08:46 PM | PERMALINKwellbasically, keep watching. I think Dean is about to go down in flames. Something is going on, and it's not about Dean. And Clinton is going nowhere fast, know that as you speculate. Posted by: Frenchie at November 15, 2003 09:29 PM | PERMALINKWhatever the differences between the Bush and Clark plans for Iraq, in their basic outlines they SOUND similar and therefore it makes it harder for Clark to say in the general election that he has a better plan for Iraq than Bush does. Therefore, Bush has the advantage. Posted by: rachelrachel at November 15, 2003 09:34 PM | PERMALINKFrenchy, I would have said the same thing a couple months ago, when Dean's opponents came after him for his awful and unpopular tax plan. But they never got any traction on him. These are not bad candidates, some of them are very good. They have superior positions on taxes, which I would think is a pocketbook issue which would trump the war. Hillary, Kerry, Lieberman, Edwards and Gephart, they all bet on the war. They probably could have surfed the web and found out that Saddam had no WMD, if I knew and you knew. But it was safer for them to bet on the war. Safer, even though thousands of Iraqis would pay with their lives for the bet. Unfortunately for these congresspersons, it was a losing bet. Posted by: wellbasically at November 15, 2003 10:10 PM | PERMALINKThe incompetence line only works if you think we should have had the invasion, EXCEPT with more troops, EXCEPT with more international support, and are now ready to run on that. Untrue. The incompetence line works if you think that if this particular course of action (i.e. invasion) were embarked upon, it should have utilized more troops and more international support. That's a separate contention from whether the invasion was a good idea in the first place. Posted by: Anarch at November 15, 2003 11:32 PM | PERMALINKIf Bush is taking some of Clarks plans, Bush certainly has not bothered to have any debates with the French. Bush appears only to half done what Clark suggested-therefore, Clark should be careful NOT to take credit for what Bush is doing. Since if Bush fails, (and I'm sure he will since Bush is still not really doing anything) such a position of "credit taking) will become Clarks failure too. Bush certainly has not gone back for any international help, so its doubtful that anythink Bush does will be successful -- and Clark will need to change his ideas about how to deal with Iraq as the war may become so sticky a problem that NO international help can be obtained. Most of the worlds people are NOT for getting involved at all... The governments may also feel disinclined to mire their military in bloody Vietnam type battles thereby risking their political careers. Kevin beleives that Clark can get help from This is why I prefer Howard Dean-because Clark has been endorsed by Clinton and Clinton agreed with Bush that it was proper to and totally okay to HATE the French. It is not okay to do so. The French were not enemy - terrorist were enermy. We don't need a general but a diplomat. The Iraqi's problems CANNOT be solved by dropping NATO bombs. The only way to save Iraq is for most of the world community to get behind such an initiative--this is necessary in order to lead credence from the will of Iraqis to establish behavior patterns that fit into conformity to establish peaceful measures for security and economic viability. General Clark has some good advise but I look for a civilian president to lead Iraq to peace. Clark had Clinton overseeing Kosovo...Clark is a fine general but at the end of the day, he is still simply a general even though he does appear to understand the need to put control of Iraq into the hands of peoples of Iraq - he still lacks the necessary olive branch that I think ONLY HOWARD DEAN can offer the world community-- I want no more talk of only NATO since I'm interested in much greater UN involvement and Clark appears to be interested in only small coalitions the same way Bush is, the same way Clinton is. and SORRY but think the only way to solve the problem is to assure the UN that it is certainly is NOT irrelevant. Posted by: Cheryl at November 16, 2003 04:44 AM | PERMALINK>>>The incompetence line works if you think that if this particular course of action (i.e. invasion) were embarked upon, it should have utilized more troops and more international support. Anarch, if we waited to get more troops, the IAEA would have certified Iraq nuclear disarmed, and exposed all the US evidence as made-up. That's why they had the war when they did. It comes donw to this: can you make a case why not having the war and
leaving Saddam in power was better? I can, but you'll have to square
this with your own reasoning if you want to be effective. It comes donw to this: can you make a case why not having the war and leaving Saddam in power was better? I can, but you'll have to square this with your own reasoning if you want to be effective. Given that I opposed the invasion -- specifically, this particular war at that particular time -- well, yes, of course I can. My "reasoning", if you will, was that even if one were to support the war, one should have argued for a war that "utilized more troops and more international support" than the one we in fact pursued. That's not to say that war was the most effective strategy -- and I don't believe it was, at least not as practiced by the Bush Administration -- but simply that that would have been the optimal way of pursuing that particular strategy. The upshot is that I think your snark is misdirected, as I wasn't trying to be "effective" in the sense you imply. Unless I've completely missed the point of your post. Posted by: Anarch at November 16, 2003 10:12 PM | PERMALINKbig poles tiny holes - big tit babe - choles world - choles world - linseysworld - linseys world - tiffany towers - xl girls - xxx teen tv Posted by: cumfiesta at June 30, 2004 07:26 PM | PERMALINK5700 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com Posted by: Viagra at August 7, 2004 08:14 PM | PERMALINK332 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden? http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com Best XXX Sites - 256 ok you can play online poker at this address : http://www.play-online-poker.greatnow.com Posted by: online poker at August 10, 2004 08:57 AM | PERMALINK2488 get cialis online from this site http://www.cialis.owns1.com Posted by: cialis at August 10, 2004 09:27 PM | PERMALINK3952 Keep it up! Try Viagra once and youll see. http://viagra.levitra-i.com Posted by: buy viagra at August 13, 2004 01:32 PM | PERMALINK8839 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com Posted by: online poker at August 15, 2004 06:03 PM | PERMALINKExcellent site. Keep up the good work.
http://www.888-online-casino.biz http://www.888-online-poker.biz
http://www.888-online-gambling.biz http://www.888-on-net.biz 8527 black jack is hot hot hot! get your blackjack at http://www.blackjack-dot.com Posted by: blackjack at August 17, 2004 06:04 AM | PERMALINK5400 so theres Krankenversicherung and then there is 4654 Its great to experiance the awesome power of debt consolidation so hury and consolidate debt through http://www.debtconsolidation.greatnow.com pronto Posted by: debt consolidation at August 18, 2004 10:41 PM | PERMALINK6585 http://www.exoticdvds.co.uk for 7774 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~ Posted by: play blackjack at August 23, 2004 08:33 PM | PERMALINK7550 Herie http://blaja.web-cialis.com is online for all your black jack needs. We also have your blackjack needs met as well ;-) Posted by: blackjack at August 25, 2004 02:20 AM | PERMALINK7263 check out http://texhold.levitra-i.com for texas hold em online action boodrow Posted by: online texas hold em at August 26, 2004 11:03 PM | PERMALINK |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 
|
||||
