HULK SMASH!!!
Clark was obviously speaking on geopolitical strategy, nothing more.
He was also being implicitly VERY critical of the Bush right wing, by pointing primarily to Middle Eastern and Central Asian *allies* of the Bush administration.
Besides, he is just a DLC stealth democrat 
I do maintain.
I wonder if he has been living in a box for the past year? This debate has been going on for a long time and he really should be up to speed on it by now.
Don't worry about Clark's gaffes, Josh Marshall is certainly bound to clarify for the world why Clark wishy-washy statements make more sense than Dean's.
Clark is conflating a whole host of issues. Instead of naming names, he should be addressing issues. Of course terrorism is important and we need to expend effort to reduce it, but do it The old fashioned way: diplomacy, hearts and minds, deal with Isreal/Palestine, give the man in the street a stake in positive action, increase security.
But there are other problems in the Middle East that need to be addressed: A nuclear armed Saudia Arabia is the latest red flag. This new shit pile should be laid directly at the feet of the people in our country with the greatest responsibility for it: The Bush administration, its underwriters, and its apologists. Egypt can be dealt with using diplomacy and economic engagement. We have had a strong relationship with them for decades.
But the bottom line is that "the war on terror" is something distinct from these other crisis points. To lump them together is irresponsible and more of the same scaremongering that is the hallmark of Bush and his pluto/klepto-crats.
An excellent point, Atrios. A very sad statement of the level of newspeak going on that the first thing that jumped to people's mind was invading those 3 countries. Sad indeed.
Clark has been having the old waffle problem.
But, at least he is offering examples of REAL terrorist supporting nations.
Although, anyone recall the HAUNTING PNAC words " Egypt is the prize".
I really don't know who to trust anymore, and have taken to possibly over analyzing statements.
Then again, both parties screwed the American, Iraqi, and Afghan people.
The sad thing is that those who make their livings with words fail to recognize the fundamental meanings of words.
Sigh.
Sigh.
Sigh.
fundamental meanings
Don't limit the problem to words.
Seems there is a massive deconstruction of meaning going on.
Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and to a lesser extent, Egypt, those are the central fronts in the war on terror.
Wesley Clark is seem to be taking Bush out another way-but creating division against Bush-Bush is currently asking Pakistan for troops and Saudi's no longer trust Bush.
Clark appears to be nailing Bush with his own cronies, his Middle East cronies. There is more than one way to skin a fossil fuel cat.
I'm sure Al Capone would understand this concept very well.
er, sorry that should be. Wesley Clark seems to be taking Bush out another way-by creating divisions against Bush. Egypt is questioning the Saudi's for helping Bush make war aganist people Islam religon and Bush is currently asking Pakistan for troops (not going to happen) and the Saudi's no longer trust Bush and looking for nukes.
HOW do to fit Al Capone with cement shoes - you get his own people to whack em - that's how!
To suggest that Clark's words in this article call for an attack on Egypt is a gross distortion. The title of the article is "Gen. Clark Says He Would Have Voted No on Iraq War." Clearly he is saying that he is against militaristic action in the war on terror, not for it. In singling out Pakistan et al he is pointing out the Bush administration's hypocrisy and duplicity in attacking Iraq presumably for the same actions their buddies are taking to a much greater degree. I believe that was clearly his point. Calpundit obviously has an agenda that has clouded his perception more than a little.
Indigo Ocean, did you read Calpundit's update?
UPDATE: Oops, I wrote in haste. I certainly didn't mean to imply that Clark thinks we ought to invade these countries. Nothing in his history or his character suggests that. Still, it is provocative, and when he says something like this it inevitably makes me wonder what actions he's proposing. That's all.
UPDATE THE SECOND: Tung Yin, a law professor at the University of Iowa, attended Clark's speech and sat at the same table as Clark at a luncheon beforehand. He had a chance to talk pretty extensively with Clark during lunch and has a detailed report at his blog. Overall he came away impressed.
Why not make the suggestion? Most of the 9/11 terrorists were from those three states?
Although Egypt is an ally of sorts, their government is corrupt and oppresive on the population leading to egyptians to hate their government and the west that props it up.
The same thing applies to Saudi Arabia. They have all that money and are still one of the poorest countries in the ME in terms of actual spending on the needs of their people.
Pakistan is the home of the taliban. Most of the country is occupied by hostile forces that Musharif doesn't even bother trying to maintain with government forces, and the man himself obtained power in a military coup of the democratically elected leader.
Why not invade them?
MYOB'
.
Clark hasn't learned how to talk down to people. Maybe he's still assuming the press is intelligent enough to understand and report these things in context (or that they want to).
I think the point is pretty clear to anybody who wants to understand it. The 9/11 perpetrators were Saudi, not Iraqi. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Egypt are all hotbeds of Muslim extremism. Iraq was not.
Confronting this reality does not equate to invading the countries, even for Dubya.
I guess the new sport is nitpick Wesley Clark.
Thanks Pie for the update on Calpundit's update. I think it is a necessary update to this post on Atrios as well, since not all of us read both blogs. I think Brett hits on something when he says, "I guess the new sport is nitpick Wesley Clark." Why on Earth would those of us on the left want to do that? We can decide whether we want him to be our contender for president based on his literal remarks without trying to make something damning out of ambiguities. We want the best candidate, right? So let's figure out who that really is, whether Dean, Clark, Gep, etc. The maliciousness will come later, from the GOP!
Edit: I mean to say the distortions will come later.
Those opposed to the current administration have to come up with another phrase to explain the so-called "War on Terror" terror, of course, being an abstract concept.
Blix, in a BBC article, "compared the two government's behavior (US and UK) to people in Europe in the Middle Ages who were convinced that witch existed and so found them when they looked for them.
So, what's the suggest euphamism for the War on Terror that makes it clear what the administration is doing? The phrase has got to characterize it for what it is: a vigilante action like the lynch-mobs of old (and so old) days.
--ventura county, ca
I do agree that "War on Terror" is a phrase that should be retired.
Brett and Darryl - I really dislike that phrase, too. It is essentially meaningless and I'm fed up with all of the "wars" on things. Life may not be pretty or easy, but I don't believe it has to be made up of wars on every damn thing.
DAVID EHRENSTEIN IS AN IGNORANT FUDGEPACKING HACK. ANYONE HEARD OF HIS STUPID, FAGGY HOLLYWOOD "JOURNALISM" BEFORE HE STARTED SLUMMING HERE? I DIDN'T FUCKING THINK SO. GO FUCK SOME SOME BOYS, DAVID. I'M SURE MOM AND DAD WOULD BE PROUD
DAVID EHRENSTEIN: IF YOU FEEL LIKE FUCKING LITTLE BOYS, YOU SHOULDN'T !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Instead of "War on Terror" I think what we need is more of "Promoting Peaceful Revolutions," but it would never sell with the right. They don't want any revolution at all. They like the savage inequalities that characterize the current global system of resource distribution.
I am firmly against terrorist violence, because I am against using violence to coerce and control others. But the fact that they have chosen deplorable means towards their ends does not blind me to the fact that their ends are not wholly without merit. The world is right to be pissed off at the US and all our other wealth hording buddies in the global sphere. But the terrorist way is the wrong way of bringing about needed change.
Quagmire!!!
Well, a few months ago, I was afraid Iraq was just the first stop for the Bush war train. But now, it looks like Iraq will also be its final destination.
Washington Post: What the $87 Billion Speech Cost Bush
It seems to me that those who want us to believe that "all is fair" in the name of stopping "terror" would be loathe to stop using the term "war". Judging by the pins, antenna flags, and T-shirts I see around me when I get the nerve to leave the house, I also suspect that very many Americans are receptive to the notion of an ill-defined jihad- sorry, war.
I can't believe that the military wing of the Pentagon would let itself be overridden, again, by the civilians (neocons).
"War on terror" is a bit vague and is a bad metaphor... which is why I like to call it the "war on Al Qaeda" rather than the war on terrorism. It's more direct and less prone to disagreements. After all, you're either in/a franchise of al Qaeda or you're not.
"War on terror" is a metaphor for a global police and intelligence operation, backed up with the usual diplomatic carrots and sticks that these things need.
that's what the "war on terror" ought to be... instead we've gotten the invasion of two countries and curtailment of civil liberties.
we need a new phrase to replace "war on terror" and a new policy.
Gus' boyfriend T. J. Roberts
answers my fan "GOD."
Kangaroo Jack - kind of hard to call whatever is going on a war against Al Qaeda. When was the last time we heard anything about - oh, what is his name again...?
anyone recall the HAUNTING PNAC words " Egypt is the prize".
Yea POS, here’s the Slate piece on that:
The PowerPoint That Rocked the Pentagon
The LaRouchie defector who's advising the defense establishment on Saudi Arabia.
By Jack Shafer Posted Wednesday, August 7, 2002
http://slate.msn.com/id/2069119/
But, what a difference a year makes.
Boston Globe, 8/29/2003
In July 2002, a Pentagon advisory panel called the Defense Policy Board heard a briefing that condemned Saudi Arabia as an enemy of the United States and a key sponsor of Islamic terrorism. The speaker, Rand Corp. analyst Laurent Murawiec, recommended the US order the Saudi government to stop what he said was extensive support for radical Muslim groups and invade Saudi oil fields if it failed to comply. He characterized the Saudi monarchy as a chief financier of radical Islamic groups that would be "pushed back into its extremist corner" if moderate regimes were established in the Middle East. [...]
Nearly five months after the fall of Baghdad, it is Saudi Arabia that has staged an economic rebound, Iraq is mired in post-war disarray and US consumers face higher energy costs. According to the World Bank, average annual per-capita income in Saudi Arabia contracted by 1.1 percent between 1990 to 1999. But since the beginning of this year, as talk of regime-change in Iraq intensified and oil prices began their ascent to a pre-war peak of $40 a barrel, Saudi Arabia has earned some $50 billion in petroleum sales and is expected to raise about $85 billion for the year, according to the Riyadh-based Saudi American Bank.
The kingdom's economy is likely to grow by nearly 7 percent this year, its strongest performance in a decade, the country's stock exchange is up 55 percent, and its budget and current account are posting strong surpluses.
I didn't hear any implicit threat in Clark talking about the elephant in the living room. All he was doing was pointing to the two countries, and "Egypt to a lesser extent" (because at least a couple 9-11 hijackers were from there), as those which support Al-Qaeda, certainly monetarily but also by sheltering them, far more than even Afghanistan did. The Saudi connection has become fairly well established; Kimberley Fox details the Pakistani connection a couple times in her blog Brief Intelligence. But to acknowledge these connections is not the same thing as recommending we bomb the countries back to the stone age. It's just, as I said, mentioning that there's a huge honking elephant in the living room.
There are a number of interesting articles on counterpunch.org about Clark suggesting he is the DLC's neocon. And the guy voted for Nixon and Reagen. I'm going to think hard on this but if push comes to shove I'll take him over Bush.....but god only knows what he would do to the Iraqi people. Dean begins to look even better.
Dean/Clark. Or Clark/Dean.
That's the winning Dem ticket in 2004.
Get on the bus.
Dean/Clark ? That's not a bus I'm taking. The General has turned up way too conveniently for mine, and his views about the war on Terra don't add up to an alternative to smirk.
John Kerry was a hero from the day he spoke against the American war on Vietnam, and he's been in the political arena for 30 years, so his record can be scrutinized. As soon as shrub started looking beatable, out pops the General. Who knows what his policies on health care, or taxation or the environment are?
If he was genuine, he'd be assisting a real Democrat to flog bush; that is, a candidate with a proven record, and real policies. And if you really want your country back, Dennis Kucinich saved Cleveland $BILLIONS by standing up to the privatization lobby, and keeping the power grid in public hands.
Kerry /kucinich in '04
He shot any cred he had in the foot with his quick flip-flop on whether he would have voted for the Iraq war. One day yes, the next day no, which is it, O General?
Wal - that's an interesting ticket -Kerry/Kucinich. I like it. Kerry could possibly bring in the votes of disaffected conservatives. And at the risk of being berated endlessly, I have to wonder if Dean can actually reach those voters. The press is convincing the public that Dean is very very liberal. Personally, I love very very liberal. I would love to have a very very liberal president. But wishes won't make it happen and it concerns me for our chances of getting rid of the vermin infesting the White House. Kerry, on the other hand, with Kucinich who spoke out against the war - that's sounds good.
Clark is suggesting Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are our allies. He's suggesting they're fighting terrorism.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Had he mentioned Afghanistan, I would've nodded. He just lost my protest-protest-vote.
I expect nothing but bad from the Perfumed Prince. http://www.counterpunch.org/
mads...en09182003.html
i like clark. the infighting and attacks on the man - even tepid stabs like this one by cal do nothing to help rid the planet of the W scourge... clark would make a great prez - clark/kerry 2004.
get the suburban moms on board and we are home free.
Get behind the Governor. He has the momentum, the real momentum, to stop Bx. Kerry is a great guy, but he is as electable as a fish. Clark has instantly soaked up the undecideds...that could be a good thing, that could be a lie, that could be almost anything. But the day I put my faith in a 3-star is the day I decide to go live on the Moon.
Nice of Clark to actually metion the countries, but why not mention Pipelinestan, which has Pak as it's tail (ports). And why not 'invade' Pak? Have you ever heard of nuclear bombs?
I believe that Bx will attack Syria within the next month. We are going to be on a war footing next year, up to our eyeballs in blood. That's Rove's master plan for retaining control: martial law.
Kerry/Kucinich would never win the White House. That's about as absurd a ticket as I can imagine. Who does that appeal to? Leftists. How come they aren't already in power? Leftists.
Can't you see that Centrists, real Centrists, are the only possible electable ticket in such a divided electorate? McGovern we do not need.
Don't worry about Clark's gaffes, Josh Marshall is certainly bound to clarify for the world why Clark wishy-washy statements make more sense than Dean's.
Yeah, his brown-nosing for a job is pretty pathetic, almost as pathetic as Kaus trying to scumbag a spot on the LA Times editorial page...
get the suburban moms on board and we are home free
This seems to be the sum total wisdom of the clarkies, form without content. The grassroots internet strength line has been completely over hyped in the SCLM. Most of what I see from online Clark campaigners seems as though it could have been generated by a “viral marketing” operation being run from an offshore location.
WAR ON TERROR:
This so-called 'War on Terrorism' is quite simply the neo-con revisitation of the Cold War. The rhetoric is the same, with all its ambiguity and phoney implications. Now they've simply replaced 'red menace' with 'terrorist' or 'radical muslim' or 'muslim extremist' or whatever indefinite term a speech writer or editor deploys. In short--and watch for this in the news--these various terms are nothing more than placeholders for whatever or whoever is branded the enemy during a given news cycle or political moment.
Paul - I completely agree that the democrats need a centrist candidate or we will lose. Which is why, even though Dean is my first choice, I was attracted by Kerry/Kucinich. I think that Kerry is perceived to be less liberal than Dean by conservatives, rightly or not.
Tena
What center?
Most of the Democratic choices are RIGHT of center. Clinton took them there.
Your centrists, will lose minorities for example.
Just in case I've mis interpretted what you mean by center, please define the political center?
WAR ON TERROR:
This so-called 'War on Terrorism' is quite simply the neo-con revisitation of the Cold War.
Actually, it is more the WAR on DRUGS.
Same nebulous goals, and broad definitions. Same simplistic approach, and solutions.
POS - Re: centrists. Did the minority vote go to Clinton? I consider him a centrist. If the prevailing tendancy of the electorate is toward the right, then the entire political spectrum will lean in that direction. But basically, I guess I consider a centrist someone who is willing to deal with reality. The neo-cons are idealogues. The Greens are idealogues at the other end of the spectrum. The various Democratic candidates fall somewhere in between the two extremes. I didn't say that Dean is more liberal than Kerry, I said he's perceived as such by many conservatives. I get that from the conservatives I know. The main thing here is to get Bush out of the White House. I'll vote for anyone, including Lieberman, who seems to have a chance in hell of dislodging the neo-cons. And the only chance in hell of that is if the democrats run a candidate that disaffected conservative voters will vote for.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
