sound like ultra right-wing sites in their criticisms of Clark. It must be that knee-jerk on the ultra-left that hasn't accepted any military man since Vietnam. But Clark is a liberal.
If you really want to read more, here are some links:
http://securingamerica.com/issues/iraqplanSNIP:
End the American monopoly. From the beginning, the Administration has insisted on exclusive control of the Iraqi reconstruction and occupation. This has cost us the financial and military support of other nations and made America a bigger target for terrorists. Ending the American monopoly will change the way this enterprise is viewed -- in Iraq and throughout the world.http://securingamerica.com/issues/bushrecordSNIP:
Failure to maintain adequate international intelligence sharing and law enforcement relationships. The Bush Administration's unilateral approach to national security issues has alienated key sources of international support for the fight against terrorism. Specifically, the Bush Administration's bullying approach has inhibited efforts to develop accurate intelligence regarding terrorist activities and bring terrorists to justice. For example, it is reported that Syria provided extensive information to the CIA and the FBI regarding Al Qaeda operations and personnel prior to the war in Iraq. During the Bush Administration's unilateral march to war, this flow of valuable intelligence dried up.http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.clark.htmlSNIP:
President Bush's approach to Iraq and to the Middle East in general has been greatly influenced by a group of foreign-policy thinkers whose defining experience was as hawkish advisors to President Reagan and the first President Bush, and who in the last few years have made an explicit comparison between Middle Eastern regimes and the Soviet Union. These neoconservatives looked at the nest of problems caused by Middle East tyranny and argued that a morally unequivocal stance and tough military action could topple those regimes and transform the region as surely as they believed that Reagan's aggressive rhetoric and military posture brought down the Soviet Union.http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/virtual.htmSNIP:
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. 
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
