Gen. Clark on Fox News Sunday 12/18 11:15 AM ET

MEDIA ALERT: Fox News Sunday 12/18 @ 10:15am CST
Start: Dec 18 2005 - 10:15am
End: Dec 18 2005 - 10:30am
description:

General Clark will be on Fox News this Sunday, Dec.18 at 10:15AM
Central Time.

11:15 AM EST | 10:15 AM CST | 9:15 AM MST | 8:15 AM PST

All times of scheduled programs on Fox are subject to change. We
recommend tuning in a little early.

on Face the Nation just outlined Wes Clark's ideas that appeared in the NYT. In true Bidenesque speak, he yammed it up as if all of this was part of his personal thinking. He did credit Kissenger (who btw has not written this) and did not mention Clark. Last week Biden's talking points (which parroted Clark) merited him mentioning retired generals...all of them republican.

True to form.

Use political leverage to get the Iraqi constitution changed. Incorporate the Sunnis. Get the Iranian influence out.


MFer.

parrotting SOMEONE else (and the past few times it's been Clark) without given the original thinker any sort of credit.

Remember what happened when he was running for President and he spoke about his family, yet it turned out to be taken verbatim from a speech by Neil Kinnock, UK Labour leader?

almost as much as Lieberman.....cause Biden ain't helping us...being on Teevee every fucking Sunday and held up as the Democratic Foreign Policy "guy" when it isn't even true is killing us!

But come to think of it, I prefer when Biden is parroting/Plagerizing from others who at least have some common sense....than when he comes up with his own "less than brilliant" ideas.

I just wish he'd get his "Hey lookit me, I'm strong cause I talk loud" ass off of my Television screen.

Wes Clark insists that the Iraqi constitution has to be changed by the Iraqis, otherwise we will have Civil War in Iraq. There is a 4 months window....after that, Iraq is fucked. He iriterated that point with every single question posed to him.

Sen. Levin also made that point on Meet the Press...and as we know, Levin and Clark are very close....as Levin attended Clark's WESpac fundraiser in November and spoke at length to attendees.

When asked what Bush should address in his upcoming speech, Wes brought up the point again....and then stated that the President needs to inform the American people why he authorized spying without authorization of law. The interviewer wasn't expecting Wes to bring that up and it was evident.

Was he saying the four-month window begins now, and why four months?

Was he asked about Cheney's "surprise visit" to Iraq?

And, was he suggesting the US use leverage to push changes in the constitution to include all sects, or was he sort of saying hands-off, because the Iraqis need to handle it themselves?

Thanks! :hi:

the Iraqis gave themselves to "amend" their constitution....so yes, it starts now. After 4 months, the constitution cannot be changed....if I understand this correctly.

He was suggesting only that the Iraqis....not the US, must institute these changes....but that yes, we must use our military leverage to change the focus to the political aspects...because that is the only way that their can be any chance for Iraq...otherwise, Iran comes out as the winner.

There was a prominent Iraqi, Kanan Makiya, Brandeis University; founder, Iraq Memory Foundation (who appeared to be on the right side of things) on CNN Late Edition today saying the exact same thing. Without a change in the constitution, Iraq is totally screwed. 4 months window to change the political direction, or else.

After 4 months a 2/3rds vote of Parliament will be needed in order to make changes to Iraq's constitution. That gives the Shiite a permanent veto if they even remotely hold together as a block, with 60% of Iraq's population. If enough flexibility doesn't exist among Iraq's factions to reach the majority vote threshold needed to amend the Constitution, it never will happen short of full civil war.

The 4 month window during which a majority vote of parliament would be sufficient to make changes in Iraq's constitution was the key last minute concession won by some Sunni's shortly before the new Iraq constitution was put to a vote in the Fall. With that concession, one of the major Sunni political parties that had boycotted prior votes changed their position and advocated a yes vote on the Constitution, which helped in win in enough provinces to become law. That was a key moment, and the fact that that compromise was reached then kept a small flame of hope for something short of full scale civil war alive inside Iraq. It set the stage for all that will happen now. Failure to reach an accord across Iraq's major factions on both the new 4 year government and Iraq's essentially final constitution rewrite would lead to deadly results.

If the Shiites choose to assert themselves, they will. And honestly, who can really blame them.

What needs to happen is for the Sunnis to get down and start kissing some Shiite and Kurdish ass. They need to apologize for what they've done in the past and promise not to do it in the future.

The Sunnis are now a minority with a history of asserting themselves on a majority. The world has turned and they will have to humble themselves if they expect the Kurds and Shiites not to "make up" for lost time.

I don't think the Sunnis have any such intention of cooperating with the political process unless it gives them the same status they had under Saddam. They are mad with stupidity. They are fighting for Noble rights. They are like a stupid, spoiled chiled puffing himself up and offending all his classmates. It typically can only be corrected by letting the child get his ass kicked. You can't kick it for them.

For things to get better in Iraq, things must get worse for the Sunni. If you think that a constitution will prevent the Shiites from taking back what the Sunnis stole, you are kidding yourselves. In the meantime, we are only fools standing in between these people who desperately want to shoot at each other.

Sometimes the blood must flow in order for people to see the folly of it.

You may be right though I think you exaggerate what most Sunnis think they can hope for. I don't think they expect the same status they had under Saddam, they are trying to not end up with the same status that the Kurds and Shia had under Saddam, which is a different marker. They may not be flexible enough to accept a reasonable compromise and the Shia in particular may not be motivated and flexible enough to offer one. All true.

But I do not think of Arabs as being completely different than most people. Most people (as differentiated from governments in some cases) would like to see war avoided if possible, because they understand the terrible costs of war on themselves and those they love. Leaders usually provide the sticking point that prevents Peace from breaking out more often. That may be the case in Iraq now.

But I will say that I haven't seen any ass kissing by the Sunni's yet. The moment they start to pucker is the moment I think the situation will be manageable.

I'm sorry I missed him. Originally he worked with Chalabi--maybe he still does--anyway, he is a curious fellow. He came to the conclusion that the Arab world needed to let go of its actions-reactions being based on victim-hood. That while they had indeed been invaded many times and used by the western powers, their real road to success was positive action--accepting their responsibility. How to do that? Why of course self-determination/democracy. That is how he came to be part of the group that supported the invasion.

As much as we might wish to form one theory based on one reason as to how our country got dragged into this terrible war, I believe that there were almost as many reasons as people. All of them ready and willing to discard any evidence that the idea was disastrous, or to admit that the people they were suddenly embracing were rats. Makiya dream of testing this theory drove his participation in Iraqi reconstruction groups that met in DC during the summer of 02. iirc, Makiya worked on the new constitution. All of the work, thousands of pages, were discarded once Rummy took over.

Notice that Makiya is back in the states. He left his home in the Green Zone and the Memory Foundation, financed by our tax-dollars, for now. BTW, he is not a war monger, he just saw the possibility of changing Iraq if he could get the US to do the dirty work of taking out Saddam. I think he is much more sober now.

Books:

1. Republic of Fear: The Politics of Modern Iraq, Updated Edition -- by Kanan Makiya
2. Cruelty and Silence: War, Tyranny, Uprising, and the Arab World -- by Kanan Makiya
3. The Rock : A Tale of Seventh-Century Jerusalem (Vintage International) -- by Kanan Makiya

Clark said that the president needed to explain: why he failed to protect our liberties.

And I say YES! All morning the republicans have rolled out the meme that bush was just protecting us, but there is a flaw in that logic. The resident failed to protect our liberties.

Hmmmm....I wonder if Biden has that on tape yet? Maybe we should send him the link.

Why did bush fail to protect our liberties?

That was great when Wes threw in that bit about the spying...The interviewer's reaction was great..."Um..Oh...so you don't agree with that...Well, thanks for your time"....

the rest:

After weeks of looking like jackasses (literally) post-Murtha, this week we saw the three senataors...Reid, Levin, and Reed....making their statements pre-Iraqi election about the constitution and the 4 month window. (The video is at CSpan.org, 25 min. long).
And now Biden.
Reid, if you remember, said a few days ago (can't remember exactly when) that basically Democrats shouldn't be shooting their mouths off.

Apparently, sanity reigns for now. When I saw Reid, Levin and Reed doing that little number I almost cried with relief. Apparently, the Senate gods decided to return to Wes Clark's advice.

Frankly, Clark is the only one I trust at this point for delivering a very clear and forceful message. His thoughts are really the "leadership thoughts" of the party on this issue.

This AM, while I was taping Clark on Fox, my mother the Bush lover, said she had heard about this on CSpan, as if Clark was copying. I told her Clark was the one leading the way on this, since about last August...and even the NY Gawker mused about how it would be if Clark had become President. She said, "It's the Democrats fault--they didn't choose him."

For once, I agree with her!