Hillary: i oppose "the surge" UNLESS ...

fasten your seatbelts ... Hillary's about to take you on a dizzying ride ...

reading the news this morning, i was pleasantly pleased by a headline i saw that read: "Senator Clinton Opposes Troop Surge in Iraq" ...

well, thought I, that's a welcome surprise ... it didn't last long ...

the article went on to explain that Clinton opposes the troop surge UNLESS "it's part of a larger plan" ...

a larger plan??? so, instead of recognizing the insanity of sending another 50,000 or so troops to Iraq, troops we don't have btw, Clinton apparently thinks doing so is just fine and dandy as long as we couple this idiocy with other changes ...

which leads to Clinton's final idiocy this morning ... apparently, she would support "the surge" if bush commits to making other changes in his overall approach to Iraq ...

well, from the wonderful world of "you can't there from here", Clinton also said: "I'm not going to believe this president again."

if she's "not going to believe this President again", exactly who is going to give her a guarantee that there will be "a larger plan" for Iraq if she agrees to "the surge"???

once again, Senator Clinton is trying to play both sides of a critical issue ... this isn't centrism; it's insincere and it's pathetic ... "i'm against the surge but i'm also for it" ...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061218/ap_on_go_co/clinton2008_1

It seems you have a problem with the entire Dem Senate leadership.

and Clinton and Reid are not "the entire Dem Senate leadership" ...

i assume your apparent defense of Clinton's pathetic position suggests, what, that you support "the surge"?????

Your response to my comment makes it crystal clear: this thread is pure flame bait.

Pardon me while I look for intelligent discourse.

in the meantime, you have NOT stated whether you support her position that a troop surge is fine with her if it's part of a "larger plan" ...

a left-wing authoritarian that cannot understand why some of us don't fall into lock-step with stupid positions that enable war, death, and Republicans.

I never stated my position one way or another. I just get sick of the silly flame-baiters starting threads that blindly oppose a candidate for no substantial reason.

The willingness and eagerness of you two to slap labels on anyone who disagrees with you says much.

it's interesting that you would consider sending 10's of thousands of more troops into a failed war and occupation as "no substantial reason" ...

thanks for clarifying your perspective on that ...

Have I stated my position? Good god.

have you stated your position? yes, i suppose you have ...

you said: "I just get sick of the silly flame-baiters starting threads that blindly oppose a candidate for no substantial reason."

the OP stated: "instead of recognizing the insanity of sending another 50,000 or so troops to Iraq, troops we don't have btw, Clinton apparently thinks doing so is just fine and dandy as long as we couple this idiocy with other changes ..."

now, since I, as the OP, started the thread to criticize Hillary's bullshit position and since you did not think my opposition to her position condoning "the surge" (under certain circumstances) was a "substantial reason", i think it's more than fair to interpret your own words as meaning that you do not consider opposition to the surge as a legitimate basis (i.e. a substantial reason) for opposing Clinton's candidacy ... you're more than entitled to your own opinion of "the surge" but to say it's not a substantial reason is absurd ... Senator "Quick, someone tell me where the center of the bell curve is" can't have it both ways on Iraq ...

you've called me a "silly flame-baiter"; i call it very legitimate criticism ... i do, however, thank you for keeping my thread kicked as much as you have ...

But being right is not your goal here. Your single objective is to pick a fight. It's not happening with me, although I'm more than happy to point out the holes in your arguments -- which I've done.

I'm done with you, junior. Happy trolling! :+

failure to respond ...

One-line gutter snipes, and when called on it, howl like stuck pigs.

And they always know your intentions better than you, dontchaknow.

You have picked no holes in his argument. All you have done is call him a flame-baiter and speculate his intentions. That is not an argument, that is an ad hominem attack.

He attributes Clinton's stand to her alone. As I pointed in my first post, and was pointed out by others, this position has been taken by Reid and countless others. Not liking her position is fine, but blowing his cork in his condemnation of Clinton without a single mention of others who are saying exactly the same thing is crazed.

WT's actually pwned you pretty good, with your own words.

I am so humiliated.

The reason people oppose Hillary is based on her position on the war. This thread further highlights such a position. I would hardly call her opposition "blind" or without substantial reason.

The label I pinned on you was "authoritarian" because you highlighted the OPs disagreement with the Dem leadership as if it were a bad thing. If your argument against the OP is that they disagree with the leadership, then the implication is that we should all agree with the leadership...hence the authoritarian label. Sorry you do not like the term, but that is what it means....follow the leader because they are the leader, not based on what they say or do....authoritarian. I choose my words carefully.

So yes, you disagree with me, but if you think that my choice of words is simply ad hominem, you are mistaken. You argument has an authoritarian bent to it based on your implication that opposing the Dem leadership is a bad thing. Another word would be "loyalist"...I used both, so pick your flavor, but the meanings remain the same.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

More to the point, I will point out inconsistencies and silliness when I see it. If you don't like that kind of scrutiny, use the ignore feature of the bulletin board.

Where is the silliness?

I do not mind the scrutiny. In fact, I encourage it, but I have seen none of it on your posts in this thread. All I have seen is the implied allusion that if we disagree with the Dem leadership, we are wrong and a couple of ad hominem attacks on other's intentions as you perceive them.

The first argumentative line I find interesting from someone who doesn't "march in time", and the second has no place in an intelligent discussion.

So far, your comments are the ones coming across as silly and inconsistent.

Now THAT'S bullshit.

then yes, I most certainly do have a problem with the Dem leadership.

They were wrong to vote for the war.

They were wrong to support the war.

And they are wrong wanting to escalate the war.

I don't care if they are the Dem leadership. I didn't sign any loyalty oath to follow leaders blindly into escalating a war that they were too stupid to vote against.

What is REALLY funny about this is that the people who have always been wrong on the war are constantly telling those that were right about the war that they are the only ones with adult solutions. Piss on any Democrat that wants to escalate this debaucle.

Is that wrong?

The Dem Senate leadership, if Clinton and Reid form that group in your opinion, is weak. Nothing the voters said in our last election was anywhere close to "we support a surge if". Nothing.

The problem with the OP is that it clearly is just another Clinton bashing. I've gotten the author to admit that, finally.

So quit claiming you have. The OP stated that this is a legitimate criticism of some Democratic Senators supporting a "surge". You have not made the OP admit to just simply Hillary-bashing as you imply here. Critisizing the policy position of a represenative is NOT "bashing".

From what I have seen on this thread, you are a very dishonest arguer.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The only solution is to get the fuck out of there now.

The house and senate was won by the Dems supported by Dems and the Dems are still supporting Bush's fabricated war!

now we have forgot, we must stop this, I have a sign in my yard printed by the democratic party that said end the war vote democratic, I put my butt on the line here in redneck Ohio to put that sign out, but I guess it was all a lie

to us and selling us out. we've been pushed to the brink on too many fronts.

...the ISG report basically says the same thing. Reid's statement in particular is almost verbatim from the ISG. I suspect what we are seeing is the beginning of a strategy whereby the Democrats push the ISG strategy to counter whatever insane gibberish Bush presents next year. I don't like it, but there it is.

The ISG report represents the closest thing we have to a "jumping off" point for an alternative strategy for Iraq.

We cannot commit to a full-scale escalation in Iraq. Immediate withdrawal would leave a vacuum, and the resulting chaos would be deadly. So, we're looking for something in the middle.

Regardless of the approach taken by the Dem leadership, Bush will determine what happens, and the only people who will change that will be the Republican leaders in Congress. There will be no Iraq problem in two years; otherwise, the GOP will become irrelevant in the 2008 elections.

Would the group have reached a different conclusion if it had included folks who actually had the foresight to oppose this war - - "the worst strategic mistake in American history" - - from the moment the idea was floated?

The ISG is "The Plan" because the Washington Spin Machine told the MSM it was "The Plan" and the MSM - - again - - never bothered to wonder if maybe "The Plan" might not be all it's cracked up to be...

... the number of voting politicians who opposed the war could be counted on one hand.

And let's not complain too loudly about "The Plan". The public, the media, and the common everday "rabble" of the Democratic Party have been begging the leadership for a coherent, consensus plan for nearly a year, and nothing has come. So, in the absence of a plan, the best we can hope for is some sort of semi-endorsement of the ISG report or a complete thumbs down on it.

I'd be more than willing to hammer Clinton for her conditional support (or, if you please, conditional opposition) of the ISG report if some other option was on the table. But, if it's the ISG approach versus the failed Bush Plan, I'm ISG all the way.

Somebody give us a better choice!

and the ISG plan is not the Murtha plan. Kucinich had a plan from the very fist six months of the war....he was conveniently ignored.

How quickly we forget that the Dems have had a plan for some time as soon as the media starts its mighty wurlitzer about the ISG. The ISG is another excuse to prolong this war, and of course, those that are benefitting from the war are so very quick to sing its praises while ignoring plans that had been on the table for months. Anything for more profit, more death, and of course, if it encourages American superiority and exceptionalism, then they are for that, too.

The ISG is no better than the 9/11 commission. A politically appointed committee whose job is only to whitewash and make things look legitimate. Apparently, this strategy works well on those who forget so easily.

Hope they paid you well at the Guiness Book of Records. That 130 were very smart and understood the stakes!

Its the other like Clinton etc., who failed America with that vote and continued support of failed policies.:eyes:

You're speaking of H.J.Res. 114 -- I'd need 156 fingers on one hand for that one. However, I was referring to the first authorization of force, which Bush claims was all he ever needed: S. J. Res. 23<107>. Passed in the Senate 98-0 with 2 abstentions, and in the House 420-1 with 10 abstenstions. And, yes, I have more than 3 fingers on each hand.

Once again, you make shit up - unless you're telling me human beings have 23 fingers on each hand, and that's just the Senate Dems who voted against the IWR - it doesn't even include the dozens and dozens in the HOUSE.

Point me to a similar, documented plan of any type from anybody else except AEI and the other members of the nutjob contingent. The ISG report is far from perfect. Some of its suggestions are downright scary and wrong. I do not support at least 50% of what's in it. But arguing about the makeup of the ISG itself or whether the plan is perfect is, at this point, irrelevant. Like it or not, it is the consensus "alternative" to Bush's kinda-sorta-stayin-the-course non-strategy. Congress is about to embark on an unprecedented and extremely dangerous (in terms of setting a precedent) usurpation of foreign policy from the Executive branch. It must be done via consensus, and it must be bipartisan, and it must be understood from the beginning that these are exceptional circumstances which require going outside of the normal way of conducting business.

If so, then the action is not unprecendented, nor is it outside of the province of Congress to pull the purse strings, especially concerning a war that is supposedly in their sole power to declare in the first place.

Any "bipartisan" agreement in this poisoned, corporate atmosphere is not only bound to fail, but it is still enabling and listening to those that were stupid enough to start and prolong this illegal war in the first place. WE all remember how "bipartisan" this war was from the very beginning, and asking these idiots for answers now only make us foolish.

And the situation was a bit different then. The US was already on its way out. And Nixon had more sense than Dubya. Cutting off actual military funding during a time of war is the "nuclear option" in this scenario. The situation I think we will likely see develop is a demand for Bush to implement the ISG report, or risk having congress start defunding the war. I, for one, do not even want to know what insane bullshit Bush would pull if the democrats unilaterally defunded the war.

(born in 1971), but I will take your word for it.

Still, I would argue that since Bush does not have the sense of Nixon and has already indicated he will not even listen to a corporate-sponsored plan by the Carlyle group, then we should use the nuclear option to defund the war just to save some American lives. The problem is...the ISG report is a bad strategy, as well....and we should not be pushing Bush to implement a bad strategy (even if we think he won't do it).

Do you think Bush would keep the soldiers there anyways? Even after being defunded? (he very well might, but what would that mean?).

Brilliant. Just fucking brilliant.

So basically, she is on the same page as Reid, but has cleverly reworded what she knows is an unpopular position within the party.

dollar bill

It could be a trap set by Poppy's guys. It could be cover for the Idiot Son who turns out to be too stupid to avail himself of it.

All Iraq 'plans' need to be flitered by actual, no shit **reality**.

What do I mean by that?

Well, let's say that, instead of the Monkey in the Man Suit, we had a pretty much polar opposite in the White House. Not even a polar oppostite. Just someone clearly committed to getting the fuck outta Dodge. If that person saw the need for a 'surge' as a way to make our exit as safe as possible for our guys and the country as stable as possible for those who need to remain there and fill the role we were ostensibly playing, then I might consider it a wise and sound policy.

But that's NOT the reality. The reality is that we have a gravely flawed man calling the shots for a gravely flawed adventure in a country we should never have invaded in the first place.

My own view is that we have NO good options. Just getting out tomorrow is a terrible plan. Just getting out next week or next year are also terrible plans. But sending in MORE troops, even for a week, under the current reality is an even WORSE terrible plan.

We should never have been there in the first place. But we (the 60% of the country that oppose this madman in the White House) didn't get us there, but now have to deal with it, like it or not.

Sad to say, we have lost this 'war' and need to just pack 'em up and move 'em out. 'Home for Christmas' would be music to my ears. But that would also be a plan not in our best interest. I actually favor something along the lines of the Murtha plan.

I suppose we could expend a great deal of energy parsing the words and actions of everyone involved in this mess - both the planning and the political support for it - but that solves NOTHING. What is called for is admission of reality and then appropriate action.

Look at what this war has created:

Wall to wall death and destruction.

An unstable hotbed of terrorism and sectarian killing where none existed before. (Powell termed it 'communitarian violenece'. I'd never heard that term before but it seems a good one.)

Neighboring countries - none of whom are our friends - ready to get involved in supporting one side or the other of the warring factions. Iran and Syria come first to mind.

The Saudis are Royally Pissed Off and ready to see things escalate in a way that favors **their** interests. (And in this, I am even MORE suspect of the ISG study and 'plan'.)

Global distrust - moving toward vilification - of the US.

A plunging Dollar.

The threat of witholding oil or causing it to rise so high we can't afford it.

A complete marginalization of the Dollar if the oil trade goes to Euros.

I simply can not find an upside to this and I don't see a favorable way out that allows us any **semblence* of a 'victory'.

And those are just off the top of my head .........

So yeah ..... for me its get the fuck out now.

As for Hillary Clinton's position? Triangulation and wussy-assed, meaningless 'centrism'. Pandering for votes.

(For the candidate partisans who might read this: I am not 'for' or 'against' Hillary Clinton. I understand why she's doing this and I think it stinks. But she, like any other candidate, is doing what she sees as the right thing for the wrong reasons. Or maybe the wrong thing for the right reasons. In any case, my issue with her that is included in this post is confined to my issue with her **on this matter*.)

I am not even that much against Hilary per se...she is not on my short list, but she is not Lieberman or a habitual turncoat on the party, either. But her policy on Iraq is plain stupid and way too transparent for it to give her any political benefit.

As for the ISG...we are in another one of those false premeses arguments. The media and the elites in the government do this to us all of the time...they start the debate from false assumptions in an attempt to control the debate. As a result, nothing changes.

The false assumption in this case? That Americans matter any more in Iraq.

We are not capable of changing one thing in Iraq, now. If we stay, every day we are there is an excuse for one side to kill the other, claiming they are "working with the Americans". As long as we are there, the killing will continue to escalate. I have heard many middle east experts say this, but no one on television or in our government.

All these "plans" rely on the Americans being able to effect change. I have seen no evidence of this, and as a result, and plan that arises from this false assumption is doomed to failure. The ISG knows this, the Republicans know this, the corporations know this, and the media knows this. All these plans are simply an excuse to keep us there longer because the profits are high, the resources will fall into enemy hands, and people get elected on being "tough".

Yeah, I'm that cynical about this.

Hillary will never take a position on anything. She stands for nothing, she believes nothing!

Really. She's turning into Liddy-Freaking-Dole.

If elected, you can bet that she'd be in a position to implement it. Is that really what you're after?

self.

She disgusts me.

Perhaps that should change.

This comment is, indeed, very telling.

The Pander Queen is a disgrace!

fill in the blank.

Because when Meredith said, "we know you lean to the left," Hillary agreed with her.

She doesn't lean anywhere at all, and if she does lean, left is not the direction.

Merideth, like so many pampered media idiots, probably doesn't know what "left" means. I am not even sure Hillary does beyond "something that won't get me elected".

I'd also like to know whom she considers "the bad guys". That was a bit of a problem in Vietnam, and seems to be a bit of one in Iraq.

"I am not in favor of doing that unless it's part of a larger plan," Clinton said. "I am not in favor of sending more troops to continue what our men and women have been told to do with the government of Iraq pulling the rug out from under them when they actually go after some of the bad guys."

The American people want a President that will tell the truth, not what they want to hear. After 6-years of Bush's delusional rants, the country deserves better than another Clinton!

Yeah, the country did so miserably under Bill. Wow, you make a lot of sense.

DOMA, Don't Ask-Don't Tell, Balkan war, not to mention amoral triangulation. We can do better than going back to the past!

Hillary is not Big Dog! We loved Big Dog even when we were troubled by him. We loath the Queen of Pandering!

who enjoyed the short-term benefits of promoting business in a manner that raised all boats (well, most boats...the poor did not do so well under Clinton). He did a good job of that, but the policies he implemented have not been proven to be sustainable. More than a few of our economic woes of today were brought about by Clinton, like it or not, as well.

Big Dog is the Big Dog, and we appreciate the work he did (can't help but to listen to him). But he was supposed to be a transition back to populism, not an end unto itself as many have come to believe. He is not left, progressive, or populist and so treating his presidency as a model will only mean that said groups will be left out in the cold for another decade. I do not think America can afford this lop-sided political debate much longer.

I am not posting this in opposition to IG, but rather, as an added argument. We can and should do better than another Clinton presidency, especially considerig that we have a voting history from Hillary that shows she has not learned the lessons that Al Gore has about "centrism".

If she is all we have, fine, but until then, I wil push for populists who understand in-full how everyone's back is against the wall and how real Americans and real innocents die in wars.

We didn't have the precedent of 9/11 (and the wide-scale fearmongering that proceeded it), coupled with the criminal actions and unprecedented damage done by GWB's administration (in comparison to his father's).

You can't just "restore the peace and prosperity of the 1990s" by putting the Clintons back into the White House. It's not that simple.

Political nostalgia might make you feel good temporarily, but it's like what Al Sharpton said about Jim Jones giving Kool-Aid: "It tastes good, but it'll kill ya."

Quick everyone! I got the feathers, you get the tar and the rail! We'll show those fucking politicians not to play politics, by golly.

Please remember folks, that everything said between now and, oh, I'd say MLK Day, is going to be pretty meaningless. Nobody's paying much attention, and about 60% of the electorate is more focused on buying a Home Depot gift card than worrying about who's "triangulating" or who's trying to appeal to the "center."

I agree that pandering to the roughly 17% of the population who thinks that more troops is the answer in Iraq (or as I call it, trying to get out of a clusterfuck by clustering more and fucking harder) is stupid. But the announcements and the declarations right now are just marking time and filling a void, eagerly exploited by the media who have to report on something that isn't all that depressing death and destruction in Iraq. Wait until everyone gets together in Washington, goes through the formality of being sworn in, and Congress actually reconvenes.

Perhaps it's because he's from Nevada--one of the first states holding a primary in 2008. The man has a very thin record in the Senate, but looked great in his Senate campaign ads in his vet duds, so they say.

"I was against the War after I was for it..."

I guess these people like getting their hands burned. I know when I touched a hot plate once I remembered not to the second time.
Bush is desperately trying to find a NOT-Democrat plan. Increasing the troops is a NOT-Democrat plan. All Bush wants is to pivot the Iraq problem onto us Democrats and pick a plan that doesn't look like it was shoved down his throat by us Democrats.

A There is national unity, GET THE FUCK OUT OF IRAQ

B We Democrats ought to shove our plan down his fucking throat and make him like it, the lying sack of crap has stuck the knife into the American people quite enough thank you.

Jesus H. Flippity Flang-Damn Christ! What the hell does Chimpy have to do to get these people to oppose him???

Quit trying to look reasonable and take this piece of shit bully off at the knees. Then watch your approval rating skyrocket. That's the most incomprehensible part about this: supporting "the surge" doesn't even make sense as a craven political move. It just doesn't make sense ... at all.

And how many GIs will pay with their lives for the Dem's cowardice?

and not people, then the move does make sense as a craven political gambit.

Many DLC Democrats think they are elected by corporations as evidenced by their constant marginalization of grassroots politics and their ease in getting to bed with the same corporations that enable Bush.

As long as we allow them their disproportionately large voice in the party, we will never be an opposition party and will never get the respect of the American people.

:thumbsup:

This appears to be the Democratic wing of the War Party's talking point. Escalation is grand as long as it is part of the plan to get us out. See we get out be getting further in. I am fuming, enraged, horrified that once again we the people are going to told to sit down and shut up.

which is coming from outside the Bush admin.

which includes a long-time Bush family lawyer who has pulled Jr.'s fat out the fire all his life is considered to be "outside" of the Bush administration. More like an attached garage.

Face it, the ISG report is no more honest or complete than the 9-11 commission report. It is a false compromise that strongly favors the rationale for preemptive war, promotes American exceptionalism, and gives us another excuse to prolong and escalate this war.

I would like a study outside of the influence of this administration, but this isn't it. We need to release intelligence to an independent (not "bipartisan") entity for analyis. Nothing less will suffice in a matter as important as war and Asian geopolitics over the next century.

of the Bush administration.

The Democratic leadership position at this point seems to be one of playing off the ISG against the Bush admin., who already have shown signs of disregarding it. At this point, I don't see what more they can really do.

Bush is still CIC - he's still in charge of foreign policy - and there's not much under the constitution that can be done to change that.

Hopefully, once the new Congress is seated, and investigations begun, then a more independent analysis of our options will come.

You are right. What was so astonishing about the report is that it deviated from Bush's position so much and was essentially coming from within his own group. It is an illustration as to just how crazy and off-base Bush is.

They threw him a life jacket to save the family name, and the blivet is swimming *away* from it.

...is as far "outside the administration" as Mussolini was from Hitler.

Different people, similar goals, both not to be trusted.

I appreciate genuine nuance, but she is talking out of both sides of her mouth at once.

I do not support a "surge." More troops in Iraq will just be more targets for the majority of Iraqi people who want foreign troops out of their country. Bush can say whatever he wants about his plans to use them, but Senator Clinton is dead right about one thing: he has no credibility and no one should believe anything he says. So, even if he says there is a larger plan and outlines what it is, there is no reason to believe that the pretense of a plan is nothing but a ploy to get Congress to buy into the scheme and then -- holy bait and switch, Batman -- say months later everything is fine and dandy when it is obvious to any honest observer that it's even more fucked up than ever.

Long ago, it was a reasonable conclusion that nothing Bush or any aide of his says about Iraq is the truth. No one should support a "surge" under Mr. Bush's leadership; in fact, no one should should support allowing Bush or his lieutenants to continue to lead, period.

Now, stop funding this Mesopotamian misadventure and impeach the bastards.

And you are absolutely right....Bush is unfit to lead this country in war and has never been proven to have ever told the truth. One must consider both of these when implementing a political strategy.

All this talk relies on this snivelling jerk to keep his word, which he will not do. And no one seems to have the courage to force him to do the right thing.

But Reid isn't running for president.

I can't wait to watch Dennis Kucinich (an opposition/protest candidate at best, but a very unabashedly liberal and vocal one!) pound away at Hillary's stance on Iraq during the primaries...have fun trying to squirm an explanation out of your mouth during the debates on that one, Hill!

Most Dems will support it. They will keep voting for funds to support the US Occupation. Sen Clinton triangulates, as usual. She cannot be viewed as being soft of Natl. Defense.

And it's also why the RW wants her so bad. As always, she's standing for absolutely nothing and blowing in the wind. There is no chance I will ever vote for her, none. If she somehow gets the nomination we will absolutely deserve the landslide asskicking we will receive. We have a chance to really do some good in the next election if we nominate the right person, she is not the right person.

Man, I hate it. Mmmm, it sure tastes good though. Got any more? Oh geez, I sure hate this stuff (while stuffing face...)

That's pretty much what Mrs. Clinton said, imho.

This analysis is based on what that fucking slimy turncoat Carville might say about other candidates...

buh-bye Hillary & Bill...

I think I'll do some t-shirts with those lines and make 30-40 k

"needs to be part of a larger strategy," etc.

Diane Rehm: How would you react to that, General Clark, increasing troops now?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I think, I think first of all, it's a temporary measure. Secondly, I think you'll probably get some results on the ground.

Diane Rehm: What would it accomplish?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think you'll get more patrols on the streets of Baghdad. I think you'll get more snipers on rooftops. I think you'll get more roadblocks. I think it'll be more difficult for militias to move. I think you'll be able to occupy certain areas for longer without having to pull the troops back. In other words, I think you'll get some marginal military advantages. If the major problem is political not military, the question is: What is the President going to do to gain the political initiative? He's met with Maliki. He's met with Hakim. He's now meeting with the Sunni leader. What's going to emerge from that? Is there going to be a political strategic consensus? That's what's going to determine our success or failure in Iraq.

<snip>

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Certainly, and Generals can usually need- use more troops, and you know, this mission in Iraq has been woefully short from the beginning, not to take out Saddam's military, but to do the follow-on job of taking care of the country and establishing authority and preventing civil disturbances and other things. From the beginning we've been short troops. I've, I, I've, I like Jack Keane. He's a great guy. I welcome his proposal. I, I can't, I want, I want to see it, but all that said and done, we must not forget we're dealing with opposing forces. It's not that the United States is modeling clay, and somebody says, 'Well, let's just put a little more, one more pound of clay, and I, I'm sure we can build this statue the right height.' There are other people out there who don't want us to build that statue. When we add clay, they take away clay. When we form it one way, they pull it out another way. I'm talking about Iran and Syria and other forces. We're operating against resistance. That resistance takes many forms. It takes the forms of blackmail, threat, intimidation, education, money, weapons, technology, and if you stand back and look at the mission thus far, what's, what stands out is a persistent underestimation of the opposition - their resourcefulness, their dedication, their ability to mobilize and embed in the population. And so, what my concern is not the troop level, but what is the program-

Diane Rehm: Mm hm.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: -the administration's going to undertake-

Diane Rehm: Mm hm.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: -to bring this to a successful conclusion.

http://securingamerica.com/node/2030

Now, I can already here the Clark critics: "There goes Clark again, talking about a successful conclusion." Well, yes. What do you expect him to say, "I'm concerned about how the administration's going to bring this to an unsuccessful conclusion?" It's called holding the administration accountable, not about unrealistic expectations. Clark doesn't play politics; he tells it like it is. We can't work the problem simply by raising or lowering troop levels. Reading this passsage reminds me of the quote by Mario Cuomo on Clark:

"Wes Clark is a man of whom you can ask a question, and he will look you directly in the eye, and give you the most truthful and complete answer you can imagine. You will know the absolute truth of the statement as well as the thought process behind the answer. You will have no doubt as to the intellect of the speaker and meaning of the answer to this question....So you can see, as a politician, he has a lot to learn."