Reply #134: A review of this hapless review

[thebgrkng]

Lets hit these critiques one at a time...

CLARK: ...We’re not there to occupy it; we’re only there to help. So let’s give them their country back.”
RICHM: (OH, we're ONLY THERE TO HELP, eh? Does Clark really believe this? This is standard-issue US propaganda; the same exact line was used in Vietnam.)
ME:Ummm...we can't be there to occupy them and we should be trying to help. I have no doubt that is how Clark sees it. That is the message we should be giving to the Iraqis and it should be followed through with actions to prove our intentions. I know Clark did not think we needed to put Iraq on our plate, but now that its there, he knows we have to make the best of it. And the best of it is assurances to the Iraqis that we are there to help, and actions (of which he says what we should be doing) to reinforce those beliefs.

RUSSERT: ...May be too late. You think we may lose Iraq?
CLARK: I think it may be too late to strengthen this relationship. Now, let’s talk about Iraq for a second. I think there was a window of opportunity at the end of the military operation to be able to bring the Iraqi people on board. They could have seen a really smooth, effective, impressive U.S. occupation. American soldiers could have been in every village, they could have known the names of the people there, they could have provided food and water right away. But we didn’t do that...
RICHM:(Here comes the idea that the invasion could have been a "success," with just a little better planning. In effect, this reduces a grotesque war crime based on blatant lies to a mere matter of unwisely-selected tactics. It decriminalizes the war.)
ME:Everything you wrote is a gross mischaracterization of what was said. This was part of Clark answering whether we could lose Iraq. And now that we are there we need to be successful in Iraq. He says, and is spot on in my opinion, that after we invaded (like the invasion or not) there was a short window where we could have really impressed the Iraqis and gotten them behind us. We screwed that up and are now paying for it in the hearts and minds of the average Iraqi.

RUSSERT: Do you believe the war in Iraq is legal?
CLARK: Legal? Well, it’s technically legal, yeah.
RICHM:(WTF?? Of all things to say, he chooses this!!)
ME:I must have missed the memo that this is an illegal war. The US has points to argue. So do countries arguing against us. But just because you side with the illegal-war side does not make it so. International law is flakey, and the strongest countries get to write the rules. Clark goes on to say he does not consider this a legitimate war, which is the real point.

RUSSERT: Why?
CLARK: Well, you have the United Nations Security Council authorization against weapons of mass destruction. Now, the problem is that all of the underpinnings for that, they’re not there. We haven’t found those weapons of mass destruction. I wouldn’t have gone to war at that point. We didn’t have our alliances in shape. We didn’t have a plan for what happened next. We hadn’t exhausted all the diplomatic possibilities. But there was a resolution...
RICHM:(MAJOR BLUNDER! He calls the war "legal." He mentions the UN resolution against WMD, but doesn't mention that the Security Council refused to authorize the war itself - which was obviously more relevant. Here, he is just helping to bolster Bush's case!)
ME:This is why he said technically legal... He said we had a resolution. We did and, like it or not, it was vague enough for wiggle room on both sides. His entire arguement was that this was a war done wrong. There might be technical legality to it, but it WAS illigetimate.

RUSSERT: What happened? Where is it? Was there a colossal intelligence failure?
CLARK: Well, I think when you look at intelligence, you get indicators. It’s like a sort of gray goo as you look at it. You can’t see through it, exactly, and if you try to touch it, it gets real sticky and you might actually interfere with the information that you’re getting back. So you have to draw inferences from it. The inferences that I had drawn and I last saw the intelligence just before I retired in May of 2000...
RICHM:(Here, Clark goes off into a longwinded spiel that isn't worth re-copying. He absolutely fails to give a clean direct response to the question. Russert is openly inviting him to lay it all out on the table; Clark can't or won't do it.)
ME:Clark explains that intelligence is nebulus and he feels the admin cherry picked what they wanted. He def got his point across. There is no coherent criticism here so i'll leave this one be.

whew...this is tiring...gonna shorten up the format for the lame ones...

RICHM:(Very disappointing. A blown opportunity. Finally gets to the point after 30 seconds of aimless rambling.)
ME:I think Clark is concerned with the word mislead. This is *my take* but I think Clark thinks Bush is doing what bush thinks is right. He disagrees with what bush thinks and has said so repeatedly. But I think clark thinks bush was trying to convince people to want what bush wanted.

im gonna skip some lame ones...sorry

RUSSERT: As I showed in May of 2001, you were talking about the president’s great team. In your speech at the Center for American Progress, you said this. “This was the ‘dream team.’ Remember, Cheney ... Rumsfeld ... Powell ... What did the ‘dream team’ give us? An election-driven, poll-driven, ideologically-driven foreign policy.” Take out Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, do you believe that Colin Powell would ever participate in an election-driven, poll-driven, ideologically-driven foreign policy?
CLARK: I love General Powell, he’s a tremendous guy, and he’s part of that team and he’s worked against it. He’s done his best to be loyal to the commander in chief. That’s the position he accepted. He’s put forth his views. The struggles in this administration are monumental. Some people have said that it’s the greatest split ever...
RICHM:(This is a crock. Powell is as bad as the rest of the cabal. He sat & lied for an hour to the UN last winter presenting fraudulent "evidence," remember?)
ME:I could not disagree more. I think Powell is great. I think he sticks it out in the admin because he feels he can help be a check on the neo-cons. He does work for bush and when bush makes a decision he has to go with it. But i really really feel that Powell thinks its paramount to being in the circle to help make those decisions. He is a great American and it saddens me to see him get dragged down in the mud with this admin cause he is trying to fight for what is right. You just have to look at his actions when he still worked to change policy when everyone else was on vacation this august. To lump him with everyone else is ignorant.

Hope this gets read...and i apologize for any spelling mistakes.
TheBgrKng