Can you say Secretary of State Clark?
This is why I hate politics, it warps everyone. Et tu General Clark? The man who spearheaded and led the fight against going to war with Iran? "Strengthen our diplomatic hand"??? Where have I heard that before???? Oh yeah Oct 2002. Deja vu all over again.
Posted by Howd at October 4, 2007 02:56 PMWhen is the Webb amendment coming to the floor for vote?
Why is reid delaying it?
Why? this amendment was on monday; they were debating the defence authorization and spending bills this week....so why have they not voted yet?
When is this being voted....
Why was the kyl/lieb amendment and webb amendment not brought to the floor together!!!
We all know how those rethugs operate? they can filibuster this webb amendment?
Why did reid, durbin, allow this!!!!! what was mcconnell trying to stop behind the scenes????
Even if both amendments are worth their purpose why can they both be voted together.
that is what is bothering me.....
Posted by mp at October 4, 2007 03:04 PMIn what world does "The General", Clark think that the stupid non-binding resolution to declare an official organ of a sovereign government as a terrorist organization is strong leadership?
PERHAPS, if the "Democrat" controlled Congress had already rescinded the 2002 Authorization to kick butt on ANY terrorist group the Cheney Administration can find, invent or misrepresent; but they haven't! Not that the rule of law has meant anything at all to the serious leaders inside the Beltway for the past 4 or 5 years.
Sorry Wesley, if you think that was a smart vote, that will strengthen our hand in negotiating with Iran or that stern words to a criminal conspiracy is admirable leadership, then we just disagree. Talk is cheap, unless you consider the cost in lives and treasure. Backing yet another bill which will wither on the vine because we just don't have the votes is an easy way to sound tough.
After all that's transpired in the past 6 months, I need to see just a little more before I'll swoon in admiration.
Posted by DeminNewJ at October 4, 2007 03:06 PMPoster HOwd has it right. This is choreography. Clinton and Clark ain't no Rogers and Astaire.
Posted by gtash at October 4, 2007 03:07 PMI agree that Hillary (or any Democrats) should not have supported the so called non-binding resolution. How can these democrats trust Bush after what he did with Iraq resolution? As they say "You fooled me once shame on you, If you fooled me twice, shame on me".
Are the Democrats gone brain dead?
Posted by suresh at October 4, 2007 04:29 PMClinton and Clark have always been on the same page. If Democrats and liberals hadn't been so dazzled by shiny four stars and busy defending Bill Clinton's every odious policy move, they might have seen through the game years ago. Clark is a former General and nobody succeeds in becoming a General in the US military in the past thirty years without having a militaristic mindset. It's why I don't want any of them in our civilian government after they retire. They can us the language of diplomacy but they don't mean it the same way non-military civilians do. And as we've seen they can be very dangerous in positions of power like Colin Powell was.
Posted by Marie at October 4, 2007 04:38 PMDo you think Mr Clark is on to something? He suggested to have a rating system for political speech ( such as a A B C system). He cited Hollywood rating system and maybe having something similar for political discourse.
What do you folks think of this? Could it work? Who would decide who is rated what? How would this blog rate? Good idea from the General?
Wesley brought this up last night on MS NBC.
Presidential material?
Posted by jj at October 4, 2007 10:36 AM
I think it is a great idea-he should talk it up at every opportunity that he gets
Posted by jj at October 4, 2007 04:49 PMGeneral Clark?
Who is General Clark?
Posted by Bagley at October 4, 2007 04:59 PMIf Democrats and liberals hadn't been so dazzled by shiny four stars
Who's bedazzled by the guy's brass, I wonder? I don't remember any Dem or liberal, even his most zealous followers, mentioning they love him for his jewelry. 'Course the tv punditry goes gaga over the military generals, but they're neither Dem nor liberal for the most part.
and busy defending Bill Clinton's every odious policy move
Again, who's doing this? A lot of people like the guy, but when most Dems and liberals talk about his policies, there's not much defending going on.
nobody succeeds in becoming a General in the US military in the past thirty years without having a militaristic mindset.
So, what do you think a General in the military should be thinking about - gardening??
They can us the language of diplomacy but they don't mean it the same way non-military civilians do.
Yeah, 'cos civilians like Bush, Cheney, and Rummy were so good at diplomacy, weren't they? At least up until the moment they started bombing the shit out of Iraq. And don't you think it might be helpful to have someone conversant in military strategy and diplomacy between warring nations to lend a hand trying to extricate us from the huge military blunder the next president will have to deal with? Especially since Chance the Gardener is unavailable?
And as we've seen they can be very dangerous in positions of power like Colin Powell was.
He was a stooge; they put him out in front of the UN because he was the only one that had any sort of credibility left. And now he has none, which is as it should be for letting himself be used like that. He had no power; if he did, his Powell Doctrine might have been used rather than Shock-n-Awe - or else we'd have never invaded in the first place.
But we've had this conversation before, so it's no use going over it all again. You're of the opinion that military people are nothing but mindless robots and I disagree. Let's just leave it at that, shall we?
Posted by iamcoyote at October 4, 2007 06:04 PMjj, you forgot to answer your own post with Baggy's name. Got caught huh?
Posted by Judith at October 4, 2007 06:09 PMjj, you forgot to answer your own post with Baggy's name. Got caught huh?
Posted by Judith at October 4, 2007 06:09 PM
No, just had an afterthought that I forgot to add.
Decided to shoot it in there...
Nice try though.
I like the way you "think"
Take your mind off Bags for a while and think about me...are you cute?
Posted by at October 4, 2007 06:32 PMForgot to identify-Sorry
General Clark?
Who is General Clark?
Posted by Bagley at October 4, 2007 04:59 PM
He has an alias-Also goes by Major Frank Burns.
Posted by jj at October 4, 2007 06:37 PMAs Sy Hersh pointed out in an interview with Keith Olbermann, diplomacy takes place when the sides are talking to each other. If there's no talking, well then, ergo, there's no diplomacy.
The Bush Administration is not talking to Iran, Syria or Hezbollah. Hillary isn't strengthening Bush's diplomatic hand because there's no diplomacy taking place!!!
Is anyone else tired of this campaign already? The stakes couldn't be higher, but good lord it's been one thing after another for 7 years. And now we've got all these candidates making their pitches 24/7.
It does seem like Clark has been promised something. I've declared myself a HRC skeptic many times over, but you have to admit she's efficient. Those ducks better line up or else.
Posted by nyc at October 4, 2007 07:45 PMWell, I'm glad someone is happy with Hillary's foreign policy bamboozle operation!
As much as I respect Wes Clark, it's important to also consider he's bucking for a job. A job he'll do extremely well, by the way, but he's not exactly a disinterested party in all this. Same goes for the Wilsons. None of that disqualifies them in any way.
Still, it's important we not gloss over some unpleasant realities:
1) Kyl-Lieberman was and is intended to help pave the way towards a war of agression against Iran. Sorry, but there's no getting around that. All this crap about "diplomacy" we've heard before and very much in the same context, no? So let's dispense with that canard, shall we?
2) The Webb amendment sounds great at first. That is, until you read it. Upon reading it, one invariably notices that there are loopoles large enought to sail a couple carrier battle groups through. In other words, it's nothing more than shabby political cover for Kyl-Lieberman. It MEANS NOTHING.
3) Check out this ditty at WaPo, which lists the foreign policy people on the various campaigns. HERE. If you are familiar with these fine folks, you'll notice they are almost entirely right-wingers. They are almost entirely neo-cons as well, including Gen. Keane and Micheal O'Hanlon, both architects of the "surge."
Clark and the Wilsons are standouts because they don't appear to really fit in with this crowd. Of course, I don't really know that much about the Wilsons, so I could be wrong about their foreign policy proclivities outside of their own battle with HalliBushCO.
Again, there's no doubt Wilson is looking for a job as well. State perhaps? Of course, that's no reason to disqualify his opinions either, just take them with the appropriate pinch of salt.
Also, look at how many of them are lobbyists. Stunning, really. These people all have their fingers in various corporate pies, right down to Madeleine Albright. Think about her foreign policy team and ask yourself this question, "Are these people going to really change US foreign policy into something the rest of the world will put up with? Because if not, we're looking at more war."
HIllary (and Bill) have never wavered in their support for the neo-con and neo-liberal agenda. Their support for this war, the War On Terror and all the incipient demagoguery that goes along with it, hasn't wavered one iota. I have to give them credit for consistency. Of course, ole' Shrub also gets points on that same item, eh?
It's because at a minimum, they are both neo-liberals. In other words, that stale old label, "Republicrook Lite" has more meaning than most people seem to realize. Google "Milton Friedman & Chile". That's neo-liberalism!
Hillary isn't doing anything Bill didn't do in the 90's. Run as a progressive and govern as a neo-liberal, albeit with that famous feel-good bullshit that made those bitter pills go down a little easier. While Hillary panders, the Dem base, in all their willful ignorance, laps it up, making the rest of us look downright stupid. And all because people can't be bothered with DETAILS.
Like who's giving the next president advice?
HIllary gets endorsements from unions even though her top advisor is a UNION BUSTER. She gets endorsements from good people like Clark while she surrounds herself with neo-con, corporate hacks. Clark has a good reason for holding his nose in that company. He might actually do some good in all this crap.
In all this, there aren't nearly enough people asking WTF?!
Having said all that, having president Hillary won't be the end of the world, assuming congress changes into something resembling a democratic institution (major doubts there). Hillary (and Bill) is so NOT a leader that she could be easily compelled to do the right thing if congress ever found its moral compass. I have real doubts about that occurring any time soon.
But given the way our so-called "leadership" is behaving these days, I wouldn't expect anything good to happen there either.
We have a long way to go.
Posted by Rick at October 4, 2007 09:08 PMThe only problem I have with what Wesley said, and what Hillary did, is that the order of the non-binding resolution and the bill should have been reversed.
The non-binding resolution passed with the help of Republicans and certain Democrats, just as the bill telling BushCo they must obey Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution will surely go down in flames as Republicans and certain Democrats block it.
Thus, Congress should have passed the bill first (making it veto proof) and then considered the non-binding resolution only after Congress ordered BushCo not to start anymore wars without first getting congressional authorization.
Included in this bill should also be a provision stating that Bush and Cheney will be immediately impeached and charged with war crimes if they defy Congress and the U.S. Constitution by dropping any bombs on Iran, or any other country, for that matter.
Never, never give BushCo and any of these insane Republicans (and certain Democrats) an inch, or they'll end up getting all of us, including our nation's children, killed. BushCo is more dangerous than the criminal al Qaeda gang in my view.
Posted by The Oracle at October 5, 2007 12:18 AMBill Clinton bombed "terrorist" organizations operating in sovereign states. By passing the Kyl-Lieberman resolution the Democrats again have been hornswaggled by Repugs and Neocons...
the door has been opened, now all that needs be done is construct a more compelling case that Rev. Guards are arming attacks on American troops in Iraq which can easily be set up in concert with a gullible MSM, and a public that basically is too numb to respond will watch passively as Bush/Cheney bomb Rev. Guard bases within Iran. The pretext is we are not now bombing a sovereign state, but rather a terrorist organization. Case closed. Coming to a TV screen near you.
Why isn't Blackwater on that same list?
Posted by me at October 5, 2007 07:00 AMand now the senate won't be voting for anything until oct 15th....
columbus day was for 1 day.....not for 10 days!
call your senators and order them back on to that floor to do some work!!!
Posted by mp at October 5, 2007 07:44 AMHas Webb ever read the War Powers Act?
Posted by JohnT at October 5, 2007 09:09 AM"Take your mind off Bags for a while and think about me...are you cute?"
Anon, no but people call me pretty. I take no credit through, just good genes.
Posted by Judith at October 5, 2007 09:25 AM"...Last week, Hillary voted for a non-binding resolution that designates the odious Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization in order to strengthen our diplomatic hand...."
That is pure bullshit. Kyl-Lieberman gives the neo-con psychopaths the green light to attack Iran.
suresh: "How can these democrats trust Bush after what he did with Iraq resolution?"
ROFLOL, because they AGREE with Bush. Haven't you figured that out yet?
and of course JarJar jj and bagless show up on cue to deliver their troll crap
Posted by Gay Veteran at October 5, 2007 11:39 AM