Comments on: Iraq: What Went Wrong

Iraq: What Went Wrong

y2karl — Wed, 01 Oct 2003 11:46:52 -0800

Iraq: What Went Wrong By General Wesley K. Clark. I appreciate this article. It is simple, easy to read, and represents what I've been feeling for quite some time now. (NY Review of Books)

By: homunculus

homunculus — Wed, 01 Oct 2003 11:57:04 -0800

Good link, thanks y2karl. Here's a thread from a year ago on another article by Clark.

By: filchyboy

filchyboy — Wed, 01 Oct 2003 12:05:27 -0800

Where have I seen that before? Brilliantly funny lead in y2karl!

By: stonerose

stonerose — Wed, 01 Oct 2003 12:10:48 -0800

Hot of the presses, TPM has a good, rather lengthy interview with Clark.

By: andrew cooke

andrew cooke — Wed, 01 Oct 2003 12:17:57 -0800

couldn't this have been posted in the link it refers to (or was that merely coincidence). oops, sorry, no, of course, another iraq link bashing bush is just what we need. isn't mefi great?

By: goethean

goethean — Wed, 01 Oct 2003 12:20:13 -0800

From the TPM interview: In other words, this administration was more worried about embarrassing itself in front of its right-wing base by talking to the North than it was in preventing the emergence of another nuclear-armed power that could proliferate nuclear weapons. Yeeouch.

By: nofundy

nofundy — Wed, 01 Oct 2003 12:20:28 -0800

isn't mefi great? Yes. another iraq link bashing bush is just what we need. I'm happy you understand. :-)

By: y2karl

y2karl — Wed, 01 Oct 2003 12:29:24 -0800

another iraq link bashing bush is just what we need. No one could believe at this point that bringing about such a democratic transformation would be easy, quick, or cheap. It is true that if a primary but unspoken purpose of the military campaign was to demonstrate the skills and courage of the American armed forces, then it was surely a success. Thirty years of dedicated effort have built a US military without peer in its ability to defeat enemy forces on the battlefield. But power creates its own adversaries, and those who are determined to contest American strength will seek methods that minimize the military advantages we have accumulated. Much greater work remains to be done if the United States is to achieve success in promoting our values, our security, and our prosperity. All else being equal, the region and the Iraqi people are better off with Saddam gone. But the US actions against old adversaries like Saddam have costs and consequences that may still leave us far short of our goal of winning the new war on terror. Indeed, the effects of the war may actually impair our efforts to achieve that larger goal. You know, I don't really see the name Bush anywhere in there...

By: homunculus

homunculus — Wed, 01 Oct 2003 12:33:19 -0800

Here's Col. David Hackworth's take on Clark.

By: goethean

goethean — Wed, 01 Oct 2003 12:45:31 -0800

But after spending three hours interviewing the man for Maxim's November issue Oooo...I hope it's a pictorial.

By: Stan Chin

Stan Chin — Wed, 01 Oct 2003 15:08:37 -0800

But goethean, you know Maxim's just going to airbrush him until he looks as fake as Howard Dean.

By: alicesshoe

alicesshoe — Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:03:38 -0800

I may have seen a similar post, but somehow this represents what I've been feeling for quite some time. Indeed. Thanks y2karl.

By: paleocon

paleocon — Wed, 01 Oct 2003 17:33:56 -0800

Who cares what Gen. Clark thinks. He was removed from his command of NATO forces for ethical lapses and moral defects. Further, he was the fucktard who gave Janet Reno the military equipment to burn women and children to death in Waco, Texas.

By: whatnot

whatnot — Wed, 01 Oct 2003 18:36:14 -0800

interesting, paleocon. so, can you cite some reputable sources for that information, or are you just taking a dump in the thread?

By: y2karl

y2karl — Wed, 01 Oct 2003 18:54:01 -0800

He's taking a dump, and making it all up, too. Lies and the lying liars who tell them, indeed.

By: nath

nath — Thu, 02 Oct 2003 01:40:17 -0800

so, can you cite some reputable sources for that information, or are you just taking a dump in the thread? I think the use of the word "fucktard" indicates the post wasn't looking to be reputable.

By: mcsweetie

mcsweetie — Thu, 02 Oct 2003 06:50:44 -0800

wasn't Gen. Clark also the one that shot Vince Foster?

By: whatnot

whatnot — Thu, 02 Oct 2003 07:49:39 -0800

yeah, and I think he was the one who said all that stuff about McNabb, too.

By: nofundy

nofundy — Thu, 02 Oct 2003 08:10:44 -0800

It's all Bill Clinton's fault! Just thought I would do a pre-emptive strike.

By: mojohand

mojohand — Thu, 02 Oct 2003 08:35:54 -0800

Since the more I read about him, the more I like the guy, let's see if we can get this thread back on track. Spencer Ackerman, writing in the New Republic, clears things up for folks like me that thought Clark was implicated in Clinton's gutless Balkans policy. [Link is currently flaky, I hope the NR site will sort itself out soon] And Amy Sullivan, writing in the Washington Monthly, makes the case he's got a reasonable chance to get the nomination. Since Lieberman seems to have as much chance of getting it as my dog does, I'm glad to see there's still some possibility of a Democrat I could vote for.

By: languagehat

languagehat — Thu, 02 Oct 2003 11:30:36 -0800

the more I read about him, the more I like the guy Before you get too misty-eyed, reflect that much of what he's telling us now is stuff that he knew back when revealing it might have helped head off the war; why did he hold back then, and why is he telling us now?

By: y2karl

y2karl — Fri, 03 Oct 2003 16:19:49 -0800

"I've known Wes Clark for 20 years. He's one of the most gifted soldiers that I have ever had work for me." -- Colin Powell, CNN Late Edition, Sept. 28, 2003