JamesP
01/11/07, 04:53 pm
This is from the latest Wes Clark "Securing America" E-mail.
Worth a look.
------------------------------------------------------------------
From the beginning, Wes Clark has been right about Iraq. As he stated before the House Armed Services Committee before the Iraq invasion, Iraq was not an imminent threat. A military conflict in Iraq would distract us from our primary goal of capturing Osama Bin Laden and defeating Al Qaeda. The last four years have proven General Clark to be right over and over again.
Now, President Bush is asking the American people to accept his proposal to put another 21,500 troops in harm's way, without changing his flawed strategy!
Wes Clark is again leading on Iraq. On Monday, he published two op-eds, "Bush's surge will backfire" in the UK Independent and "The Smart Surge: Diplomacy" published in the Washington Post. Yesterday, in the lead-up to President Bush's speech, General Clark joined Congressional leaders on Capitol Hill to urge the President to offer real change for Iraq stating:
After three and a half years of failed predictions and dashed expectations about our military's performance in Iraq, President Bush owes the American people a detailed justification as to why a marginal increase in troops and more promises from Iraqi politicians will make any difference in the outcome in Iraq.
On the O'Reilly Factor, Wes Clark challenged Bill O'Reilly on the effectiveness of adding troops in Iraq without engaging diplomatically in the region:
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: How is it that the troop surge is connected to our strategic aims in the region?...I'm not putting optimism on it Bill, but here's the thing about this. Iran and other nations, they may be our enemies. We lived...you lived, in this country when we had 6,000 Soviet warheads pointed at us. Kruschev came over here and said he'd bury us. They were our enemies.
Bill O'Reilly: Yeah, and he didn't because we would destroy them back
Mutual destruction
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: That's right. But we didn't have to attack and destroy them. We kept...and we talked to them. And we even had an embassy. And most of us didn't put much faith in it, but eventually when we took a whole broad...we took apart the Soviet Union. So, what's wrong with this as a scenario? You talk with Iran. You hold them at bay. One way or another, somehow western influence seeps into Iran and the people of Iran decide that there's a better way of living...than being under the Ayatollahs. Isn't that a better approach than saying that we're going to have to go to war with them definitely?
Worth a look.
------------------------------------------------------------------
From the beginning, Wes Clark has been right about Iraq. As he stated before the House Armed Services Committee before the Iraq invasion, Iraq was not an imminent threat. A military conflict in Iraq would distract us from our primary goal of capturing Osama Bin Laden and defeating Al Qaeda. The last four years have proven General Clark to be right over and over again.
Now, President Bush is asking the American people to accept his proposal to put another 21,500 troops in harm's way, without changing his flawed strategy!
Wes Clark is again leading on Iraq. On Monday, he published two op-eds, "Bush's surge will backfire" in the UK Independent and "The Smart Surge: Diplomacy" published in the Washington Post. Yesterday, in the lead-up to President Bush's speech, General Clark joined Congressional leaders on Capitol Hill to urge the President to offer real change for Iraq stating:
After three and a half years of failed predictions and dashed expectations about our military's performance in Iraq, President Bush owes the American people a detailed justification as to why a marginal increase in troops and more promises from Iraqi politicians will make any difference in the outcome in Iraq.
On the O'Reilly Factor, Wes Clark challenged Bill O'Reilly on the effectiveness of adding troops in Iraq without engaging diplomatically in the region:
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: How is it that the troop surge is connected to our strategic aims in the region?...I'm not putting optimism on it Bill, but here's the thing about this. Iran and other nations, they may be our enemies. We lived...you lived, in this country when we had 6,000 Soviet warheads pointed at us. Kruschev came over here and said he'd bury us. They were our enemies.
Bill O'Reilly: Yeah, and he didn't because we would destroy them back
Mutual destruction
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: That's right. But we didn't have to attack and destroy them. We kept...and we talked to them. And we even had an embassy. And most of us didn't put much faith in it, but eventually when we took a whole broad...we took apart the Soviet Union. So, what's wrong with this as a scenario? You talk with Iran. You hold them at bay. One way or another, somehow western influence seeps into Iran and the people of Iran decide that there's a better way of living...than being under the Ayatollahs. Isn't that a better approach than saying that we're going to have to go to war with them definitely?