Video: Wes Clark calls for talks, Ahmadinejad calls for destruction of America
posted at 12:30 am on January 24, 2007 by Ian
Here he is complaining that George Bush is more interested in threatening Iran than talking to them. Oh, and in other news, Ahmadinejad said today that the U.S. and Israel will soon be destroyed:
Israel and the United States will soon be destroyed, Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday during a meeting with Syria’s foreign minister, the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) website said in a report.
“Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad… assured that the United States and the Zionist regime of Israel will soon come to the end of their lives,” the Iranian president was quoted as saying.
### Ahmadinejad has threatened the State of Israel with annihilation several times in recent months, and has recently added the US and Britain to the list of countries he says will be destroyed.
Clark, of course, is considered a “moderate” Democrat. It’s nice to know that term now encompasses politicians who believe our foreign policy is being dictated by rich Jews. Er, I mean “New York money people.”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
I try to ignore the left side of the DemoRat party, because why not?, and focus on the really maddening asshats like Ashley Wilkes.
Why on earth anyone listens to this little queer is beyond me. Did Clinton fire him to save him from his own troops?
Jaibones on January 24, 2007 at 12:40 AM
Maybe Howard’s right. Maybe Bush should appoint Howard and John Kerry and a few other Democrat blatherers to go to Iran and talk, talk, talk, talk, talk. It would be sentencing Ahmadingyjob to the extreme torture they fantasize about all the time, but we can pretend we intended no harm.
NellE on January 24, 2007 at 12:50 AM
Wesley, I mean. They have so many nuts, I’m getting confused.
NellE on January 24, 2007 at 12:52 AM
It’s because of Iraq.
snark off
mikeyboss on January 24, 2007 at 12:58 AM
Iran wants to nuke us and Israel
Democrats want to blame Bush
so what else is new?
Defector01 on January 24, 2007 at 1:03 AM
Our enemies are laughing their asses off at us.
The EU3 has been talking to iran for 3 years and given up, but this asshat still thinks talking will in some way be advantageous to us.
There’s a time to stop talking and start acting. But that takes courage and resolve, both of which are currently in short supply.
If our leaders could think a little less about their friggin’ careers and a lot more about working together to actually effectively solve some of these dangerous problems we’d all be a lot better off.
techno_barbarian on January 24, 2007 at 1:05 AM
It’s hard for me to diss Clark because he is a competent military man but if he continues saying crap like the above then there is no way to ignore his idiocy.
I do understand that he is still trying to rally support from the nutroot-left and it’s hard to blame him for his basess’ insanity. And it’s obvious where he’s getting his T-points from….
-haven’t they (dem presidential candidates) learned that placating nutters isn’t the way to go. I mean, yeah, there’s money there… but there is also certain defeat.
Opinionnation on January 24, 2007 at 1:21 AM
That’s the truth. Imagine how all those retired Soviets and old-guard Communists must feel: “We lost to them.”
Coyote D. on January 24, 2007 at 1:24 AM
Hey……… Wesley:
Who’s hand are you going to shake???
PinkyBigglesworth on January 24, 2007 at 1:48 AM
they’re still saying this on line for TP right?
Defector01 on January 24, 2007 at 2:08 AM
Ah-mah-denim-badAhmadinejad isn’t bluffing…and he doesn’t mean he’ll destory the US and Israel eventually. He seriously believes this is imminent, and it may be, that he’ll have operational nukes in the next few weeks or months, and even missiles to carry them.These mini-nukes, even if they worked (I wouldn’t count on it) won’t wipe out the US (or even Israel), but let’s face it: the bloody nose they gave us on 9/11 has caused some 35% of the population to demand surrender! Imagine what would happen if they somehow “lucked out” and set off a nuke in Manhattan, killing hundreds of thousands. The lefties would be voluntarily offering up all the American Jews for slaughter to appease the Islamist beasts!
stonemeister on January 24, 2007 at 2:17 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IXIrqYjrvs
Indeed.
MKR on January 24, 2007 at 2:38 AM
Neville Chamberlain, is that you?
Black Adam on January 24, 2007 at 2:53 AM
LMAO! I can’t believe you libs are still trottin’ out the Rumsfeld/Saddam vid. Predictable and boring. Think up something new or go waste someone else’s time.
Scot on January 24, 2007 at 2:57 AM
Boredom is simply the third stage of denial.
Quick, tell me about all those WMDs you found.
MKR on January 24, 2007 at 2:59 AM
Is there anyone, anyone at all in the federal gov. (with the possible exception of Keith Ellison) that understands the true threat posed by the modern Islamic jihad?
P. James Moriarty on January 24, 2007 at 3:18 AM
My point exactly, if it didn’t get missed. We had to shake the hand of Saddam during the Iraq/Iran war, but the cold war was also still on.
You remember your pal Jimmy Carter, don’t you? The Father of all this…..
Bill Clinton and his wife kissed and had Yasser Arafat and his wife as regular guests at the White House on numerous occasions, even though he had been tracked to killing multiple Americans, including Ambassadors.
Ms. Clark, wants to french kiss the Iranian Dictator, and take him on his word for peace, while he arms himself…..
MKO….. why don’t you just cut yourself to bleed enough and go swimming in the Pacific, then complain that the sharks are starting to circle???
By the way, over 500 WMD were found, along with tons of chemical agents in the rivers around Baghdad, along with transport records tracking WMD’s to Seria and back to Russia {proper}….. Or if you’re so blind to think that thousands of terrorists can’t come across the borders of Iran, Sirya, and every other shit hole in the regien, along with thier wepons, then you are truly blind to the truth and what it will take to win.
Yes, to WINNNNN…… which by the, and sorry to disappoint you, we are…. straight from the field.
my apologies for typing fast and not having my spell check on
PinkyBigglesworth on January 24, 2007 at 3:28 AM
So tired of this crap. Why the war was fought? To kill the enemy. All this BS of WMD and democracy and LIBERAL PMS is just that BS. We went to war to kill the enemy and we should keep doing so. We dug the hole by BEING PC. We are in Afghanistan and we are in Iraq because it puts our guns and our bullets and our bombs ON BOTH SIDES OF THE FRIGGIN ENEMY AND WE INTEND TO KILL HIM.
IRAN started this crap. IRAN will eat it. Now we just have to find the man to do it.
Limerick on January 24, 2007 at 3:58 AM
Maybe they know where the WMDs are?
We should have trusted Bill Clinton. He knew the truth about WMDs in Iraq.
Black Adam on January 24, 2007 at 3:59 AM
Gutwrenching, isn’t it. Even more disturbing when you remember that the Reagan administration took Iraq off the States Sponsoring Terrorism list in order to resume diplomatic relations and expedite the sale of dual use technologies whilst all of these bodies were being placed in the ground.
How about Halabja? It only took the Reagan/Bush administration officials 15 or so years to get in line with the world version of events… That Iraq had perpetrated the crime.
Show me all the links to mass graves that you wish… The truth of the matter is that the United States government couldn’t have cared less at the time they were being filled.
Do you expect me to defend Clinton?
Why on Earth would I do that?
Nice try, bud.
MKR on January 24, 2007 at 4:15 AM
Whilst we’re also on the subject of mass graves, can you care to explain why, in the midst of some of the more notorious crimes against humanity detailed on the website you kindly linked as an example of American indifference, did the Reagan Administration fight so valiantly to oppose ultimately successfully defeat the Prevention Of Genocide Act 1988?
Something about it being pre-mature?
How many bodies did you say they found in mass graves dated 1988 and beyond?
From the site you linked:
You may be interested in giving this a read.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/docs/3203/appb.pdf
Iran responsible? Casualty numbers suspect?
The title of the document?
MARINE CORPS HISTORICAL PUBLICATION
FMFRP 3-203 – Lessons Learned: Iran-Iraq War
Enjoy.
MKR on January 24, 2007 at 4:37 AM
*ding*
School’s out!
MKR on January 24, 2007 at 4:42 AM
He used the chemical weapons against his own people. Even if we approved of the use of chems before, we used the weapons on lawful combatants; not civilians and ethnic minorities. He did, so drop the arrogant attitude and recognize our intentions were pure.
Understand he had the weapons, and he had plenty of time to hide them or export them. Don’t act like Saddam was completely innocent of any kind of wrongdoing. You prefer we trust Saddam after years of “switch and move”? Would you give Saddam more credibility than our president?
When is your moonbat armada cannonizing Saddam? Is there a post-mortem waiting period, or can you do it right away?
Black Adam on January 24, 2007 at 5:08 AM
I never said otherwise.
Where did I refer to the use of chemical weapons by United States forces? Good luck finding it.
Really. I think the citizens of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the 67 other firebombed Japanese cities during World War 2 would be inclined to disagree, wouldn’t you?
Uh huh… Selling and providing material support to both sides of a war, illegally funding Nicaraguan militants and an expanded Iraqi chemicals weapons program funded and supplied by the United States, Russia, Germany and France at a time Saddam was known to be using them on his own people is a shining beacon of pureness.
I didn’t. You are inventing an opponent in your mind and you are responding to it.
Where in my argument have I placed any trust in Saddam Hussein whatsoever?
I trusted Donald Rumsfeld when he said the WMDs were to the north, south, east and west of Tikrit. Did you?
Why couldn’t the world’s largest superpower with complete air superiority over Iraq including advanced satellite imagery, and, if we are to believe, numerous defectors with solid information of the whereabouts of WMD, observe said WMD being removed from sites they where, according to Rumsfeld, known to be housed in?
Can you say leap of credibility?
Absolutely not.
Is this working out how you expected?
MKR on January 24, 2007 at 5:39 AM
Clarification: My third comment refers to targeting of civillians and ethnic minorities, not the specific use of chemical weapons on them.
MKR on January 24, 2007 at 5:46 AM
MKR: “Quick, tell me about all those WMDs you found.”
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=35
Now be a good leftist clown and shut up.
georgej on January 24, 2007 at 6:37 AM
MKR wrote: “Do you expect me to defend Clinton?
Why on Earth would I do that?”
Because you’re an assclown.
georgej on January 24, 2007 at 6:40 AM
Tell me again why these are bad things?
Seems to me like getting two of our enemies to destroy each other and give us money at the same time is a fairly obvious win/win. Toppling a communist regime is also an obvious win as 150 million corpses can attest.
Lehosh on January 24, 2007 at 6:45 AM
Awww look, now my comments are being filtered.
MKR on January 24, 2007 at 7:08 AM
When you find a report on found WMDs with enough credibility for even the Bush Administration to support you might have a case.
MKR on January 24, 2007 at 7:21 AM
Well, two things spring instantly to mind.
On the one hand you have President Reagan breaking a public pledge to never negotiate with terrorists (sounded great on the campaign trail), and on the other you have the administration engaging in direct violations of stated U.S. policy and congressional mandate.
MKR on January 24, 2007 at 7:38 AM
Doesn’t anyone here have some pull at Fox? Is it really necessary to listen to this moron for the next 18 months? If so, will anyone ever ask him how many innocent civilians his methodology killed in Serbia?
Griz on January 24, 2007 at 7:56 AM
The little maniac Mahmoud is simply reaching out to his core constituency, the American left.
JammieWearingFool on January 24, 2007 at 8:01 AM
MKR,
This country, all countries, align themselves with those who serve their needs at the time. When that alliance is no longer viable, we no longer align ourselves with them.
Such was the case with the Soviets during and after WWII and the same is true with Iraq. At the time the Germans were the biggest threat and the same was true of Iran.
I suspect that there are places in this world that you would like us to get involved in that would mean we may have to align ourselves with countries that are doing some pretty bad stuff. Iran is one example….the civil rights violations in that country are pretty bad, but you seem to be supporting Clarks call to have negotiations with them. Clark is soooooo politically inept that he thinks he can ask them “pretty please” to get in line with UN sanctions or he would then bomb them.
The majority of Irans civilian population is pro-western and a threat and subsequent bombing would galvanize the population AGAINST us. In that light, Clarks proposal is preposterous. We have tried talking to Iran, but their response is to call for the destruction of Isreal and the US. THEY are the ones who will not respond to civil discussion (UN talks). Naw, Clarks rhetoric is for his own benifit and has nothing to do with what is best for this country.
csdeven on January 24, 2007 at 8:38 AM
You obviously know nothing of satellite orbits. They do not remain stationary. There are ways to know when our sats will we in a position to see what is happening in any given area and it is a small matter of scheduling to avoid detection.
At that point it is a simple matter of disguising the vehilce in order to move material anywhere they want.
It isn’t as black and white as you would like it to be and your argument may draw a few people into a discussion, but everything you have claimed so far has been defeated time and time again, and most of us are just bored with explaining it to those who haven’t researched this stuff for themselves.
If you would like to have serious discussion I have a suggestion for you. Pick a topic. Study the topic from many sources. Create an argument that you can defend with facts.
csdeven on January 24, 2007 at 8:46 AM
“Wes Clark calls for talks, Ahmadinejad calls for destruction of America”
Potato, potahto.
Kevin M on January 24, 2007 at 9:04 AM
Ok, MKR–yes the Reagan admin was following the “realist” approach, with all the coddling of dictators (and all the unsavory and lethal things that flow from that). Prez Bush explicitly repudiated that policy, which is partly why (philosophically speaking) he decided to get involved against Saddam. Since you’ve been inveighing heavily against the “realist” approach (although I notice only criticizing Republican administrations despite the fact that policy goes back almost as far as WWII), you should have approved of Bush’s repudiation of it. But no, whatever Bush is for, your type is against, axiomatically. When the Iraq Study Group was for bringing back realism, because it cut against what Bush was doing your crowd was for it, although when Reagan was doing it, you were against it. You’re for a surge, until Bush is for a surge, then you’re against it. You have a lot to say about the past, I noticed, cherry-picking here and there to make your snarky critique (although not a coherent argument). Face the future MKR, and answer this question (without referring to Bush or his policies to date)–what’s your plan for victory in Iraq? If you can’t get behind victory in Iraq, then what’s your plan for Iraq after we pull out prematurely? Answer that, you ankle-biter–you’re soooo smart–*ding*. And I know you won’t, but I’ll keep asking.
smellthecoffee on January 24, 2007 at 9:07 AM
As the link above shows, we did find WMDs in Iraq. We just didn’t find ‘enough’ to ‘rise to the level’ that warrants an invasion. What is that level, exactly? That is never defined. It is yet another movable goalpost.
The left has made it impossible to ever win a war, because their MSM buddies get to define what ‘win’ means. In order to win a war, we have to make all of the enemy surrender without any collateral damage at all, without killing or embarrassing ‘too many’ of the enemy combatants in the process. If we put kufr troops in any of the Holy Cities of Islam, well, then we lose. If we let the Iraqi Army and Police clean up any of those Holy Cities, then we’re supporting death squads, and we lose. Because every time we kill an insurgent, 4 more are allegedly recruited to take his place, we lose.
None of them ever set legitimate criteria for ‘winning’ before the fact. They only complain about all of the things done wrong in past tense.
The Monster on January 24, 2007 at 9:09 AM
Somebody please, send that little leftist blowhard to some obscure place and lose his return ticket.
rplat on January 24, 2007 at 9:19 AM
Alignment is a pretty unique term for an arms for hostages deal.
Am I? Care to provide a direct quote?
Is this the favoured tactic for debate on HotAir? Putting words in your opponents mouth?
Educate me on just ONE of the points I have raised and we’ll consider that a serious discussion.
MKR on January 24, 2007 at 9:23 AM
Please stop this charade.
Lawmakers Cite Weapons Found in Iraq
Thursday, June 22, 2006; Page A10
Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), chairman of the House intelligence committee, and Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) told reporters yesterday that weapons of mass destruction had in fact been found in Iraq, despite acknowledgments by the White House and the insistence of the intelligence community that no such weapons had been discovered.
“We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons,” Santorum said.
“The lawmakers pointed to an unclassified summary from a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center regarding 500 chemical munitions shells that had been buried near the Iranian border, and then long forgotten, by Iraqi troops during their eight-year war with Iran, which ended in 1988.
The U.S. military announced in 2004 in Iraq that several crates of the old shells had been uncovered and that they contained a blister agent that was no longer active. Neither the military nor the White House nor the CIA considered the shells to be evidence of what was alleged by the Bush administration to be a current Iraqi program to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
Last night, intelligence officials reaffirmed that the shells were old and were not the suspected weapons of mass destruction sought in Iraq after the 2003 invasion.
MKR on January 24, 2007 at 9:27 AM
MKR…
As a certified warmonger, even by the members of HA, I can assure you that none of your ‘points’ has caused me to take my helmet off and put my guns away.
The ‘points’ you made about Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the firebombing of Japanese are perfect examples of relativism.
To you America is the product of slave owners, Orwellian industrialists, and Star Chambers. Your type of American is exactly WHY I am a warmonger….because people like you want America dead.
What scares the hell out of you is that there are millions of me out there who will never drop their guard. Go ahead and teach my kids that the Indians were Pan. It sure as hell won’t keep em from playing cowboys and indians.
I’ll make sure of that.
Limerick on January 24, 2007 at 9:35 AM
MKR, (GregH?)
Quick, show a list of all the anti-Bush entities and individuals who “knew” that there were WMDs of all sorts in Iraq before the invasion. No need for embarrassing quotes in support of aggressive military action.
You’re on the intellectual honesty honor system here, so take you time. We’ll wait.
Jaibones on January 24, 2007 at 9:39 AM
Quick, shjow my support for any of them.
MKR on January 24, 2007 at 9:46 AM
When I’m-a-dinner-jacket says he wants to destroy America he’s not being a bad person… just a good Muslim. What I’m not seeing in the above comments is that he is obliged to destroy America because we are unbelievers in the moon god of arabia. The Koran is quite clear that all of us should die and good Muslims around the world recognize that. That’s why, worldwide, you hear hardly a peep in protest to all the killing done in the name of the moon god.
Mojave Mark on January 24, 2007 at 9:50 AM
MKR, you’re talking yourself in circles. What’s your point on our war conduct in Japan (and I presume Dresden)? Do you have one, or are you just counterpunching to make yourself feel good?
I’m pretty much ok with our military support of Iraq v Iran, but we can’t go back and change it if we’re not. I’m totally ok with the firebombing of Dresden and Japan during WWII. Uncle Bob had served with honor in France and Germany and was on a troop carrier in the Pacific when Japan surrendered. No problem with Hiroshima AT ALL.
When Hussein moved from a positive to a serious negative, it was our job to remove him, even if he has been a military contact and beneficiary. That’s why we need adults making the decisions, instead of liberals wringing their hands because they “feel so bad”.
Don’t like the power and influence of the U.S.? Too many unsavory relationships for you to feel good about? Tough shitzky. We can’t go back and change everything we’ve done since 1940, and we (apparently) can’t stop nitwit politicians from making deals that look stupid or dishonest later. Want to go back to the Clinton Presidency and rethink the appeasement of North Korea? Can’t; just gotta deal with it in the present.
Make a point and defend it; you haven’t yet.
Jaibones on January 24, 2007 at 9:55 AM
MKR, go here:
aengus on January 24, 2007 at 10:02 AM
As is your right.
I don’t need to tell you that it’s also your right to tell me exactly where I’m wrong.
No, they are black and white examples of the United States targeting civillians during war, which was all the point was intended to be.
I’m not passing judgement. I’m not espousing a belief on whether the attacks were warranted.
Did it happen or not? YES/NO
MKR on January 24, 2007 at 10:09 AM
MKH,
Not just civillian aircraft but trucks as well, as reported separately by a Syrian Kurd and Mossad.
aengus on January 24, 2007 at 10:15 AM
Memo to Wesley Clark: (as well as most Dems and RINOS)
Luke Ch 21 V 26
Men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.
nuff said
mountainmanbob on January 24, 2007 at 10:20 AM
Yoo hoo, Mr. MKR!!? Didn’t you hear the bell? School’s back in session and you’re flunking. I’m waiting for your answer . . . [which I totally know is not forthcoming, you little ankle-biter, you]
smellthecoffee on January 24, 2007 at 10:32 AM
*sound of tumbleweed floating by*
aengus on January 24, 2007 at 10:34 AM
Define “victory in Iraq”, and you’ll get an honest answer.
MKR on January 24, 2007 at 10:49 AM
MKR, Japan was bombed–both firebombed and nuked–to punish them and bring them to their knees in defeat.
Their aim to rule the world with Shinto Bushido was every bit as ruthless and murderous as the IslamoFascism we’re facing now and had to be defeated conclusively as we should aim to do in this war, too.
(The same principle applied to the Civil War, also, in which Lincoln sanctioned the complete sack of the South, i.e. Grant and Sherman totalling Atlanta and Richmond, etc.)
When the Enemy is ruthless and determined to rule the world by force, they can only be stopped by an equally brutal use of force.
The man who made the decision to drop the bomb on Japan was a Democrat: Truman.
Our best men at the Pentagon figured it would cost us one million men to invade Japan and that it would be bloody and hard–the Japanese civilians were prepared to fight down to the last man, woman and child.
Dropping those nukes wasn’t very nice, but look at Japan now–you don’t see them killing people to take over the world anymore.
They’ve found that it’s a lot more profitable and peaceful to take over the world via Sony and Toyota.
Jen the Neocon on January 24, 2007 at 10:49 AM
Thankyou for your post, Jen. I agree with every point you’ve made and you agree that the United States targeted civillians during war.
We all seem to agree here.
MKR on January 24, 2007 at 10:57 AM
Oooh, that was pretty slick MKR… you really told Jen.
You’ve done a lot of complaining; but what is YOUR suggestion for Iran? Or are you only good at complaining and whining?
dalewalt on January 24, 2007 at 11:07 AM
No, I’ll let you define it, and then give me the answer. If I define it, you’ll just pick at it, and dodge the issue.
smellthecoffee on January 24, 2007 at 11:12 AM
“The threat of aggression is justification for war.”
I personally believe we need to strike first. It is why I have been trying to get my medical waivers, so I can be able to go in when we finally deal with Iran. I hope it is sooner, before later…and bloodier….
Tim Burton on January 24, 2007 at 11:21 AM
You’re quite impatient, aren’t you.
You give me three links full of information to digest and you expect an immediate answer whilst I’m also engaged in discussion with others.
Nevertheless, I’m not going to spend too much time on what you’ve given me. The first link contains allegations wrapped around a book advertisement. The author of the second link found it necessary to enhance the story by placing “It is his understanding that the trucks contained proscribed weapons of mass destruction” in the introduction despite the fact that this claim appears nowhere whatsoever in the translation. The third link is an opinion piece with self-referential and ambiguous newspaper sources with a description of George Bush as “our leader” and the author’s hopes his detractors would have “egg all over thier face.”
Is that the best you’ve got?
MKR on January 24, 2007 at 11:23 AM
Excuse me?
This really cannot get any simpler.
A reader made the comment that the United States has not targeted civillians. This was clearly not the case in Japan during WW2.
Do you agree with that statement? YES/NO
If you agree with that statement, as everyone here that has opinined on the issue including myself does, what are you going on about?
I’m working on foreign policy for Iraq at the moment, thankyou very much. I’ll get back to you.
MKR on January 24, 2007 at 11:33 AM
That was not an alignment with Iran in the sense that Clark is suggesting.
I said you “seem” to be. Do you deny that you support a dialogue with Iran?
Is it your tactic to misrepresent what others say?
I already did. Sat orbits….and you ignored it.
Your involvement in this topic started with a remark and a link in response to a persons criticizm of Clark suggesting a dialogue with Iran. Your implied point was resistance to talks with Iran were hypocritical because of our dealings with Saddam. This is comparing apples to oranges because Iraq was aligning with us against Iran, and in the current case of Iran, Clark is suggesting a dialogue with a country whom has refused all reasoned discussion and is calling for our destruction.
So, you see, YOU are not interested in being serious and thusly, you rarely get a serious response.
csdeven on January 24, 2007 at 11:34 AM
OKAY PEOPLE DON’T FEED THE TROLLS. (aka: MKR)
They don’t care about discussion, just arguing their “point” until they’re blue in the face.
They ignore any point or fact that doesn’t suit their twisted world-view. They’re not here to learn or discuss an issue.
Jones Zemkophill on January 24, 2007 at 11:48 AM
Okay. Let’s define victory simply as ending sectarian violence.
Escalate US troop numbers in Iraq to between 450,000 and 600,000 in number;
Position troops at key points along the Iranian and Syrian borders to stem the flow of foreign combatants;
Take, hold and transform key urban areas with sufficient ground forces for long periods of time, investing significant resources in rebuilding vital community infrastructure such as electricity, clean water and schools;
Impose permanent curfews for trouble hotspots, and use take, hold and transform methods to weed out dissidents. Reward communities for good behaviour by relaxing curfews and any other restrictions;
Encourage international aid in the form of military, financial and logistical assistance, rewarding participants with the ability to bid for contracts and other opportunities in this private sector;
Encourage and assist Iraqi civillians in setting up small businesses to foster commmunity spirit and interdependance and also reduce unemployment.
Your thoughts?
MKR on January 24, 2007 at 12:01 PM
Not sure what your point is. I said nothing about Clark.
I support decisions on this matter being made by a competent administration. Not this one.
Example please.
Get real.
“Why couldn’t the world’s largest superpower with complete air superiority over Iraq including advanced satellite imagery, and, if we are to believe, numerous defectors with solid information of the whereabouts of WMD, observe said WMD being removed from sites they where, according to Rumsfeld, known to be housed in?”
Satellites were merely one of the methods that could have been used to verify the movement of WMD. Photography from reconnaisance aircraft is another. If anything, you’ve merely refuted but one element of my statement, but you didn’t even successfully do that. I never
Correct.
Incorrect.
I never made the comparison.
Agreed.
No, you people keep making assumptions concerning whom I support as well as putting words into my mouth that I did not say.
MKR on January 24, 2007 at 12:27 PM
You’re still around MKR? After reading through the comments, i see you’ve managed to squeeze every liberal talking point into one little thread. Good job! I wish boring was the third stage of denial, unfortunately, boring is listening to libs like you.
Scot on January 24, 2007 at 12:38 PM
Hey there.
MKR on January 24, 2007 at 12:42 PM
MKR–Congratulations, first of all, for taking a position on the war. It’s something I’ve never heard from a lefty in five years. And on many points I would agree with you. But can you imagine, though, the political fallout of a draft, which is what you’d need to field that many troops? I think you’ll agree that all your other points are unachievable (though worthy) without the numbers of troops that would require a draft. Ah, but what about the political cost, as your buddies on DU and the Kossaks get ahold of this. It’ll be MKR’s war, a rich-man’s war, drafting disproportionately from the lower income brackets, and people of color–just recycle the litany of anti-draft complaints from Vietnam which I’m sure you remember, student of history that you doubtless are. So now, President MKR, you are a cold, heartless, racist, patrician bastard–depicted in caricature wearing a tuxedo and top hat, snatching babies from their African-American and Latino mothers, and dropping them into meat-grinders labelled “MKR’s war machine.” I can just see the posters–MKR=Hitler, MKKKR, and so on. See, that’s the thing about being president–you have to take responsibility. The president has to set the course, he can’t just thunder “this policy is going in the wrong direction,” a la Kennedy, Pelosi, Durbin, Ried, etc. None of these luminaries have offered any kind of plan; none of them have taken any responsibility. If you toss out the unproven and unprovable charges of lying, and toss out the childish charges that he is stupid (he is inarticulate, but not stupid, and anyway he beat their guy twice) most of the critique of Bush can be boiled down to this statement–”Bush is not perfect.” Yeah, well, he actually took a position, and is accepting responsiblity for it. The only batting 1000 is the one who took no position, or who took a position after the fact. In wars, esp with lousy human intelligence (which only now is beginning to approach effective levels) you’re going to get mistakes, even when run by President MKR. To state the obvious that things aren’t going exactly like you’d like them to in a perfect world, and then to criticize without offering any alternatives, is pathetic, cynical behavior–and Pelosi, et al had better hope that things don’t go well in the next year, or they will judged harshly for their unprincipled ankle-biting. Isn’t that a great place to be–hoping that things don’t go well in Iraq (which equals more troops getting killed)? I’ll tell you one thing–it’s not patriotic. But, because you offered a plan, in my book you escape the charge of being un-patriotic. I wonder if you were a public figure, and anyone cared what you thought and did, you’d have guts to take a position.
smellthecoffee on January 24, 2007 at 12:44 PM
I like it, but it is politically unfeasable. A trillion dollar investment in Iraq with an isolationist Democrat regime in Washington is not happening.
450,000 to 600,000 troops, indeed. Bush is being excoriated by the left edges of both parties for finally telling the generals he is taking it from 130,000 to 150,000.
Jaibones on January 24, 2007 at 1:05 PM
Jailbones, not only that, but ever since the Left started with the “Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq”, our preemptive strike on Iran was dead in the water.
If he tries to escalate into a ground war to go after Iran with troops, that’s what we’ll hear, too.
The Dhimmicrats and the Left will never believe that Iran has nukes until they’re going off over an American or European city (they will yawn if Iran nukes Israel and scream if Israel nukes Iran first) and then they’ll say we “deserved it” because we “taunted” them.
We’ve allowed our country to get into a hell of a mess–the lion’s share of the war is right here at home and it’s this political crap, if you can believe it.
It will be the death of us all. God help us!
Jen the Neocon on January 24, 2007 at 1:14 PM
I have to apologize, MKR, I set you up. It didn’t matter what kind of plan you came up with, I was going to find something to criticize. I just wanted to see what it felt like to be a Democrat.
smellthecoffee on January 24, 2007 at 1:19 PM
Then what is your point here?
Are you claiming that you have nothing to say about Clark in a thread topic that is all about what Clark said?
Are you REALLY wondering why the greatest superpower on the earth can’t have surveillance on every square mile of the earth at all times? Don’t you think that is a completely unserious position to take?
csdeven on January 24, 2007 at 1:24 PM
OK, sorry about that.
So you don’t believe a former Iraqi General, that’s fair enough. He’s a part of the Bush conspiracy so he can sell his book. As for the opinion piece it quotes Israeli intelligence, Mossad. They’ve been quoted in dozens of newspapers saying this, all whom are lying right? It’s well known by those of us who follow the news. Research it if you like or ring the Israeli embassy if you’re sceptical. Also, go http://www.debka-net-weekly.com/issue.pl?username=&inumber=131>here and scroll down to: US Spy Satellites “Saw” Heavy Eve-of-War Convoys to Syria.
Is Lieutenant-general James Clapper Jr. also a liar? Or maybe the news organisation made it up, maybe he should sue. What about French, British, US, Italian and Israeli intelligence services? Just more bs cooked up by Bush right? More to the point can you prove Iraq didn’t have WMD? Do you think Saddam should have been given the benefit of the doubt?
The Syrian connection can’t be definitively proven beyopnd a shadow of a doubt but you wanted a plausible explanation. If Bush was going to go to the trouble of lying to invade a country why wouldn’t he just plant some state-of-the-art WMDs to find? There’s probablly not much point in arguing with you as BUSH LIED!!! is an article of faith impervious to reason.
aengus on January 24, 2007 at 1:29 PM
Whoops.
aengus on January 24, 2007 at 1:30 PM
I know advancement to the top ranks of the military isn’t always based on merit, and that sometimes there are politics involve (understatement of the year?) …. but damn, it’s still hard for me to believe someone as stupid as Clark achieved the rank that he did.
thirteen28 on January 24, 2007 at 1:30 PM
WHOA DUDE!!!! Are you sure you aren’t “The Rock”, because I can smell what you are cookin’….MKR’s ass!
Great one. Way to put him in his place.
csdeven on January 24, 2007 at 1:32 PM
Back on topic…..
I found this site that exposes the real General Clark.
csdeven on January 24, 2007 at 1:40 PM
Thanks cs….that was a fun link.
Limerick on January 24, 2007 at 1:51 PM
csdeven,
that’s an interesting link, but it’s awful hard to tell the players. One source was criticizing Clark’s action in Serbia, and citing a condemnation by Ramsey Clark.
There are few greater honors for an American than to be condemned by Ramsey Clark.
Another series came from CounterPunch; isn’t that the filthy leftist site of Alex Cockbiter? Ground doesn’t get any shakier than that…
Jaibones on January 24, 2007 at 3:20 PM
Admittedly I didn’t read the entire site, links and all, but just reading the statements he was quoted as saying, I am very suspecious of his agenda and his judgement.
csdeven on January 24, 2007 at 10:15 PM
The point was made by PinkyBigglesworth. I agreed and provided a visual cue. Dude, it’s modern history. Scroll up.
Funnily enough, yes.
No. Yet again you are deliberately putting words into my mouth.
There’s no need to cover every square mile with surveillance when Donald Rumsfeld knows exactly where the WMDs are.
Are you REALLY telling me that the sites houseing the WMDs that posed such a signicant, immediate threat weren’t under daily surveillance by EP-3E ARIES II, U-2 or Global Hawk aircraft?
How long do you think it would take to load fifty rigs with contraband requiring special handling and storage procedures?
Absolutely.
MKR on January 25, 2007 at 2:56 AM
The same site also urges the reader to sign a petition indicating the personally held belief that George W. Bush should be impeached and prosecuted for war crimes.
MKR on January 25, 2007 at 4:22 AM
You’re still yet to hear it from one :)
No apology necessary.
I have no respect for the Democratic Party position on Iraq, for reasons such as the bizarre contradictory nature of chastising Bush for not taking the advice of General Shinseki at the outset of the war on one hand, and threatening to cut funding for any escalation of troops in the region on the other.
One of the reasons I continue to not vote for them.
MKR on January 25, 2007 at 5:00 AM
You make an excellent point that is difficult to refute, but you are naive in attributing this behaviour solely to Democrats and lefties.
“I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today” – Tom Delay
“This is Clinton’s war, and when he falls flat on his face, that’s his problem.” – Richard Luger
“My job as majority leader is be supportive of our troops, try to have input as decisions are made and to look at those decisions after they’re made … not to march in lock step with everything the president decides to do.” – Trent Lott
The rhetoric is the same from both sides of the aisle.
MKR on January 25, 2007 at 6:33 AM
Sada’s allegation is pure hearsay from two “unnamed” friends.
Curveball, Ahmed Chalabi, INC, MI6 “45 minute” Iraqi informant… Intelligence agencies had no problems regurgitating claims from these distinguished characters.
Newspapers print the information that is provided to them. They don’t need to lie to do this.
No, but there is the possibility he may be an idiot. For example:
In anticipation of invasion, is it not unreasonable to assume that traffic would have increased regardless of any alleged WMD smuggling?
Is it also reasonable to assume that Saddam had a lot of other things he wanted to get out of the country, such as gold reserves?
Zero of the links you have provided give any first person eyewitness accounts of the contents of the convoy.
At least as far as I am aware the satellites capturing imagery of increased traffic did not possess the ability to peer inside the trucks.
But somehow the outgoing director of the US National Imagery believes unquestionably that the trucks contained WMDs.
Those leaps of judgement are usually reserved for polesmokers like Alex Jones and Jeff Rense.
REALLY.
MKR on January 25, 2007 at 7:59 AM