Sunday, August 28, 2005

Wesley Clark Nails It -- Again

As usual, General Clark's trenchant analysis is right on the money. Read his article in the WaPo and see what a true military man has to say about the Quagmire-in-the-DesertTM.


With each passing month the difficulties are compounded and the chances for a successful outcome are reduced. Urgent modification of the strategy is required before it is too late to do anything other than simply withdraw our forces.

Adding a diplomatic track to the strategy is a must. The United States should form a standing conference of Iraq's neighbors, complete with committees dealing with all the regional economic and political issues, including trade, travel, cross-border infrastructure projects and, of course, cutting off the infiltration of jihadists. The United States should tone down its raw rhetoric and instead listen more carefully to the many voices within the region. In addition, a public U.S. declaration forswearing permanent bases in Iraq would be a helpful step in engaging both regional and Iraqi support as we implement our plans.
Why didn't John Kerry choose The General as his running mate? Edwards brought exactly zero to the ticket and he was a major disappointment to me and many others I have spoken to. Clark would have been a hugely better candidate and a major boost to the party.

Is it that the Democrats just don't want to win?

Or was it that they just didn't want to win that one?


Anonymous said...

What about Kerry? Went to nam twice then decided to call it quits on controversial purple hart rule, then goes on to protest the war he signed up for but not really throw away the medals in protest and then later votes for the Iraq war and its funding.

really, could you have ran a more flip flop fool? It had to look close so the people would not notice the voting fraud.

Either Demo are fools or Bush rigged Deans race also...

Farnsworth68 said...

What the fuck are you talking about?
Kerry's purple heart was only controversial because the Swift Boat Liars for Bush made it that way -- with the willing connivance of morons like you.
And why shouldn't he protest the war? He was there -- like a lot of us -- and saw first hand that the war was ultimately unwinnable -- again like a lot of us. Me included. So unless YOU were there, asshole, you've got nothing to fucking say about it.
The medals vs ribbons is a non-starter, a smokescreen, a neocon bait-and-switch diversion from the real issues, and you know it. It's just more chickenshit gum flapping from assholes like you who are too fucking scared to sign up for the Iraq War that you so vocally support. Unless you are over 42, disabled or a homosexual, then you need to get your sorry ass down to a recruiter and sign up. If you are too old, too sick, or too scared, then it's your job to sign up your relatives. The Army needs you. Your country needs you. Your god Bush needs you.
Speaking of which, Baby Doc flip flopped more than Kerry did and on a wider variety of issues, as a brief search on Google would show you, if you weren't such a fucking close-minded imbecile and would actually entertain an original thought in that weak-ass monkey brain of yours.
No one is saying that Dems are NOT fools, but your last comment escapes me.
So we're back to the beginning: What the fuck are you talking about?

Anonymous said...

Democrats are fools because they didn't run a liberal for president like Dean. Or maybe like his own race shrub boy rigged the Democrats race and Kerry not Dean won. That way it would not look like it was such a scam.

Very good defending points about Kerry, cussing and screaming seem to be the republicans way though. I had hoped to see why the smoke screens were smoke screen...