Thursday, February 22, 2007

Wesley Clark Criticizes Bush's Iraq Policy

Of the Democrats being discussed for a run in 2008, only Al Gore and Wesley Clark have not declared and Gore keeps saying he won't. That makes Wesley Clark the last candidate if he decides to run. I suspect Clark is biding his time and if he doesn't see a good opportunity to jump all the way in, he may stay active on the issues, particularly on foreign policy.

Stephanie Veale of the Utica Observer-Dispatch has a story on Clark's recent speech at Colgate College:
The Bush Administration's strategy in Iraq is wrong because it's short on dialogue and diplomacy and heavy on violence, Retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark said Tuesday night at Colgate University.

"You cannot defeat al Qaida with military force alone," Clark said, adding that invasions, bombings and shoot-outs create terrorist-sympathizers and worsen the problem.

(snip)

"The United States must talk with nations it disagrees with," he said.


Having an ideological vice president who talks like a John Bircher and a public relations president who plays to the base is not doing the United States much good. I see no sign, with the exception of Chuck Hagel, that any of the Republican presidential hopefuls have a serious foreign policy. Newt Gingrich has moved himself so far to the right that he openly advocates World War III; yes, Newt, that should improve our lives, build a better future and enrich your cronies in the defense industry.

I like Wesley Clark, but sometimes, for a presidential candidate, he's a bit low key and yet clearly he is well informed and thoughtful. I would welcome that in a vice president or a cabinet member of a Democratic administration. Clark understands how foreign policy is supposed to work.

Wesley Clark is also associated with a veterans group that has a website called, Stop Iran War. I can see where Bush's very dangerous Iran policy may be the reason Wesley is focusing more on foreign policy issues than running for president—it's a dangerous situation and somebody like Wesley Clark has to show the way to a bit of foreign policy reality. Here's part of Wesley Clark's statement on the site:

All Americans want to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons and interfering on the ground inside Iraq. Yet President Bush’s saber rattling gives the US little additional leverage to engage and dissuade Iran, and, more than likely, simply accelerates a dangerous slide into war. The United States can do better than this.

Whatever the pace of Iran’s nuclear efforts, in the give and take of the Administration’s rhetoric and accusations, we are approaching the last moments to head off looming conflict.

(snip)

... Military force against Iran is not the solution now, and if we adopt the right strategy, perhaps it need never be. ...


Too bad the Bush adminisration ignores competent people like Wesley Clark. But Republicans in Congress can't ignore thousands of Americans who write to them objecting to Bush's slow drift towards war with Iran.

Let's hope Wesley Clark speaks up more.


Labels: , , ,

2 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're way off base on what Newt said about World War III. He is simply smart enough to connect the dots and see what is already happening in the world. Open your eyes.

6:38 AM  
Blogger Poechewe said...

Anonymous, my eyes have been open for a long time. Newt Gingrich has been at the core of a movement that is failing America. The Republican Party has almost completely given in to the far right and has nothing useful to offer Americans in this era. A $2 trillion war is not in the best interests of Americans. A deficit as far as the eye can see is not in the best interests of Americans. A foreign policy that is a complete fiasco is not in the best interests of Americans.

"Connect the dots"? I think we've been that route before with Iraq and those who would 'connect the dots' were badly wrong and are not to be trusted.

There's something absurd about Newt Gingrich fantasizing about riding in late in the day to the rescue like a reactionary French general on a horse. Sorry, but those days are gone. It's time to move on.

3:26 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home