General Clark: "If I had been president, I would have had Bin Laden by this Time"

[tnitsuj]

from CNN.COM

I am going to put that down as possibly the dumbest statement ever from a major presidential candidate.

 

[ReiAyanami]

he bin lookin'

maybe he should run in the 2000 election and travel thru time.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

That statement is pretty brash, but everything else he says in that article is scathingly right on the mark.

 

[Bowfinger]

I believe him. Imagine what we could have done if we'd had 100,000 troops on the ground in Afghanistan.

That's always been my single biggest issue with Iraq. It's not just that Bush and his minions lied through their teeth, it's that they neglected their pursuit of the 9/11 terrorists to pursue their imperialist agenda. Of all the sleaze bags that exploited 9/11 for personal gain, I think the Bush gang was the worst.

 

[Strk]

Sure, it is a bold statement, but as Gonad said, everything else is right on the mark.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
from CNN.COM

I am going to put that down as possibly the dumbest statement ever from a major presidential candidate.

Well, considering he isn't a neo-con and isn't affiliated with the "Project for a New American Century" and that he is a Democrat and that he is a Decorated General - NOT an AWOL Coward.. then I think people might just be interested in what he has to say and that this will not negatively affect him.

 

[burnedout]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I really like General Clark. I even attended a Clark rally here in Austin shortly after he declared his candidacy.

No doubt, he makes a bold assertion. But I think if a general-grade or senior field-grade officer realizes that his next promotion will be signed by a President with the same experience then a certain type of motivation kicks in.

By the way, his speeches are much better than his briefings.

 

[Pers]

i don't trust clark. one minute he's pro-war, the next anti-war. the man has been caught in a number of lies, and he seems to just twist his agenda according to what would get him the most votes. If you're pro-war in april, you can't be anti-war in september.

anyway...here's hoping to a dean nomination.

 

[SViscusi]

Originally posted by: Pers
i don't trust clark. one minute he's pro-war, the next anti-war. the man has been caught in a number of lies, and he seems to just twist his agenda according to what would get him the most votes. If you're pro-war in april, you can't be anti-war in september.

anyway...here's hoping to a dean nomination.

Why can't you? The facts have changed.

I can't speak for anyone else, but my opinions tend to change as I'm given more information. I was kind of in support of this war at the begining of the year, now I'm not so sure.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: SViscusi

Originally posted by: Pers
i don't trust clark. one minute he's pro-war, the next anti-war. the man has been caught in a number of lies, and he seems to just twist his agenda according to what would get him the most votes. If you're pro-war in april, you can't be anti-war in september.

anyway...here's hoping to a dean nomination.

Why can't you? The facts have changed.

I can't speak for anyone else, but my opinions tend to change as I'm given more information. I was kind of in support of this war at the begining of the year, now I'm not so sure.

I agree. I was pro-war right before the war, like the week before it. For months prior, I was against it. I had my steady dose of Fox News and I really did believe the President was telling the truth when he claimed that Saddam had WMD ready to be used or given to terrorists. On the eve of the war, I was for it. During its first weekend, when the captured POW's were paraded on TV and I was reminded of how ugly war was, I switched my view and haven't looked back since.

 

[amok]

Definitely bold, but not beyond possibility. If all of the resources we have used in Iraq would have been used instead in Afghanistan, the chances of capturing OBL would definitely have increased significantly simply because of the numbers game. I don't think anyone really believes that Iraq was an imminent threat. Continued hassling via inspections would have at the very least delayed any weapons programs believed to be active, while we could have moved our resources fairly quickly from Afghanistan to Iraq if it was needed. In this aspect, I don't believe Clark's comments are really out of line. Of course, this statement was also meant to be a bit bolder than normal, as Clark is having to play politics, and undercutting the surge in Bush's popularity is an obvious goal.

Despite the political play, I agree with his thoughts in this direction. We could have been much more aggressive in Afghanistan, with the entire world community supporting us, and achieved a higher probablility of capturing OBL. There would be no questions regarding ulterior motives and empire building.

 

[ReiAyanami]

none of them have a chance anyway. the only candidates that can ever beat bush were gore (who already did) and clinton (hillary), and both said they ain't runnin

and the economy is picking up solidly, the only thing that could derail it is another largescale terrorist event, and all that would do is make bush's ratings go up more

Clinton*Gore 2004
Gore*Clinton 2004

 

[Wolfie]

During its first weekend, when the captured POW's were paraded on TV and I was reminded of how ugly war was, I switched my view and haven't looked back since.

The main reason why we should stay in there. This shows you the kind of people they have over there.

Wolfie

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: Wolfie

During its first weekend, when the captured POW's were paraded on TV and I was reminded of how ugly war was, I switched my view and haven't looked back since.

The main reason why we should stay in there. This shows you the kind of people they have over there.

Wolfie

We parade captured Iraqis (and thier dead bodies on TV).

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I believe him. Imagine what we could have done if we'd had 100,000 troops on the ground in Afghanistan.

That's always been my single biggest issue with Iraq. It's not just that Bush and his minions lied through their teeth, it's that they neglected their pursuit of the 9/11 terrorists to pursue their imperialist agenda. Of all the sleaze bags that exploited 9/11 for personal gain, I think the Bush gang was the worst.

You're such a pathetic partisan. "I believe him." You believe a politician? You don't believe G W though. Strange that your trust runs right down party lines.

You think we needed 100,000 troops on the ground? Well we have three times that many in Iraq and you're bitching your head off every time one of them is killed. Do you know how many more US troops would have been killed in Afghanistan had we placed 100,000 troops there? Do you even think about anything or just "believe" what the nearest liberal shouts?

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Wolfie

During its first weekend, when the captured POW's were paraded on TV and I was reminded of how ugly war was, I switched my view and haven't looked back since.

The main reason why we should stay in there. This shows you the kind of people they have over there.

Wolfie

Even worse...people like him are the reason they do it. They count on people losing the stomach to combat evil at the first sight of ugliness. Imagine what this world would be like if people like him ran things and shriveled away every time something got messy?

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I believe him. Imagine what we could have done if we'd had 100,000 troops on the ground in Afghanistan.

That's always been my single biggest issue with Iraq. It's not just that Bush and his minions lied through their teeth, it's that they neglected their pursuit of the 9/11 terrorists to pursue their imperialist agenda. Of all the sleaze bags that exploited 9/11 for personal gain, I think the Bush gang was the worst.

You're such a pathetic partisan. "I believe him." You believe a politician? You don't believe G W though. Strange that your trust runs right down party lines.

You think we needed 100,000 troops on the ground? Well we have three times that many in Iraq and you're bitching your head off every time one of them is killed. Do you know how many more US troops would have been killed in Afghanistan had we placed 100,000 troops there? Do you even think about anything or just "believe" what the nearest liberal shouts?

I think we have 140,000 in Iraq.

Afghanistan had the terrorists that attacked us, and would continue to attack us. Iraq did not. Also, while the Afghan war was brilliantly excuted to achieve the goal of routing out the Taliban and obliterating Al Qaeda training camps and bases, the fact is that without enough troops on the ground at the end, many Al Qaeda and Taliban were able to escape and hide into the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan. If there were troops on the ground to block the exodus, things could have been different...

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Wolfie

During its first weekend, when the captured POW's were paraded on TV and I was reminded of how ugly war was, I switched my view and haven't looked back since.

The main reason why we should stay in there. This shows you the kind of people they have over there.

Wolfie

Even worse...people like him are the reason they do it. They count on people losing the stomach to combat evil at the first sight of ugliness. Imagine what this world would be like if people like him ran things and shriveled away every time something got messy?

LOL. Why do you equate combatting evil to launching a unilateral preemptive land invasion? Ever think that there are other ways to combat evil, ways that don't involve launching unilateral, pre-emptive land invasions?

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Wolfie

During its first weekend, when the captured POW's were paraded on TV and I was reminded of how ugly war was, I switched my view and haven't looked back since.

The main reason why we should stay in there. This shows you the kind of people they have over there.

Wolfie

Even worse...people like him are the reason they do it. They count on people losing the stomach to combat evil at the first sight of ugliness. Imagine what this world would be like if people like him ran things and shriveled away every time something got messy?

LOL. Why do you equate combatting evil to launching a unilateral preemptive land invasion? Ever think that there are other ways to combat evil, ways that don't involve launching unilateral, pre-emptive land invasions?

Like following through when he was a threat(Gulf War)?

Don't get me wrong, it is a great thing that Saddam and company have been removed from power, but they were no imminent threat outside of Iraq. When there are so many other nations with just as much violence, if not more, in the world, the war in Iraq makes very little sense.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: Wolfie

During its first weekend, when the captured POW's were paraded on TV and I was reminded of how ugly war was, I switched my view and haven't looked back since.

The main reason why we should stay in there. This shows you the kind of people they have over there.

Wolfie

P.S. Those people are OVER THERE.. We sure the fvck never needed to spend $90,000,000,000 on some other country... I guess everything is fine in America, right?

If Saddam was such a threat to America then explain why he NEVER ATTACKED AMERICA?

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I believe him. Imagine what we could have done if we'd had 100,000 troops on the ground in Afghanistan.

That's always been my single biggest issue with Iraq. It's not just that Bush and his minions lied through their teeth, it's that they neglected their pursuit of the 9/11 terrorists to pursue their imperialist agenda. Of all the sleaze bags that exploited 9/11 for personal gain, I think the Bush gang was the worst.

Give me a fscking break already (and that's not just the result of the above post). If we had sent several divisions into Afghanistan to look for bin Laden and friends, we would be embroiled in a major guerrilla war right now the way the Soviets were, and the fledging government of Karzai would have no chance at legitmacy with the people outside Kabul. Sure, we'd probably find bin Laden, assuming we could cross the border at will into Pakistan, but we'd wind up leaving Afghanistan in an even more chaotic state with quite a few more casualties than we're even now taking in Iraq.

Oh, and what would happen with those casualties? The same people here, right now, offering the suggestion that we should have sent more troops would be heaping criticism on the Bush administration for "killing our boys" and "being unilateral" (with dozens of countries in Iraq, I still fail to see the unilateral aspect) and whatever other epithets the pundits could create. Once bin Laden were found/killed/whatever, the criticism would quickly change to allegations of ineptitude because of the casualties. If you have any doubts, one need only look at the capture of Saddam. For months prior, the biggest criticism was that the Bush administration "couldn't even find Saddam". Now he has been found, and it's moved to "we're still there" and "the attacks continue" and "the Iraqis need to govern now" and "our troops are still dying" and the list goes on and on.

Let's not forget Pakistan (God forbid we bring some political realism to the discussion! Horror!). Having our troops trample around the northwestern border of their country looking for bin Laden would make Musharraf's tentative hold on the government even more unstable, and it is easy to imagine a popular uprising (or a military one) against his administration, since he did take hold of the government in a coup d'etat.

But, sure, go ahead and send thousands upon thousands of troops into Afghanistan. Oh, wait, you mean there are consequences to that? Oops, didn't think of that!

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I believe him. Imagine what we could have done if we'd had 100,000 troops on the ground in Afghanistan.

That's always been my single biggest issue with Iraq. It's not just that Bush and his minions lied through their teeth, it's that they neglected their pursuit of the 9/11 terrorists to pursue their imperialist agenda. Of all the sleaze bags that exploited 9/11 for personal gain, I think the Bush gang was the worst.

Give me a fscking break already (and that's not just the result of the above post). If we had sent several divisions into Afghanistan to look for bin Laden and friends, we would be embroiled in a major guerrilla war right now the way the Soviets were, and the fledging government of Karzai would have no chance at legitmacy with the people outside Kabul. Sure, we'd probably find bin Laden, assuming we could cross the border at will into Pakistan, but we'd wind up leaving Afghanistan in an even more chaotic state with quite a few more casualties than we're even now taking in Iraq.

Oh, and what would happen with those casualties? The same people here, right now, offering the suggestion that we should have sent more troops would be heaping criticism on the Bush administration for "killing our boys" and "being unilateral" (with dozens of countries in Iraq, I still fail to see the unilateral aspect) and whatever other epithets the pundits could create. Once bin Laden were found/killed/whatever, the criticism would quickly change to allegations of ineptitude because of the casualties. If you have any doubts, one need only look at the capture of Saddam. For months prior, the biggest criticism was that the Bush administration "couldn't even find Saddam". Now he has been found, and it's moved to "we're still there" and "the attacks continue" and "the Iraqis need to govern now" and "our troops are still dying" and the list goes on and on.

Let's not forget Pakistan (God forbid we bring some political realism to the discussion! Horror!). Having our troops trample around the northwestern border of their country looking for bin Laden would make Musharraf's tentative hold on the government even more unstable, and it is easy to imagine a popular uprising (or a military one) against his administration, since he did take hold of the government in a coup d'etat.

But, sure, go ahead and send thousands upon thousands of troops into Afghanistan. Oh, wait, you mean there are consequences to that? Oops, didn't think of that!

Exactly (and thanks for saving me the trouble). As an addition if the rest of NATO would step up to the plate with what they promised it might be a different situation in Afghanistan. A widely diverse force has a lot less chance of being seen as an occupier than a massive US force. But of course it's not about that, it's about being critical of Bush by the 5 and a half demotards running for President and by the YACS on this board (especially their leader who you quoted in your post).

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I believe him. Imagine what we could have done if we'd had 100,000 troops on the ground in Afghanistan.

That's always been my single biggest issue with Iraq. It's not just that Bush and his minions lied through their teeth, it's that they neglected their pursuit of the 9/11 terrorists to pursue their imperialist agenda. Of all the sleaze bags that exploited 9/11 for personal gain, I think the Bush gang was the worst.

Give me a fscking break already (and that's not just the result of the above post). If we had sent several divisions into Afghanistan to look for bin Laden and friends, we would be embroiled in a major guerrilla war right now the way the Soviets were, and the fledging government of Karzai would have no chance at legitmacy with the people outside Kabul. Sure, we'd probably find bin Laden, assuming we could cross the border at will into Pakistan, but we'd wind up leaving Afghanistan in an even more chaotic state with quite a few more casualties than we're even now taking in Iraq.

Oh, and what would happen with those casualties? The same people here, right now, offering the suggestion that we should have sent more troops would be heaping criticism on the Bush administration for "killing our boys" and "being unilateral" (with dozens of countries in Iraq, I still fail to see the unilateral aspect) and whatever other epithets the pundits could create. Once bin Laden were found/killed/whatever, the criticism would quickly change to allegations of ineptitude because of the casualties. If you have any doubts, one need only look at the capture of Saddam. For months prior, the biggest criticism was that the Bush administration "couldn't even find Saddam". Now he has been found, and it's moved to "we're still there" and "the attacks continue" and "the Iraqis need to govern now" and "our troops are still dying" and the list goes on and on.

Let's not forget Pakistan (God forbid we bring some political realism to the discussion! Horror!). Having our troops trample around the northwestern border of their country looking for bin Laden would make Musharraf's tentative hold on the government even more unstable, and it is easy to imagine a popular uprising (or a military one) against his administration, since he did take hold of the government in a coup d'etat.

But, sure, go ahead and send thousands upon thousands of troops into Afghanistan. Oh, wait, you mean there are consequences to that? Oops, didn't think of that!

Exactly (and thanks for saving me the trouble). As an addition if the rest of NATO would step up to the plate with what they promised it might be a different situation in Afghanistan. A widely diverse force has a lot less chance of being seen as an occupier than a massive US force. But of course it's not about that, it's about being critical of Bush by the 5 and a half demotards running for President and by the YACS on this board (especially their leader who you quoted in your post).

 

[NesuD]

Clark said he "can't understand why the president hasn't devoted the same energy and resources to going after al Qaeda that he did to going after Iraq."

Hmm last i heard al Qaeda was a terrorist organization not a country with defined borders. Little tougher to get guys that don't have their own country. Network news was reporting this week that US intel is pretty certain thay have Bin Laden confined to a 40 square area in Pakistan. Unfortunately to go and get him ourselves we would have to invade another country. Pakistan will not give permission for us operate ground units in their country.

If Clark thinks sending the 101st and 82 airborne, the 1st marine division, and the first, second, and fourth IDs after Al Qaeda is a good idea then I certainly don't want him running my military. That would be just stupid.

 

[rudder]

Maybe he should have gotten Bin Laden when he was still in the military. September 2001 was not the first time the WTC was attacked. Plus we had an easier way to track Bin Laden back then until he realized he could be monitored. Now Bin Laden is either dead or could be in Pakistan. How would Gen. Clark deal with that? They are an ally but Musharaff does not have a very tight grip on control of the country. Do you send troops into Pakistan? Unfortunately I need more than just a "If I had been president, I would have had Bin Laden by this Time" statement. Otherwise this guy sounds no better than Bush saying "bring it on."