Skip to main content

View Diary: Krugman nails it, again! w/Poll (275 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I will say I saw him at YearlyKos... (0+ / 0-)

    ...and almost fell in love with him.  Almost.

    •  You don't have to be in love with him (8+ / 0-)

      just heed his words. The professional politicians beat him in flash, pop, and slickness every single time. But he wins hands down for knowledge, expertise, judgment, and character. He spent his life serving without fame and fortune because he wanted to serve. Quaint notion, that.

      •  I understand. But... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        ...I remain circumspect until I learn more about him.   And by "in love" I wasn't referring to his presence alone.   I was taking into account what he said and how he said it.  And he certainly appeared to be a man of integrity and honesty.  A rare thing nowadays.

        •  Clark has written (9+ / 0-)

          many op-ed pieces, given countless radio interviews, television appearances, etc. He has a PAC and a very active grassroots contingent that has helped spread the word. Clark filmed TV commercials for some 2006 Dem candidates.

          He testified before the HASC in 2002, and again in the last couple of years.

          What other way is there for him to get the word out?

          •  Points well taken. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            velvetdays, Nelsons

            Apparently I missed quite a bit, then.

          •  More to the point... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            ...Clark has apparently done a good job of getting his message out -- but what has he said with respect to what he learned early on (2001) about the intent to invade all those nations?

            •  Check out his website (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              KayCeSF, Becky58, dov12348

              it's loaded with transcripts, videos and podcasts of Clark's remarks.


            •  use the google please (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Becky58, dov12348

              please, please avail yourself of easily found resources like this:

              February 20, 2000
              Clark’s Iraq War opposition timeline
              Filed under: Iraq War Resolution (IWR), Military Commentator, Spratt Amendment, Project for a New American Century (PNAC), Military Force, Occupation, Congress, Strategy, WMD, Terrorism

              February 15, 2002:
              Clark said any Iraq operation had to take aftermath into account. On February 15, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq, "I think what comes out of it is if we’re going to go into this operation in the future, we’ve got to be sure before we undertake it that we can go all the way, not only to Baghdad, not only Saddam Hussein, but to know what happens next, to make sure we have our allies and supporters lined up so that there’s not chaos and slaughter in Baghdad or in the south or in the Kurdistan areas after we complete the military phase of the operation." [CNN, 2/15/02]

              August 2, 2002:
              Clark said "We Seem to Have Skipped Some Steps in the Logic of the Debate," on Iraq. On August 2, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq, "We seem to have skipped some steps in the logic of the debate. And, as the American people are brought into this, they’re asking these questions." [CNN, 8/2/02]

              August 29, 2002:
              Clark said there is "War Fever Out There Right Now in Some Quarters of the Leadership Elements in this Country...Where is That Coming From?" On August 29, 2002, Clark said regarding a proposed invasion of Iraq, "Well, taking it to the United Nations doesn’t put America’s foreign policy into the hands of the French. What you have to do as the United States is you have to get other nations to commit and come in with you, and so you’ve got to provide the evidence, and the convincing of the French and the French public, and the leadership elite. Look, there’s a war fever out there right now in some quarters of some of the leadership elements in this country, apparently, because I keep hearing this sense of urgency and so forth. Where is that coming from? The vice president said that today he doesn’t know when they’re going to get nuclear weapons. They’ve been trying to get nuclear weapons for — for 20 years. So if there’s some smoking gun, if there’s some really key piece of information that hasn’t been shared publicly, maybe they can share it with the French." [CNN, 8/29/02]

              August 29, 2002:
              Clark said aftermath of Iraq invasion was "More Boiling in the Street." On August 29, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq and its aftermath, "I think — but I think that underneath, what you’re going to have is you’re going to have more boiling in the street. You’re going to have deeper anger and you’re going to feed the recruitment efforts of Al Qaeda. And this is the key point, I think, that we’re at here. The question is what’s the greater threat? Three thousand dead in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon underscore the fact that the threat we’re facing primarily is Al Qaeda. We have to work the Iraq problem around dealing with Al Qaeda. And the key thing about dealing with Al Qaeda is, we can’t win that war alone." [CNN, 8/29/02]

              August 30, 2002:
              Clark said "Going After Iraq Right Now is at Best a Diversion, and at Worst it Risks the Possibility of Strengthening Al Qaeda and Undercutting Our Coalition at a Critical Time." On August 30, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq, "Going after Iraq right now is at best a diversion, and at worst it risks the possibility of strengthening Al Qaeda and undercutting our coalition at a critical time. So at the strategic level, I think we have to keep our eye on the ball and focus on the number one strategic priority. There are a lot of other concerns as well, but that’s the main one." [CNN, 8/30/02]

              August 30, 2002:
              Clark said disarming Saddam Hussein needed to be done "in the Right Context, and That Context is the Adherence to Full Weight of International Law." On August 30, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq, "I think it’s a serious problem with Saddam Hussein. I think he should be held to his pledge to give up his weapons of mass destruction, but we need to do so in the right context, and that context is adherence to full weight of international law, bringing our coalition partner all along with us, perhaps taking it to NATO, and putting a united front together to press Saddam Hussein." [CNN, 8/30/02]

              August 30, 2002:
              Clark said invasion of Iraq of "Supercharge....Radical Groups in the Middle East." On August 30, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq, "It seems that way to me. It seems that this would supercharge the opinion, not necessarily of the elites in the Arab world, who may bow to the inevitability of the United States and its power, but the radical groups in the Middle East, who are looking for reasons and gaining more recruits every time the United States makes a unilateral move by force. They will gain strength from something like this. We can well end up in Iraq with thousands of military forces tied down, and a worse problem in coping with a war on terror here in the United States or Europe, or elsewhere around the world." [CNN, 8/30/02]

              September 16, 2002:
              Clark said Congress shouldn’t give a "blank check," to Use Force Against Iraq. On September 16, 2002, Clark said, regarding Iraq and possible Congressional authorization to use force, "Don’t give a blank check. Don’t just say, you are authorized to use force. Say what the objectives are. Say what the limitations are, say what the constraints and restraints are. What is it that we, the United States of America, hope to accomplish in this operation?" [CNN 9/16/02]

              September 23, 2002:
              Clark said force should only be used as a last resort, "Not Because of a Sense of Impatience With the Arcane Ways of International Institutions." On September 23, 2002, Clark said, regarding Iraq and possible Congressional authorization for the use of force, "When you’re talking about American men and women going and facing the risk we’ve been talking about this afternoon... you want to be sure that you’re using force and expending American blood and lives in treasure as the ultimate last resort. Not because of a sense of impatience with the arcane ways of international institutions." [Senate Committee on Armed Forces 9/23/02]

              September 25, 2002:
              Clark urged work on post-war issues. On September 25, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq, "If we go in there, this government will be displaced, and there will be a new government put in place. But what about the humanitarian issues? What about the economic development? What about the energy? What about the opening of commerce? What about tariffs? What about taxes? What about police? What about public order? All those issues, we should be working on now, because they will help us do a better job of reducing the adverse, potentially adverse, impact of the war on terror if we have to do what we might have to do?" [CNN 9/25/02]

              October 5, 2002:
              Clark said it appeared that "Administration Jumped to the Conclusion That It Wanted War First and Then the Diplomacy Has Followed." On October 5, 2002, Clark said, regarding debate on Congressional authorization for war against Iraq, "The way the debate has emerged, it’s appeared as though to the American people, at least to many that talk to me, as though the administration jumped to the conclusion that it wanted war first and then the diplomacy has followed." [CNN 10/5/02]

              January 23, 2003:
              Clark said "There Are Problems With the Case the U.S. is Making," for War Against Iraq in Order to Gain Allies at the U.N. On January 23, 2003, Clark said, regarding the case the United States had made for war against Iraq to the United Nations, "There are problems with the case that the U.S. is making, because the U.S. hasn’t presented publicly the clear, overwhelming sense of urgency to galvanize the world community to immediate military action now.....You need the cover of legitimacy, and afterwards, you’re going to need allies and other people to help share the burdens of peacekeeping." [CNN 1/23/03]

        •  Very understandable (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dormaphaea, jen, dov12348

          I can't find fault with your thinking here. And while as someone who personally has found that paying attention to Wes Clark pays good dividends (I started worrying that the U.S. would attack Iran three years ago because of the things I was seeing Clark say, for example) I know that we can't all pay close attention to all potentially good Democrats. I presume that had Clark declared for President again this year, or if still did, that you would make it more of your business to tune in closer to him.

    •  There is room for honest debate (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      miriam, Becky58, jen, DianeNYS, dov12348, Nespolo

      about how progressive an Administration would be headed by a President Wesley K. Clark, but the man is honest, and he is not in this to be self serving. Further he honestly believes that in a Democracy citizens need to be kept informed with accurate information about important issues and their government, and Clark never shys away from discussing a potentially controversial view point out of fear that he might lose votes by doing so.

      This nation could really use an honest man or woman with personal integrity as President who does not attempt to talk down to us or spin away from the truth.

      Personally I think Wes Clark is among the more progressive presidential candidates Democrats have gotten to vote for in years, but at the very least I think Wes Clark can change the political map in our favor were Democrats ever able to see fit to nominate him. I think Clark would be the transition gateway to a progressive era in American politics, and I have written more about that at my own web site.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site