Daily Kos

Clark: They picked the two-foot rattlesnake in a box

Digg this! Share this on Twitter - Clark: They picked the two-foot rattlesnake in a boxTweet this submit to reddit

Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:43:45 PM PDT

I spent the whole day today at events with General Clark--first the one I wrote a diary about yesterday (and I was at the blogger meeting with Arianna Huffington, which was a treat!!), and then later on in the evening, a fundraiser for WesPAC in Culver City.

I could spend all day writing about how fantastic the general is--his intellect, knowledge, message and genuine depth of feeling are all outstanding--but I wanted to share with you one brief story from the fundraiser that shows just how good the General is, and why he needs our support.

At the fundraiser later in the day, Clark was talking about national security, and how the Democrats need to recapture the mantle of national security from the Republicans.  I'll quote the General as best as I can:

Now, as important as it is how we deal with Iraq from here on out, and how we deal with Iran from here on out--as important as that is, if we want to be the party of national security, we need to talk not just about where we go from the bad situation we're in now--we need to talk about how we got there.

Bush talked about the axis of evil.  Whatever you want to call these countries, there were three of them: Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.  Of these, North Korea was the most dangerous.  They were developing nuclear weapons, and the administration didn't do anything about it.

The second most dangerous was Iran.  They were trying to develop nuclear weapons, had a fundamentalist government, and had the capacity to arrange terrorism.

And the least dangerous was Iraq.  Iraq was a two-foot rattlesnake in a box.  And guess what?  They went after the two-foot rattlesnake in the box.  And because of that, they were distracted from and ignored the bigger and more dangerous problems.  And now look: North Korea has several nuclear weapons that they've developed.  Iran is enriching uranium and has a hardcore fundamentalist in Ahmedinejad as the prime minister.  We're in this position because they took the least dangerous country, concentrated only there and ignored everything else.

We need to talk about this.  We need to talk about Osama bin Laden.  We need to talk about what would have happened if Democrats had been in charge.  We would have gone after Osama bin Laden.  We would not have spent $200 billion on invading Iraq.  We would be talking to Iran, and we would have talked to North Korea.  This administration has refused to talk to Iran.  They've outsourced our diplomacy to Europe.  And I beg the administration: please talk to Iran before it is too late.

We can't shy away from national security.  We can't concede it to the Republicans.  We have to point out that they have failed at every step of the way.  We can't be afraid of it.  So let's talk national security--because it should be a strength for us.  It's not a weakness.

That, my friends, is a platform we can use.  We can repeat this over and over and over again--because given these failures, who knows where they'll take us over the next several years.

We had a few other Kossacks there at this event as well--including Reality Bites Back, Alysheba, and Shockwave.  I will blog tomorrow--when I'm allowed by the system!--about the whole day in general, including the rally with the Congressional Candidates and Stephanie Miller, as well as the private bloggers meeting.

If you haven't heard the General speak, YOU NEED TO!!!!!  He is the real deal.  Check him out.  You'll like him.

Tags: Wesley Clark, Iraq, Axis of Evil, Iran, North Korea, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Recommended, WesPac, National Security (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 392 comments

  •  absolutely (4.00 / 18)

    Clark is da MAN!

    Clark/Feingold anyone?

    •  my choice (none / 0)

      right now is that.

      it tastes like burning...

      by eastvan on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:04:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Clark is a Repub in drag. (1.72 / 11)

      but, i could be wrong.
      i just never met an Officer that was a Dem.
      or admitted to being one. but, Clark could be the first
      i suppose.
      •  no. he's not. (4.00 / 5)

        meet him.  talk to him.  you'll quickly learn otherwise.

        oops. I hope the gate wasn't too expensive.

        My blog.

        Twitter: @DanteAtkins

        by hekebolos on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:31:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Talk Is Cheap (none / 0)

          "meet him.  talk to him"

          The old adage applies here..."Talk Is Cheap". What do his ACTIONS say about his political leanings.

          I DON'T KNOW...I'm just asking the question.

          Has anyone researched his writings/actions/affiliations/speeches from his days in the military? How about from his appearances on Faux News (which is an AUTOMATIC Red Flag for me)?

          No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices. ~Edward R. Murrow

          by mlkisler on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 09:52:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  This stuff isn't a mystery (2.50 / 2)

            He's been on the VERY public circuit for a few years, gazillions of articles have been written about him, and yet you presume he's a Republican in drag on the basis of...not much.  I suggest you do some research on this then come back to join the discussion.
          •  Clark (4.00 / 5)

            Yes, I've reasearched him extensively (more than you'd care to know).  The only concrete (verifiable, third party) evidence I can point you to, directly, is Samantha Powers's book "A Problem from Hell, America in a Time of Genocide"  She points out that Clark was the ony one pressing to stop the genocide in Rwanda.  He was tight with Madeleine Albright (I don't think that anyone would question her Dem bonafides) and many others.  And a large part of Clark's retiring early is the relationship between him and Clinton's republican appointees.  

            His appearances on Fox News are simply an extension of the strategy he'd like us ALL to engage in.  He wants us to TALK to the other side.  We win when the facts come out.  He's out there speaking the truth when how many other voices on Fox are?

          •  Churchill believed the old saw (none / 1)

            "keep your friends close and your enemies closer".
            I believe that Clark's thoughtful commentary on Faux has been an effort to reach out to those listeners who are being terrorized by O'Reilly and Hannity. The weapon in the neocon war waged against Americans is fear. Clark's personal courage and calm demeaner when he's on FAUX may be an effective antidote to that fear. I read somewhere that one time, at the start of a commercial break when his mike was still on, O'Reilly could be heard complaining that Clark was taking over the show.
            O'Reilly's shtick is his anger which he uses to bully people. Clark has O'Reilly's number, I think,  and succeeds in disarming that anger.
            It's pretty amazing to see.
          •  Did read what he said on faux? (none / 0)

            He's advocating OUR policies, and he's actually well to the left of some Dems on Iran, calling for direct talks with the Iranian government before we went to the IAEA or U.N. Security council. The people who have been getting all their information and opinions from the likes of Sean Hannity and Bill Oreilly are the people who need to hear this most. Meanwhile Hillary Clinton has called for U.N. Sanctions on Iran trying to out hawk the Bush Administration.

            See the difference, Clark is a sane rational Dem using every means possible to avoid us using heavy handed tactics until the truly last resort. Where as Hillary is an actual Hawk on these issues.

            Don't Trust Politicians

            by Donkey Rising on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 06:24:54 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Tell that to the 53 Fighting Dems....vs 2 GOPs (4.00 / 7)

        running for Congress, ... or has your head been up some of those GOPs in drag?

        Why do rightwing conservative idealogues hate freedom & democracy?

        by Knightrider on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:34:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Now it is 60 Dem vets when I update my site (4.00 / 17)

          Well over 60, KR, but a couple are being held back until formal announcements, etc. But I have 59 solid DEMOCRATIC candidates, mostly officers, many career men, from every branch of service and a large portion combat vets from the Gulf and Iraq wars.

          The talk like Dems, they act like Dems, the ARE Dems.

          They are progressives on domestic issues, believe America has been led fundamentally astray, and that Iraq was was a huge miscalculation that has distracted from the battle against terrorism. They want to take the patriotism, dedication, intelligence and enthusiasm with which they served our nation in the military to the halls of congress to put our nation back on course.

          And Clark is the greatest of them all. Wes has heart and spirit and intelligence. He has what it takes to lead our nation in this time of grief when we stand on the cusp of becoming a totalitarian state under a plutocracy.

          The fighting dems want to fight the neocons, not wars. They are not chickenhawks, but neither are they hawks. They believe armed force is the very last option that a nation should take after every other recourse has beene exhausted.

          Well, I could go on - and I will elsewhere - but see for yourself this Wednesday when some nearly four dozen veterans gather on the steps of the capital with Max Cleland at ten am in the morning and then meet for a huge event in the evening with a star studded cast of speakers. Air America will carry it live.

          Noel

          •  Too Much Sense (none / 0)

            General Clark is making too much sense.

            Only one solution: Swiftboat the bastard!

            And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this--this (chuckle) is working very well for them. (Barbara Bush)

            by Krusty on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 10:56:25 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Fighting Dems (none / 0)

          And they were all (most anyway) recruited by RAHM EMANUEL...Mr. Republican Lite Himself!

          Not impressed by the "fighting dems" argument. I think it's going to blow up in Rahmmy Boy's face. Then again, I'm biased...I DESPISE everything (political) that Rahm stands for.

          No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices. ~Edward R. Murrow

          by mlkisler on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 09:57:03 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Eric Massa (NY-29th) co-founded the Fighting Dems (none / 0)

            ... and it was through his leadership, as well as most of the 60- Fighting Dems that banded together in unity. Most all were not recruited and are not supported financially by Rahm or the DCCC.

            ... not really sure what you stand for, though, other than what you stand against.

            Why do rightwing conservative idealogues hate freedom & democracy?

            by Knightrider on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 10:40:21 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Against (none / 0)

              What I'm against is Political Corruption...On EITHER side of the aisle!

              Rahm is as corrupt as they come. He's been implicated (NOT INDICTED) in a huge political scandal here in Chicago. I do think he will be indicted for something...take your pick...in the next 24 months.

              Wes was a LOBBYIST...That makes him "guilty by association", if not outright guilty, of CORRUPTION...And CORRUPTION will be what the '06, and possibly even the '08 elections will be all about.

              No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices. ~Edward R. Murrow

              by mlkisler on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 11:35:30 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Evangellical Millitary Officer (4.00 / 12)

        Jimmy Carter.

        'nough said.

        congratulations on your foreskin -- osteriser

        by bartman on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 01:31:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  We have a lot of Republicans in drag... (4.00 / 9)

        They're in the US Senate and House.  They go by names like Biden and Liebermann and Hillary.

        But Clark is real.  He called this war the foolish mistake it was, from the beginning, when "The Democrats" were all gung-ho about it.

      •  Military Officers as Dems.... (4.00 / 13)

        Actually, I know quite a few. And, I'm married to one (usaf col. ret.). Most of them are retired--which just goes to show you the power of the propagandizing that goes on within active-duty ranks. However, having said that, the ones I know who are Dems are horrified at this administration and disgusted with the foreign and domestic policies of this Republican Party. They are also deeply and profoundly pained at the destruction of the military they love and spent their lives serving. So, don't distrust Clark just because he is smarter than the average retired military officer. Instead, hear him and hope that he speaks to others within the military who also can see what's going on but who aren't allowed to speak openly about it.

        Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime. ~Potter Stewart

        by SignalSuzie on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 04:31:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  My DAD was/is (4.00 / 2)

        a Democratic Officer (retired).

        You would be surprised, but then, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Traditionally, military have been barred from being partial (wearing public dress at partisan events). And many people in the military generally stand by that. Of course the ones you hear from most are the ones who don't.

        However, the top people they MUST respect are those appointees by the President, (and the President himself) and right now that means Rumsfeld and Condi, so it doesn't matter what party they are in, they won't dis their superiors, they would get in big trouble.

      •  JFK... (4.00 / 5)

        and jfk.

        Although JFK died before I was born and I've never met jfk, I have met Wes Clark several times.  The man is a Democrat.  Period.

      •  You're just showing your ignorance (none / 0)

        by parrotting that tired meme.  Please, educate yourself about General Clark before you go spouting off that drivel and making a fool of yourself again!

        It's easy:  www.secruingamerica.com

      •  CLARK/REPUBLICAN (none / 0)

        ACTUALLY, I've spoken with a few veterans who state simply that having a military President, at THIS time, especially, would be a great mistake. Plus, many have also said they do NOT TRUST CLARK.
        Feingold for President!!!

        "Some cause happiness wherever they go;others, whenever they go."-Oscar Wilde

        by Harper on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 07:28:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Did you make sure they were Dems? (none / 0)

          Republican operatives would love to derail any chance of a Clark candidacy and are working actively to do so.

          Don't Trust Politicians

          by Donkey Rising on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 07:52:25 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  BFD (4.00 / 2)

          oh my, you say you have spoken with a "few" veterans who wouldn't want a "military" president at this time. That's the election right there folks... let's pack it in because no less an authority that those "few" vets, who Harper has claimed to have spoken to, don't trust Clark.

          Harper, your agenda is loud and clear. From the title of your post in caps "CLARK/REPUBLICAN" to you placing "NOT TRUST CLARK" in caps and finally your "Feingold for President!!!" line. It's ashame you feel you have to down a potential primary opponent to pump up your guy.  

          •  not to mention (none / 0)

            that Feingold and Clark could possibly team up for 2008.  Who knows?  I don't like the DLC, but I am absolutely not convinced that just because Clark took help from the Clintons that he isn't his own man.  I think ANY candidate would have taken help from where ever they could get it and still keep their adgenda and talking points sharp.  Especially if they are smart enough to raise money $20 at a time over the internet from grassroots and lesson the corp. bucks if they can.
          •  CHILL (none / 0)

            Just stating my opinion, which we are free to do on this site. Not trying to denounce, really, but I do encourage looking at all sides. There is something to be said in favor of "intellectual curiosity".

            "Some cause happiness wherever they go;others, whenever they go."-Oscar Wilde

            by Harper on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:13:53 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Democrats as officers (none / 0)

        Lyndon Johnson WWII, John Kennedy WWII,  Jimmy Carter.  Where do you get this stuff?
      •  check out: (none / 0)

        http://www.vetpac.org/...

        The men and women in the military, who, by the way, swear an oath to uphold the constitution and to protect the country from enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC, have been callously used by the Bush neocons over the last 3 years. Some of them are mad as hell and not going to take it any more. They are welcome, as far as I am concerned, to the Democratic party as our allies and I hope the ones willing to run for office succeed.
        I myself had not really paid attention to politics and only became a Democrat when I started receiving the ugly neocon campaign literature of a Bush clone guy in Texas a few years ago.
        Teddy Roosevelt, if he came back today would not believe what the Republican party has sunk to under Bush/Cheney and let's not forget pappy Bush and if you wish Reagan. All hacks. Teddy Roosevelt was an environmentalist and conservationist, I believe.

      •  WWII, anyone? (4.00 / 2)

        What's so hard to comprehend about Democrats who believe in strength in the world and progressive governance at home? That strand in our party has a fine lineage dating back at least to John F. Kennedy and dozens of other Democratic Reps, Senators, Governors and millions of rank-and-file voters who served our country against the Nazis and Japanese in the 1940s and responded to the threat of authoritarian Communism for the four decades following.

        As the military serves to defend American values abroad and (regardless of what we think about specific instances of this) help promulgate them outside our borders, it makes sense that its members would stand closer to the party that best upholds those best values of the country. I would hope that most here consider Democrats to be that party.

        I think the trend toward Republican support in the military and particular among the officer corps had to do with real and perceived Democratic disdain for the armed forces from the mid-1960s through the '90s. But after the abuses and misuses of the Bush administration on the military, and the prominence of veterans as our last two presidential nominees, and the emergence in this cycle of the Fighting Dems, we have a real chance to turn this back around and reconnect with our Kennedy-era support among service members and their families.

        Let's not toss it away with lazy thinking or (worse) elitist dismissal of the soldiery.

      •  You didn't meet me! (none / 0)

        How about General Hoar???  I can name hundreds.
        I was stationed with Gen. Clark, he is a great man. Kind, Funny, smart...and all the traits of good Dems.

        I don't want Cheney, Bush et al in jail, I want them tortured.

        by regis on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 11:25:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Democrat Military Officers (none / 0)

        Your statements show your ignorance about Wesley Clark and his positions, as well as the military in general. How many officers have you met? Did you ever serve in the military; see combat?

        While career military officer tend to be from the south and conservative Republicans, there are plenty of Democrats in the military.

        Opposition to Bush and the Republicans is as strong as I have seen it since I was commissioned in 1960. Many of us, especially combat veterans, oppose Bush, Cheney,Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al, for their criminal mismanagement of the war on terrorism and believe that we should never have gone to war with Iraq in the first place.

    •  Right on (4.00 / 3)

      He would make Jeb (who WILL be the GOP nominee, in my opinion) look foolish.

      The Republicans will trot out the same old strategy in 08: make Clark look weak on defense, portray him as a waffler (the "flip-flop" attack on Kerry would have been used on ANY nominee because it's their standard play book), go after his personal life in snide insinuations and attacks on his masculinity, etc.

      I really don't think any of it will stick against Clark.  And Feingold is the perfect VP nominee: swing state, sharp intellect, a fierce attacker.

      I hated Bush before it was cool.

      by daveriegel on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 07:06:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Ah, no, that would be reversed (none / 0)

      Feingold/Clark.  But, really, it's too early to tell who Russ will pick for his VP.

      Obama used to be for single payer before he came out against it.

      by formernadervoter on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 07:42:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No (none / 0)

        Had it right first time around - Clark should be Commander in Chief - Feingold could be President of the Senate - think about what each job entails and it's clear that Clark should be in the top spot, not VP...in fact, not VP at all.  If Clark doesn't win the nod, then he should be SoS.
    •  Sign me up for that dream team (none / 0)

      The Obama stimulus plan: Think of it as trickle down economics that Works!

      by greee on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 07:59:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sorry (none / 0)

      He's STILL a Clinton/DLC Democrat. We've been down that (losing) road before.

      No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices. ~Edward R. Murrow

      by mlkisler on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 09:35:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  He IS NOT. (4.00 / 2)

        You have nothing with which to back up that statement.  I know you don't because it's just plain false.  Spew it all you want.  It's doesn't make it true.
      •  it's your road that took the dead end turn. (none / 1)

        ...we kept shouting,.. but it's you who didn't listen. Apology excepted

        '04 was about national security; .. and so will '06 and '08, especially as our economy, US deficit, trade deficit, education, health care system,  foreign diplomacy and civil liberties hit rock bottom and suffer in consequence from the incompetencies in leadership by this administration.

        Why do rightwing conservative idealogues hate freedom & democracy?

        by Knightrider on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 10:00:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No Apology Here.... (none / 0)

          I was a Dean-O-Crat. Clark was sent in by Hill & Bill to help undermine Gov. Dean.

          And in the words of Dumbya, "He did a heckuva job!"

          No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices. ~Edward R. Murrow

          by mlkisler on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 10:21:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You're kidding, right??? (none / 1)

            Please, tell me you're kidding... I suppose it was Wes Clark who released the Dean Scream tape as well???

            "24" is to torture what "The Archies" were to Rock n Roll...

            by ThatSinger on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 10:56:09 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  What? You mean Dean 'blamed Clinton,' too! =:o (none / 0)

            I doubt it, ..nor did he blame Kerry, Edwards, Clark, Kucinich, Sharpton, etc... and the Gang of Democratic candidates, who cost Dean the nomination, as evident in your view.

            I'm glad they all ran, but as a former Independent, I would never have even considered joining with or campaigning for the Dem Party, until Clark entered race, as a Dem.

            Why do rightwing conservative idealogues hate freedom & democracy?

            by Knightrider on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 11:08:36 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  even clark admits he was (none / 0)

              part of the Clinton's stop Dean effort.  And so does everyone else, except his online supporters.  

              If Hillary runs, Clark will not.  It's just that simple.

              •  Clark, who I know, has NEVER said or been part of (none / 0)

                any such thing. That is a myth and frankly a lie.

                This goddamn 2004 stuff again and not focusing on 2006 which crucial.

                Hell Clark won't even take money from the Congressional Candidates he apprears for or charge them his expenses. WesPac events like last night pay his expenses. Ask the others to appear for a candidate and see how much of the take they want for their 'leadership' committee.

                He has dedicated himself to winning back the House...not running for President. In his mind the House in 2006 is crucial for the ability to begin to take back this country.

                Your comment is not true.

                Just a red meat eating Democratic dawg...at PolCampaign

                by BigDog04 on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:15:12 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  To His Credit (none / 0)

                  "Hell Clark won't even take money from the Congressional Candidates he apprears for or charge them his expenses."

                  And Attila The Hun loved children!

                  No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices. ~Edward R. Murrow

                  by mlkisler on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 03:21:59 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Link ??? (none / 0)

                n/t

                "In Japan, American occupation forces quickly became 50,000 friends. In Iraq, they would quickly become 50,000 terrorist targets. " James Webb, Sep 02

                by ParaHammer on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:16:35 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Then link it! (none / 0)

                Don't make unsubstantiated claims, it looks more like character assassination than anything else.

                You don't see us doing off on some make beleive tale that Howard Dean was just a plot to make Dems look weak on security..

                And you may find yourself eating your political hat in a few years if you really beleive Clark won't run if Hillary does.

                Don't Trust Politicians

                by Donkey Rising on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 05:48:50 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Wha wha what? (none / 0)

            Please cite the evidence you have that shows the Clintons "sending" Clark in to take out Dean.

            That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a while.

            "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

            by Subterranean on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 05:11:37 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Excuse me (4.00 / 2)

        But General Clark opposed giving Bush a blank check last I checked.

        In what way is he DLC Dem? He is pro environment, pro choice, supports progressive taxation and beleives in protecting privacy and the constitution. He is not part of the corporate wing of the Democratic party.

        He is a genuine progressive liberal, whether you like it or not.

        Don't Trust Politicians

        by Donkey Rising on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 10:07:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I Hope You're Right..... (none / 0)

          "He is a genuine progressive liberal, whether you like it or not."

          I hope you're right. But there are too many "Red Flags" that suggest otherwise to me.

          No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices. ~Edward R. Murrow

          by mlkisler on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 10:26:11 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Read the position papers. (none / 0)

            Clark is as progressive Dem as you can get.  What else would you call someone who would eliminate Federal income tax for a family of four making less than $50K a year and make the rich and the corporations pay their fair share?
    •  Feingold (none / 0)

      I respect Senator Feingold's intelligence, courage, thoughtfulness and patriotism. I think he would serve this country well as VP.
      But at this point in the battle to defeat the neocons, it is not clear whether Feingold on the ticket is the best choice. Someone who served in the Senate is a swiftboater's target.
      All of us here, I think, admire Feingold's courage in voting "no" on the Patriot Act at a time of political hysteria. But that could be used against him in red states under the right geopolitical conditions. And you can be sure that Rovian tactics would be used against any Democratic Senator.
      Also, Feingold is someone who has been a watchdog for us in the U.S. Senate. He's one of our most thoughtful Senators.
      Let's face it there are several Democrats currently in office who would be fine as president and could win the Democratic nomination. There are very very very few who would be great presidents at this point in time and would also be able to win in a landslide. We need the landslide. We have all seen how effectively the dirty tricks have been used to turn a close election.
    •  no way (none / 0)

      And I beg the administration: please talk to Iran before it is too late.

      That's a horrible idea.

      All you get from that is Republicans claiming that the cowardly Democrats want to negotiate with terrorists, and that strong Americans don't do that.

      Talk to Iran sounds weak. Doesn't matter if it's smart. Doesn't matter if it's better policy. Doesn't even matter if it'll actually work.

      What matters is that it sounds like "negotiate with the terrorists" and that's exactly the kind of ammunition we can't afford to give Republicans.

      •  Weak like the EU, NATO, China, and Russia? (none / 0)

           Weak is shooting first because you're scared and have no confidence in your skillset.
            I know what you mean, but there is no viable choice. If it's between shoot or talk, I vote talk talk.

            The big point:   Bush has squandered the time to talk with Iran and as someone said here today "outsourced our diplomacy to the EU", and now the options aren't as good as they were a few years ago. Now there's a possibility that the US is playing bad cop to EU's good cop, but that supposes that this admin. is capable of finesse diplomacy.....
              Me, I'm afraid the neocon's fringe wingnut hawks (yep) are ascendent with their  can't-make-this-up strategy of complete chaos in the Mideast as the way to bring about democracy and oh yeah tame players in the globalization effort that's their core goal. The 'moderate' neocons' hope that success in Iraq would get everyone to toe the line, these would be the neocon 'doves'. I've read about this, but haven't seen the neocon roster for this match.

         IRAN:    Tonight there was a new show on cNBC called Global Players TV .  On it was :

        ex-CIA Director Woolsey
        NATO parliament member Pierre Lellouche
        China's Zhang Zhijun
        Russia's Parliament member Konstantin Kosachev
        and crisply hosted by Sabine Christiansen.

             It was a roundtable discussion, mostly about Iran. Much said wasn't new to me, but it was good to hear it from the horse's mouths so to say. The telling moment came when the NATO rep Lellouche said he looked forward to working with his friends from China and Russia and obviously left out the US/ Woolsey, sitting right in front of him!
             Hard to say what he meant to say by the omission, but I think it was speaking to Woolsey's "no appeasement " argument, which followed the opening question about Lellouch's quote calling Iran's president much like Hitler...
              Other than those two interesting bits most of the hour was spent on discussions of diplomacy past and possible, and sanction's possibilities.I'm thinking Woolsey is a neocon dove, as he was talking about 'careful focused sanctions'.
              Woolsey spoke of something with George Shulz, and they just published something. Probably it was the "Committee on the Present Danger", with Joe Lieberman as co-chair. Probably he was talking about this article:
         

        "The Petoleum Bomb " by George P. Shultz and R. James Woolsey
             'Our nation's dependence on imported oil leaves it dangerously vulnerable to attack.'

        Google Woolsey + George Shultz and check this out from the "Woolsey Watch" :

        The Foundation for Defense of Democracies is headed by former RNC Spokesman Cliff May, and it is this organization that relaunched the neocon hive of the Committee on the Present Danger.
        from Steve Clemons "The Washington Note", which has all the links in that quote.
        There are other 'Woolsey Watch' articles on Steve's blog.
           Another blog site Energy News has the same article and several others, including one by dkos' Jerome a Paris, and a "Peak Oil Primer".
        -------------------------------------
            Also amusing from google is the Bohemian Grove link to :
        "Bohemian Grove:World Leaders in Satanic (like) Rituals since 1892"
        ......ya never know what you'll find!
                 Take your tinfoil and pack a lunch...there are links to dozens of stories , put together by the group that hounds these bastids, the Bohemian Grove Action Network.

        In 2002, the USFS spent $36 million on its Tongass timber sales program, and rec'd back just $1.2 million from timber companies.

        by KenBee on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 01:03:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Clark is da man picked (none / 0)

      by the guy who picked the Bushes and the Clintons in between.  Jackson T. Stephens is only out for himself and his cronies.

      How do you tell a predator from a protector? The predator will eat you sooner rather than later.

      by hannah on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 11:32:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think he lacks charisma (none / 0)

      I know you may find that hard to believe, but he actually fails to impress when on TV.  

      He might sound reasonable, but I think the listener tunes out. I don't think people hear him. I understand why he goes on FOX, but I don't think it helps him, and I doubt that wingers will vote for him.  I believe that churches are telling their congregations how to vote, and they follow.  

      It's probably quite an effective way to campaign.  

      •  Maybe they do tune him out (none / 0)

        but even reaching a small proportion of the Fox audience is a big deal, and they certainly tune out Gore and Dean, I think Wes is more likely to get through them since he is a military man.

        I know I was very impressed when I saw Clark on CNN, I think he does get through to people. people value truth, and when reality and rhetoric are out of sync Clark gets through to people. Not everyone obviously, but enough to make a difference.

        Don't Trust Politicians

        by Donkey Rising on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 06:59:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Tips (3.98 / 51)

    for the General!  I've never been so impressed by a candidate--seriously.  It reminds me of my early days with Howard Dean.

    oops. I hope the gate wasn't too expensive.

    My blog.

    Twitter: @DanteAtkins

    by hekebolos on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:44:32 PM PDT

    •  except without Dean's weaknesses (4.00 / 4)

      seriously, I can't find a simple flaw with the guy.

      With Dean, I found myself defending his "draft-dodging past", Vermont's small size, his tendency to be a loose cannon (otherwise known as telling the truth...).

      But with Clark, I can't see any chinks in the armor.  And he speaks with an ease and facility that is a combination of Clinton's and Bush's best public speaking and personality/charm traits.

      And his policies are as reality-based and progressive as they come.

      What's not to like?

      •  Exactly (4.00 / 5)

        He has W's "folksiness" but with the intelligence and depth of knowledge that W lacks.  And he has the best resume on earth.  Seriously, this is the candidate.

        Not only that, the General has crossover appeal.  Because of his appearances on Fox News, he has a bunch of Republicans that know who he is and thinks he makes sense.

        Make no mistake about it--if Clark wins the primary, he wins the presidency.

        oops. I hope the gate wasn't too expensive.

        My blog.

        Twitter: @DanteAtkins

        by hekebolos on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:54:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes (none / 0)

          The toughest challenge will be getting through the primary.
          •  I think you're right even though I (4.00 / 7)

            am unable to fathom why Democrats would want to shoot themselves in the foot by choosing someone who cannot possibly win the general election such as Hillary Clinton.
            I believe Clark is truly the most progressive candidate I have listened to and read. I had the great pleasure finally to meet him at the Bob Gammage for Governor fundraiser in Houston and I was blown away by how easy to talk to and personable he is. Someone told me he reads 40 books per month. And yet what comes across is how much he cares about the repercussions of policy on people's lives. What makes Bush and Cheney so frightening is that they just don't seem to give a damn about the trouble they've caused in the world or the people they've hurt.
            •  Country Duty Honor (4.00 / 2)

              He's lived it. This country comes first.
            •  Clark reads everything (4.00 / 4)

              he reads Daily Kos (we want to get him to post here) as well as a few other blogs, such as FireDogLake.  He told me at the blogger meeting what blogs he reads, but I don't remember them all at this point.

              I'm amazed the guy has time for Gert and his family.

              oops. I hope the gate wasn't too expensive.

              My blog.

              Twitter: @DanteAtkins

              by hekebolos on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 11:36:37 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  And Gert (4.00 / 2)

                when I first saw her speak at a political event broadcast on CSPAN during the 2004 primaries, I was taken by how gracious and unpretentious she is. I don't think I have ever seen a woman in public life who seems more down to earth, sincere and personable. Have you had a chance to meet her? What a charming first lady she'd be. A goodwill ambassador. In 24 hours this country would regain our self-respect if we were wise enough to elect Wes and Gert.  
                •  er Wes and somebody and Gert was first lady:)) (none / 0)

                  •  I have had a chance to meet Gert (none / 1)

                    but not nearly as extensively as I've talked to the General.

                    Gert is extremely caring, but also quite self-effacing.  At all the Clark events I've attending, the General has encouraged Gert and his son Wes (who lives in L.A. and attends his L.A. events) to say a few words.  She is always extremely hesitant and reticent, but always says her (brief) piece with grace.

                    Wes Jr. refuses to take the mic at all, not wanting to detract attention from his dad.

                    It's funny--at the first blogger meeting I attended with the General, he wanted to keep on talking to us way past the time he was scheduled to give his speech--he's amazing like that, he just wanted to keep on talking to us--and Gert had to prod him in increasingly fervent tones that he needed to go out to the main audience.  It was really quite touching to see them all interact.  It's a great family.

                    oops. I hope the gate wasn't too expensive.

                    My blog.

                    Twitter: @DanteAtkins

                    by hekebolos on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:06:28 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Thanks, they sound like really nice (none / 0)

                      people who really care about this country and each other. What a sacrifice it would be for them. Because I believe that General Clark would work his heart out to get this country back on a sustainable course....financially, geopolitically, economically, energywise, education and so on. He understands how all these policies fit together. And he's courageous enough to want to do what's right, including moving us toward alternative, green energy and making that part of an engine of economic growth.
            •  I agree.... (4.00 / 3)

              I am actually a Gore supporter; having said that, I think Clark would be an excellent choice for the Democrats as a candidate, and I'd support him as a nominee wholeheartedly. I just can't support Hillary Clinton as the Dem's nominee. She's got the money and the machine, clearly, and I'd love to see a woman in the office. But, I don't think she would bring in enough independent voters to win.

              Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime. ~Potter Stewart

              by SignalSuzie on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 04:36:23 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  No, you must be kidding. (none / 0)

          Clark has W's "folksiness"?  Was that a total slam of Clark?  I find Clark far from folksy, on the contrary, he seems like an intellectual who would discuss political theory and policy for hours over a beer.  Not someone the average 'Murikan would want to have a beer with.

          Anyways by '08 folksy will be out, and "stern straight-shooter" a.k.a. John McCain will be back in.

          "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

          by Subterranean on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 05:17:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  No chinks in the armor at all? (none / 1)

        Not even one little bitty one somewhere?

        On come on.  Dean just lays all his chinks right out there in the open, and most are not bothered because he is a fighter.

        Everybody has armor chinks.

        •  Seriously, I've looked for one (none / 0)

          I don't think you can find it.  Perfect family, no "skiing in Aspen", no "wacko liberal", no "unpatriotic OBL ally".  I don't see how you can smear this guy, unless you call him a flip-flopper between parties or something.  But even that doesn't detract from his platform.

          oops. I hope the gate wasn't too expensive.

          My blog.

          Twitter: @DanteAtkins

          by hekebolos on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 11:41:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  in fact, the Former Republican meme (none / 1)

            will work wonders in red states.
            •  I doubt it (none / 0)

              but I do think it kills him in blue states.  I know I don't have any interest in a candidate who was praising bush and raising money for republicans AFTER bush stole florida and the white house.  
              •  don't think so (none / 0)

                As I said somewhere earlier on this thread, I don't think that it kills him in blue states.  It only hurts during the primaries, but helps during the general election.  I'd argue that you, nor I, nor most here at Kos are representative of most voters.  Heck, if you trust the Pew Research categorization, we're only 19% of the voter base.  But I digress.  I know many people who would not consider having voted for republicans as a liability...in fact, most people I know would consider it a positive.  It's precisely this that makes them open to Clark as a candidate.  Doesn't matter that his policies were actually more liberal than Kerry or Dean.
          •  They smeared him on the Balkans (none / 0)

            It bull. I checked it out, and I followed that story very closely, the first one I use the Internet to follow. They accuse him of trying to start WWIII, and several other ridiculous things. I think almost everyone BUT Clark, from GHW Bush to the EU to Yasushi Akashi, came out badly, but it didn't include General Clark. He's one of the few people who came out well.  
            •  IT WILL BE '04 ALL OVER AGAIN (4.00 / 3)

              No matter how good Clark is or isn't, the campaign will be one Swiftboat attack after another. Rather than discussing issues, he will have to defend his record in the Balkans. The Repubs don't care about the truth. He will have to debunk one snarling attack after another. And too many Americans believe what they see on teevee.

              No courage = No $$$ for Dems

              by MO Blue on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 06:15:33 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I agree (none / 0)

                They have a standard series of attack lines that they will use no matter the nominee.

                Lack of political experience is one that will be used; I think Clark can turn that into a positive given the current corruption scandals.  There is no way they can tie him to any kind lobbyists, etc.

                I hated Bush before it was cool.

                by daveriegel on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 07:09:31 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I THINK HE WORKED FOR A LOBBYIST FIRM n/t (none / 0)

                  No courage = No $$$ for Dems

                  by MO Blue on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 07:29:54 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  He worked as a lobbyist (none / 0)

                    on the behalf of several firms including WaveCrest, Time Domain, Entrust Inc and Axicom.

                    There's a difference between honorable honest and ethical lobbying, and Jack Abramoff and the Republican K Street project.

                    Don't Trust Politicians

                    by Donkey Rising on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 10:14:04 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Axicom (none / 0)

                      Axicom? weren't they part of the "Carnivore" Program?

                      HELLO "BIG BROTHER" WES!!!

                      No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices. ~Edward R. Murrow

                      by mlkisler on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 10:32:01 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I Stand Corrected (none / 0)

                        After Googling "Axicom" it looks like I'm thinking of a different company.

                        However...And just as disturbing to me...Axicom is tied to TYCO, whose CEO was just sent to prison for massive FRAUD.

                        No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices. ~Edward R. Murrow

                        by mlkisler on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 10:36:14 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                •  "Lack of political experience..:" (none / 1)

                  Oh yeah? That didn't stop them when a certain Republican General Dwight D. Eisenhower became a candidate... and won.
                  From the White House website:

                  After the war, he became President of Columbia University, then took leave to assume supreme command over the new NATO forces being assembled in 1951. Republican emissaries to his headquarters near Paris persuaded him to run for President in 1952.

                  (emphasis mine)

                  So they purposely went to seek him out and "draft" him for the Presidency, evidently with the intention of exploiting his post-war fame, status, and prestige with the American public... and it worked.

                  "Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain

                  by Donna in Rome on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 08:02:37 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  what got me to notice Clark... (none / 0)

                     let me say this first off: my first choice for pres in 2004 was Dean.  then i saw the screw-ups and mismanagement happening in iraq...how this admin used - abused - our troops to further their ideology.  so i began to read about Gen Clark because i believed a general would be the only one who get us out of this mess.  the more i read about him, to more i wanted to see him as our next president.  he doesn't like war...as he has said many, many times, "war is the last, last, LAST resort!"  i know he would not abuse our troops the way this admin has.  he has diplomatic skills that this admin can only DREAM of.
                    Gen Clark would also make sure our troops are taken care of in Iraq AND here at home by making sure they receive the proper care and education that this admin has taken away by "budget cuts."

                    (just some thoughts from an average citizen)

          •  Nothing? Perfect? (4.00 / 6)

            Now come on.  

            Frankly I appreciate Dean's efforts very much.  I don't like seeing people praising Clark and attacking Dean in the same post. No need for it at all.

            •  Amen. Dean's Great (4.00 / 3)

              It's so refreshing to have a Democratic leader who speaks his mind, and I support his 50-state-strategy. Give Dean some time to do his job, and stop doing the Republicans's job by joining in their smear campaign. Internalizing Republican smear messages about Dean and other Dems, then spreading their manure around as if it were "truth," is Lieberman-esque--or perhaps I should say, CUELLAR-esque.

              Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime. ~Potter Stewart

              by SignalSuzie on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 04:42:55 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  I like Dean (none / 1)

              I supported him after Clark dropped out, but Dean was an easy target for the Republican spin masters. There are some things Gov Dean has said I disagree with but I by and large like him.

              Don't Trust Politicians

              by Donkey Rising on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 10:17:44 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  didn't mean to (none / 0)

              and I wasn't attacking Dean.  I was one of the biggest Deaniacs you could find, and I still am.

              But political realities are political realities.

          •  I'll tell you his weakness (none / 0)

            He's never held political office.  The last person elected President with that history was Eisenhower, and he was a pretty special case.

            This is the problem I used to have with Jesse Jackson, whom I voted for in 1984 and 1988, as well.  You want to be President?  Run for some political office.  Run for Senate, for Representative, for Governor, for Mayor.  Something that shows either administrative or legislative ability.  Something that allows this reasonable concern on the part of voters to be addressed.

            I'd happily vote for Clark for President and I'd vote for him over at least half the people on Kos's straw poll list in a primary, including Kerry and Clinton.  But to act like he has no weakness just makes you look like you're not looking hard enough.

            If somebody writes a book and doesn't care for [its] survival, he's an imbecile.

            ~ Umberto Eco

            by Major Danby on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:07:58 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Never held political office? (none / 1)

              Like Marcus Aurelius said to Maximus in Gladiator: "that is why it must be you."  That is, in fact, his strongest qualification.

              Seriously, every time I go to an event with the General, the theme from Gladiator starts running through my head.  He's just that confidence-inspiring.

              oops. I hope the gate wasn't too expensive.

              My blog.

              Twitter: @DanteAtkins

              by hekebolos on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:16:16 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I completely agree, hekebolos! (none / 0)

                After the "culture of corruption" that exists in Washington today, I would think that America would want a drastic change from politics as usual.  Who would be better quailfied then a man of General Clark's experience & stature in the military?  Plus, it's not like he's a complete novice to the world of politics and he does know his way around Washington.
                •  That's why we elected Ross Perot in 1992 (none / 0)

                  or at least that was the reasoning of his supporters.  Would I prefer Clark over a Democrat who did seem to wallow in the culture of corruption, as you put it?  Sure.  I see no reason to think that that description applies to Feingold, Edwards, and probably several others.  As for your "who would be better qualified" question, frankly it strikes me as a non-sequitur.

                  If somebody writes a book and doesn't care for [its] survival, he's an imbecile.

                  ~ Umberto Eco

                  by Major Danby on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 11:02:01 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  I didn't see Gladiator (none / 0)

                and if I had, and if its theme did keep running through my head whenever I saw a given politician, I would probably keep it to myself.

                If somebody writes a book and doesn't care for [its] survival, he's an imbecile.

                ~ Umberto Eco

                by Major Danby on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 10:59:05 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  So because he hasn't held political office (4.00 / 7)

              we will nominate another senator? No senator has won election since Jack Kennedy, and he was a special case!

              There is a strange dysfunction among liberals that say, on the one hand, that our problem is the beltway boys, then turn around and say one needs legislative experience to run for president. Well, Clark has the same kind of experience a Governor has: executive experience. He ran NATO as supreme commander and dealt daily with ambassaors, generals, heads of state, preseidents, premiers and every other kind of European political creature and they love Clark! It is high praise indeed. He is a rare combination of warrior, sage and statesman.

              You can take all the political experience of the Senators and Congressmen and shove it upriver as far as I am concerned. I would rather see a governor than another legislative candidate. And Clark has even more experience than any governor since he was an international figure and also controlled the health, welfare education of hundreds of thousands of US military me and their dependents.

              No man on this earth has better qualifications to run this country than Wes Clark. No man is perfect, but this man is one for the ages.

              •  As I said above... (none / 0)

                with the current culture of corruption in DC it is a perfect time for an outsider.  I think the lack of elected office is a winner for Clark (of course opponents will still use it... any port in a storm... but he should be able to hit it out of the park given the current political climate... plus his national security experience in unparallelled by any presidential contender)

                I hated Bush before it was cool.

                by daveriegel on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 07:11:59 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Oh, should he? (none / 0)

                  I was a political scientist before I was a lawyer and I can tell you that I know of nothing in the American Politics literature that would suggest that an outsider (meaning lacking electoral experience, not being anti-Washington) should be more likely to "hit it out of the park given the current political climate," except maybe the colleced writings of Patrick Caddell.  Are you basing this on anything beyond armchair speculation and wishful thinking?

                  Again, this reminds me of the blather we used to hear about Perot (and what some Repugs used to say about Steve Forbles.)  I say again:  while I am leaning tentatively towards Feingold, I am not antagonistic towards Clark.  But the tendency here to perceive what is a pretty obvious weakness as a virtue is making me view him much more skeptically.  And I ain't being paid by anybody nor am I part of anyone else's campaign.

                  If somebody writes a book and doesn't care for [its] survival, he's an imbecile.

                  ~ Umberto Eco

                  by Major Danby on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 11:15:21 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  I, for one, completely agree. (none / 0)

                IMO the best resumes among potential candidates are Clark and Bill Richardson, and would like to see that as a ticket in either order.

                Clearly a winner, either way.  Doesn't carry the baggage of Hillary/ Gore.

                "Good idea Chuck, but Syrup won't stop 'em." Firesign Theater, Everything You Know is Wrong.

                by 3card on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 10:02:51 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yup... and none of their experience (none / 0)

                  either.  God forbid we have experienced candidates running.  
                  •  "Clearly a winner"? (none / 0)

                    I'm sorry, the Kool-aid fumes are getting a bit thick in here.  Was this "clear" to the primary voters in 2004?  Why assume it will be "clear" to the general election voters in 2008?

                    Seriously, you guys are worrying me.  It's not like I've never had political crushes before, but this seems simply googly-eyed.

                    If somebody writes a book and doesn't care for [its] survival, he's an imbecile.

                    ~ Umberto Eco

                    by Major Danby on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 11:22:54 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  The problem is both reality and perception (none / 0)

                First, I'm not convinced that NATO Supreme Commander  truly garners the same kind of executive experience as a governorship.  Yes, I'm sure very good for foreign policy experience, but that's just part of the job (and not the one people usually vote on.)

                Second, and in some ways worse, I'm less convinced that NATO Supreme Commander is viewed by the general public as a similar qualification, and that is why I worry Clark would be hurt by perceptions in the general election.

                Here's a list from Wikipedia of all of the officers who have been SACEUR.  Want to tell me which ones were ipso facto qualified to be President?  Be very careful before you suggest Al Haig.

                   1. General Dwight D. Eisenhower (U.S. Army): April 2, 1951, to May 30, 1952
                   2. General Matthew Ridgway (U.S. Army): May 30, 1952, to July 11, 1953
                   3. General Alfred Gruenther (U.S. Army): July 1, 1953, to November 20, 1956
                   4. General Lauris Norstad (U.S. Air Force): November 20, 1956, to January 1, 1963
                   5. General Lyman Lemnitzer (U.S. Army): January 1, 1963, to July 1, 1969
                   6. General Andrew Goodpaster (U.S. Army): July 1, 1969, to December 15, 1974
                   7. General Alexander Haig (U.S. Army): December 15, 1974, to July 1, 1979
                   8. General Bernard Rogers (U.S. Army): July 1, 1979, to June 26, 1987
                   9. General John Galvin (U.S. Army): June 26, 1987, to June 23, 1992
                  10. General John Shalikashvili (U.S. Army): June 23, 1992, to October 22, 1993
                  11. General George Joulwan (U.S. Army): October 22, 1993, to July 11, 1997
                  12. General Wesley Clark (U.S. Army): July 11, 1997, to May 3, 2000
                  13. General Joseph Ralston (U.S. Air Force): May 3, 2000, to January 17, 2003
                  14. General James L. Jones (U.S. Marine Corps): January 17, 2003, to present

                If somebody writes a book and doesn't care for [its] survival, he's an imbecile.

                ~ Umberto Eco

                by Major Danby on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 11:09:12 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Supreme Allied Commander (none / 0)

              of NATO Forces Europe aint too bad of an office to hold.  On West Wing, Bartlet even said it's the one title that can rival his own.

              If you've ever attended one of his events (he spoke here at American University last September) it is obvious that he has an incredible sense of control and structure.  I wouldn't be too worried about the fact that he is not a life-long politician.  In fact, that's exactly what the Fighting Dems are all about: those who have served our country in other ways than political office.

              "Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope..." -RFK

              by AU Blue on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 10:39:33 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The "Fighting Dems" are not running for (none / 0)

                fucking President.  House, and sometimes Senate, can be a good entry-level position.  Not President.

                And because we are on the same side in the larger sense, I want you to imagine me as Josh saying this to you:  never, ever cite what a fictional television character said about the equivalency of the Presidency and SACEUR as evidence for the proposition that it is true.  If you want me to unpack the reasons for my offering you this admonition, I'll be happy to do so.

                If somebody writes a book and doesn't care for [its] survival, he's an imbecile.

                ~ Umberto Eco

                by Major Danby on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 11:19:40 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Weak Argument (none / 0)

              "Never Held Office" is a weak argument in this case.

              As you stated yourself, he needs "administrative experience". I think serving as a General in the US Military is about as "administrative" as it gets.

              Given some of his misadventures in Kosovo, though, I do question his diplomacy skills.

              No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices. ~Edward R. Murrow

              by mlkisler on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 11:01:42 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  here's one (4.00 / 5)

          not adept at campaigning. for all the supporter buzz the last time around, clark's run was underwhelming. which did not, FWIW, distinguish him from most of his competitors. i'll watch this next one to see what he's learned from '04, though, because his heart seems to be in the right place.

          surf putah, your friendly neighborhood central valley samizdat

          by wu ming on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:53:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Totally agree (none / 0)

            I was a big Clark supporter last time, and I am expecting to be again, but he doesn't seem to be able to hit that "folksy tone" which resonates with a large crowd.

            Among those of us with large vocabularies, and reasonable ability to deal with complex subjects on the fly, he's great to listen to. But I'm not sure how well he comes across to people who are less comfortable with the academic environment.

            congratulations on your foreskin -- osteriser

            by bartman on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 02:46:21 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  i don't think "folksiness" matters much (none / 0)

              but having limitless energy, a love of the process of campaigning from day in till day out, and being able to inspire people with a coherent and straightforward vision of the future are critical. i didn't like clinton's policy decisions or his style of speaking, but damn that man was good at the process of campaigning. he loved it, and it showed. if clark or any other one of these dems can become good at the nuts and bolts, i'll give them a good long look. again, it's not the eletability crap that gets one elected, its campaigning. we need a dem that wants to be president so bad it fucking hurts, and is good at the process. i hope feingold my man is as good nationally as he has been in wisconsin, but ultimately just like cralk, if he can't pull the rpocess off, he's not gonna be a formidable candidate.

              i also agree with bob johnson that clark's iraq dodge game is getting old.

              surf putah, your friendly neighborhood central valley samizdat

              by wu ming on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 10:08:34 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Yes, I too agree... (none / 0)

              I was a Clark drafter last time and held firm until the end, enthusiastically, but the campaign was weak and the General's political skills with the press and in formal speeches needed a lot of work.  That's where political experience in elected office helps...it takes practice.  I've been hoping he was getting it in the intervening two years.  But, no....

              The other day I happened on Clark speaking to a formal audience on CSPAN...I forget the organization...and to my horror, I changed the channel after 10 minutes.  Same problems.  Needs a better speechwriter to divorce him from 40-word sentences of such complexity you get lost in the middle and he runs out of breath.  The mind wanders.  Mine did.  Content is fine.  Delivery is vanilla.  The audience seldom responded and when they did it wasn't wildly enthusiastic.

              If he can conquer that, he'll be fine.  Somebody...HELP HIM!

              Tell me how you spend your time and how you spend your money -- I'll tell you what your values are.

              by oldpro on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:27:04 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  He spoke at a New America Foundation conference (none / 0)

                To an audience of foreign policy wonks, so it was a pretty specialized audience, and maybe not for everybody. However, it was a fantastic speech.

                We all remember, don't we, Dean's scream and how C-span blocks background noise? Clark actually had several standing ovations and sustained applause throughout.

                The speech can be read or viewed online here:

                "The Real State of the Union"

                •  Thanks, Mexdem... (none / 0)

                  I'll take another look.  I'm keeping an open mind with leanings to Clark, of course...watching and listening to everyone as I always do.  Last election, he got in so late he had little choice of employing good staffers with campaign experience.  Let's hope he's picked up some this go 'round.  If the country could just hire a CEO, Clark would blow away all the other applicants.  Unfortunately, it's an election...

                  Tell me how you spend your time and how you spend your money -- I'll tell you what your values are.

                  by oldpro on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 01:26:21 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  BUT (none / 1)

            he seems to have improved there.. don't forget Clark was a late entry in 04... he was behind from the get-go... things are different now and he is more prepared I think... he has been the most impressive so far as many here seem to agree

            I hated Bush before it was cool.

            by daveriegel on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 07:13:41 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Not so underwhelming (none / 0)

            Clark entered the primary race a year or two after everybody else was running.

            He was a novice candidate who ran in a field of ten that was 80% elected officials or former elected officials.

            In a four-month long campaign, and before withdrawing on 2/11/04 and endorsing Kerry, Clark competed in 13 states.

            He won Oklahoma over experienced campaigners.

            He came in second in Arizona, New Mexico and North Dakota ahead of experienced campaigners.

            Third in New Hampshire, Tennessee and Virginia ahead of experienced campaigners.

            Fourth in Missouri and South Carolina ahead of experienced campaigners.

            Fifth in Delaware, Maine, Michigan, and Washington ahead of experienced campaigners.

            What's so bad about that?

            Since the day he dropped out in February 2004, he's been campaigning for Democratic candidates all over the country. He's now a very experienced campaigner in his own right.

            I'm glad you will be watching.

        •  therr is a chink (none / 0)

          It was an unfortunate misstep that he made last time he ran.  He was in an interview.  The interviewer asked him his views on abortion.  Clark took, what I thought, an out of the mainstream position.  He said it should be permitted even if the baby was being born at the time.  Now, I know what he meant to say.  He meant to say that the woman should make this decision, it's her body and no one can decide for her when to become a parent.  But whether he was tired or just not paying attention to the question, it became one of the most extreme views on abortion made by a candidate-ever.  
          Clark was my guy.  Still is.  But that chink is big enough to drive away the wingers who might naturally vote for him otherwise.  I hope he has a good explanation.

          -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

          by goldberry on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 04:14:48 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Clark has a couple... (none / 0)

        Go ask RedState what's wrong with him if you need evidence.

        I think he's less vulnerable than 2004 Dean (not sure about current day Dean) and maybe even Feingold, although Feingold has some very significant strengths. But he still has some weaknesses.

        •  The redstate smears are lies and misstatements (4.00 / 4)

          I have been through every myth about Clark and none of them are worth the paper they are written on, whether from the far left or reactionary right.

          Clark is now reacdhing redstate folks through FOX and athey listen to him and respect him. He can garner Dem support, independent support and moderate Republcian support like no other candidate. He can win blue states and southern states.

          In the primaries he was the only candidate to take a state away from Kerry that was not a favorite son zone (Edwards and Dean) and that was Oklahoma. He cam in more places second and ahead of Edwards  than any other candidate. He came in third in NH even after a horrific smear by ABC/Fox and the concerted efforts of kerry, Dean, Edwards and Lieberman to put him down. Edwards came in fourth. In the super 7 Clark came in second in states we need to win like North Dakota, Arizona and New Mexico along with his win in Oklahoma. Edwards got only Missouri (where Wes did not content) and his birth state of Georgia. Yeah, Tennessee was a big disappointment. For a week CNN refused to acknowlege Wes's Oklahoma win and the kerry bandwagon took away a state in which Wes was very popular. A local there said that Wes packed the house and kerry's wife had a small audience.

          Yet Wes' late entry told and he was financially cramped, especially after the Kerry bandwagon began to roll. He was set to win in Wisconsin with the lt gov behidn him and athe gov waiting for a win in tennessee or VA to come about. More time, better management of the media, these are things Wes will have next time around and they will not be able to keep him down again.

          He is a noble and worthy man.

          •  I think the point is... (4.00 / 3)

            Red state will show you where the attack lines will be... not that the arguments there have merit.  None of the GOP's attack lines have merit... but it's important to know them so we can respond to them.

            I hated Bush before it was cool.

            by daveriegel on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 07:15:33 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  That's sort of the point... (none / 0)

            Dean scream?

            Kerry wants to ban the Bible? Swift Boat Veterans for Recovered Memory Therapy? "Flip-flop"?

            As was noted: almost none of the Republican attacks are backed by truth. The point is not to see where the candidate is actually weak or has real problems--we could hash that out here. The point is to see what they're likely to say.

            It's only the rare ones they can dig up that are truthful. And those are the ones that, of course, make the Democrats fearful of fighting the Republicans.

            If they can come up with a line that takes random people from zero to "CLARK EATS BABIES!" in three seconds and it takes you five minutes to explain why he doesn't you can bet the campaign will revolve around Clark's notorious baby-eating ways.

            Not that this is precisely an argument against Clark, but yours is not necessarily an argument to support him.

        •  RedState isn't much of a reference. (none / 1)

          I was banned for winning an argument with a moderator. (It wasn't even a political topic. It was about sex, and age of consent laws. I posted a link to the Oregon law on statutory rape, and next thing I know, I'm banned.)

          I also saw someone get banned for stating that Bush's warrantless spying is illegal, because "it hasn't been determined if it is illegal or not, and many experts say...."

          When freepers and LGF'ers realize that publiclly advocating genocide isn't a good thing, they go to RedState and pretend to be civilized.

          congratulations on your foreskin -- osteriser

          by bartman on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 02:52:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Exactly... (none / 0)

            When freepers and LGF'ers realize that publiclly advocating genocide isn't a good thing, they go to RedState and pretend to be civilized.
            Much like Bird Dog, the propagandist of Tacitus, Red State is useful because they're pretending to be decent people. That means they're likely to pull out arguments they're willing--and likely--to use in public.

            As opposed to Freep or Little Green Genocide.

      •  Oh come now! (none / 0)

        Our General isn't perfect.
      •  Dean will always be the man as far as I'm (none / 1)

        concerned and the Dems will be shooting themselves in the foot (as they are wont to do) if they don't stick with him.
        There are some things I detest about Clark, but have
        looked into his eyes and seen his heart (Thanks, W) and think he is the man for the job.
        Like it or not, the Bush administration has backed the US into a corner.  It's going to take a lot of strength and wisdom to restabalize the world.  Clark has the gravity and experience to do that if it's possible.
      •  Clark's Weaknesses (none / 0)

        Of course Clark has weaknesses.  Everyone does.  And his are obvious.  Among them are:

        • No political experience

        • So far has not shown real skills as a campaigner

        • Ready-made negative campaign themes that already worked against him very well in 2004 (not saying at all that these are true, just that there's a fairly successful swift-boating blueprint already in place for his opponent)

        • No real homestate political base

        • Progressive suspicion of military man in the White House

        Here's my concern.  One of the great mistakes that Democrats -- especially progressive Democrats -- have made since at least 1984 has been basing their presidential primary decisions on worrying about what imaginary other people might want in a presidential candidate, i.e. "electability."  These calculations almost never work. And given that the premise of these calculations tends to be that people won't vote for an actually progressive candidate, this "strategy" has led to progressives essentially biting their tongues within the Democratic Party come primary season.

        Far, far too many of the arguments in favor of Clark seem to take the form of "let's get behind him because he has no negatives."  Nobody has no negatives. So any political argument that begins with this premise is fundamentally flawed.

        An argument in favor of a presidential candidate should begin with an argument about what kind of a president he or she would be. Only then should we worry about how to elect him or her.

        One other problem with Clark: although he inspires real devotion among his followers, his appeal seems limited.  His support in 2004 was very, very strong, but seemed to hit a brick wall at a certain point. Here in Oklahoma, that support was as strong as it was anywhere. But my Clarkista friends, who were as jacked up about his candidacy as any Deaniac was about Dean's, had a very difficult time convincing others to join the bandwagon. You either got Clark, or you didn't. And most didn't. Clark won a plurality in Oklahoma, but the candidate with momentum here on election day was Edwards, who probably would have defeated Clark if the primary had been held even a week later.

        Policies that were wrong under George W. Bush are no less wrong because Barack Obama is in the White House. - Bob Herbert

        by GreenSooner on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 08:54:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  re: So far has not shown real skills as a campaign (none / 0)

          Wes Clark garnered more votes than the lovable John Edwards in New Hampshire, Arizona, New Mexico, North Dakota, and Oklahoma.  The Brickwall he hit was Kerry winning Iowa.  The Clark campaign put all their eggs into Dean or Gephardt winning Iowa.  The momentum was unstopable.  

             Do any feingold for prez supproters consider the  fact that he is a bachelour.  What is he going to campaign with his mother?

          •  A lot can happen in 2 years (none / 0)

            I take Feingold very seriously, he clearly at least for the moment has the support of the net roots which is very important, remember the power of the Dean green machine.

            Clark is still strong but I think Feingold has been bleeding his support in recent months, I think his position on Iraq is hurting him. Most people seem to want an easy out on Iraq, and Feingold gives them a feel good solution.

            Maybe when things turn ugly after Bush starts withdrawing troops to save the Republicans people will see Clark was right, but right now the political climate doesn't favor Clark even though he's a damn fine candidate.

            Don't Trust Politicians

            by Donkey Rising on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:40:13 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  well said (none / 0)

              I agree and I'll add that Clark is not one to change positions because it's politically expedient.  He truly cares about doing what's best and as long as he thinks there's a glimmer of hope to achieving the C- solution rather than the F, he'll champion it which loses some of the "out now" vote, but that's just politics.
        •  I think Wes gained a lot from the 04 experience (4.00 / 2)

          And I think he has gained even more by honing his skills by pitting himself against the likes of Sean Hannity by going to FOX, if he runs I think your going to see very polished professional candidate.

          If you saw his speech to the New America Foundation "The Real State of the Union" you'd know just how good Wes is now, he owned that room by the time he was done.

          As for his appeal ability, I don't know, I think part of it is people seem to know who they want, right now everyone seems to want Russ Feingold or Al Gore.

          I think a lot of the things that went wrong with the 04 campaign won't happen twice, entering late hurt us, skipping Iowa killed us. But he is much better polished now I don't think you'll be seeing those mistake or him saying something that is easily spinable.

          Clark has negatives, he isn't perfect, no candidate can be, and when they try to be they lose, you can't appeal to everyone, that is the nature of american politics. But Clark has pretty low negatives and pretty wide appeal.

          As for what kind of President he would be, I think Clark would be a intelligent internationalist in foreign policy, and a progressive reformer at home which is I think what we all want don't we?

          As for the Edwards thing, well everyone got steam rolled by Kerry/Edwards, and the media gave them all the attention and ignored or outright ridiculed other candidates like Dean and Clark. personally I think a win in Oklahoma and 3 2nd place finishes and coming in ahead of Edwards in New Hampshire should have earned a little respect from the media, instead it was all Edwards and Kerry all the time and all the free publicity Kerry/Edwards swamped whatever we could do.

          Clark 04 was a good campaign but it made a few costly errors, ones that we will have learned from. Momentum apparently is all that counts with the media, no one can seriously deny the pro Kerry Edwards bias of the media at the time. I mean look what they did did to Howard Dean, that was a political hack job if I've ever seen one.

          Having learned that the corporate controlled main stream media is our enemy I think we'll be a lot better prepared for whatever lies ahead.

          Don't Trust Politicians

          by Donkey Rising on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:29:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Bush's best public speaking and/charm traits?? (none / 0)

        What are you smoking?  Bush HAS no public speaking or charm traits!   He opens his mouth; it starts there and gets exponentially worse!  Pleeeese dont ever put Gen. Clark in the same sentence with the cretin that  currently occupies the White House. You've just sent shivers down my spine.
    •  OT: (none / 0)

      Every time I see your UserID, I picture an Amazon Queen.

      Peculiar, huh?

      I think it's because it's close to a name used by a fantasy author in one of her stories- Hekolatis.

      Anyway. Sorry.

      Back to your regularly scheduled political discussion.

      Hey, President-Elect Obama - don't tell Bush too many of your plans lest he preemptively torpedoes them!

      by PatsBard on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:55:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  And don't forget what he's doing for 2006 (4.00 / 9)

      He's throwing his weight behind multiple Democratic congressional candidates, and using his influence to get his supporters to help take back the House.

      You can see some of the work he is doing at his WesPAC site.

      We need to be focusing on 2006 before 2008--and Clark understands that, too.

      pinkslipnation.vox.com

      by theKK on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:23:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Where were you in 2004? (none / 0)

      Clark carried my state in the Democratic primary. Why did so many choose JFK? There is no difference between them today that didn't exist in 2004, excepting that Kerry was a losing candidate! There were a lot of candidates in 2004 that were better representative of what Kossack believe than JFK, even, at that point, Hillary.

      When will Kossacks and  folks who carry the real progressive Democratic Flag stand up to and defeat the real enemy of progressivism, the DLC, who election after election bankroll controllable establishment legacy candidates like Gore and Kerry.

      These clowns can't win because they are centrist-light. Their platform is "Just like the Democratic faithful, without all those nasty positions on things like war, taxes, public service infrastructures, etc. We are just like our centrist Republican brothers, but we vote for the right leadership." There are no ideas, just a "better plan" to be announced later".

      The "better plan" already exists, and it is what Democratic candidates need to promote to get the butts of the faithful of their couches and into the campaigns, both financially and through volunteerism, and into the voting booth!

      "We'll do it differently" is not a winning slogan.
      Why won't Democrats nominate somebody that has the cojones to state, unequivocally, their ideas? Where is our "Contractor"?

      I think "we" don't have a platform because "we" don't have a plan. That may be because "we"  have spent so many years trying to expand the Democratic base that the store has been given away  through compromise. Is there a single concept that all core Democratic groups believe in except that the Republicans shouldn't be in charge? If it exists I don't know what it is. Perhaps Democrats need the kind of cathartic evolution that occurred within the Republican Party starting with Goldwater and culminating in the Contract for America. It doesn't matter that Democrats see the "smaller leaner government protecting the sanctity of life" as a crock of unfulfilled promises, the Republican base sees it, believes it, and has donated, volunteered, and voted in sufficient numbers to be naming, without real opposition, Supreme Court justices.

      Does Wes Clark represent that Goldwater epiphany, though hopefully a winner?  I don't know. Not the Clark that campaigned in 2004. I think if we want to hear what the guy truly has to say, he will need sufficient resources to be financially independent of the DLC.

      I don't understand MoveOn.org sufficiently to anticipate their actions, I don't know what side of the DLC they come down on. Nominating Clark will not fill the pipeline with viable progressive candidates. Democrats have no farm system. That's what the MoveOn.orgs need to help the Democratic Party with.

      Ban Intolerance Now!

      by brahma on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 07:12:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I wish you could have been present (none / 0)

      for the REAL SOTU speech he gave last Monday!  All I can say is Wow!  I felt as though I was really listening to the president we were promised as kids.  He was that good!
  •  Ahmedinejad is President (none / 1)

    It's actually an important distinction because it underlines how little governing power he actually has and to what extent he's been built up by U.S. media/ the White House as a straw man, since the mullahs are mostly using him to run some cover with "great satan" quotes.  Annoys me to no end when Dems play into this.  I guess it's easier to have a figure on which to focus hatred, but the mullahs run everything.   Rafsanjani was powerless to implement most of the reforms he campaigned on for this same reason.  The legislature also has to pass everything with the mullahs consent, but they can at least have an agenda of some sort.  The President's biggest role in the process is appointing minister (which the lege can then vote down, as per the recent Oil Ministry episode).

    Lately I've been thinking that in the event that 2006 doesn't turn ought like we hope, we should then shift to a "can't beat 'em, join 'em" approach and run Feingold as our candidate for Platonic Philosopher-King.  I've been drinking too much.

    •  Khatami (none / 0)

      I meant Khatami, not Rafsanjani.  Sorry.
      •  Khatami tried (none / 0)

        but his power against the mullahs was limited.

        Ahmedinejad is an ally of the mullahs.  He's a populist.  And the fact that we aren't engaging in dialogue with Tehran means that an aerial bombardment campaign will be increasingly likely, which in turn might give the mullahs the justification to consolidate their power for the long period and set our progress in Iran back to 1979.

        oops. I hope the gate wasn't too expensive.

        My blog.

        Twitter: @DanteAtkins

        by hekebolos on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 11:25:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Ahmedinejad (none / 1)

      needs to be taken seriously.  He does have power, and most of it is aligned with the mullahs.  Like Newt Gingrich (of all people!) said: "if he says he wants to wipe Israel off the map, I think we should take that at face value, rather than shrug it off, especially if they've developing the capability to do so."

      oops. I hope the gate wasn't too expensive.

      My blog.

      Twitter: @DanteAtkins

      by hekebolos on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 11:23:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, no... (none / 1)

        the mullahs have power.  He is essentially a figurehead.  The Iranian foreign minister has 1000x more power over Iranian foreign policy than he does, and still, if the mullahs want something to happen, it will always happen.  So it's silly that everyone makes a big deal out of everytime Ahmedinejad says something stupid.  To the extent he reflects a larger strategy of the mullahs, who pass on and effectively control every function of the government of the Islamic Republic, it's disconcerting. But the specific pronouncements about Israel and the holocaust, for instance, are pure theater.  The primary purpose of those comments (which began in late November/early December) was to divert attention from the embarassent that Ahmedinejad suffered after his third candidate for the Oil Ministry was rejected.  It worked like a charm because the White House jumped at the chance to talk about anything other than Plamegate, timetables for withdrawl/Murtha, and manipulation of intelligence, which was the focus of U.S. media attention in late Nov./early Dec.  
    •  Ahmadinejad may not have total power (none / 0)

      It isn't a Saddam style dictatorship, but Ahmadinejad represents the interests of the mullahs and Iranian conservatives and therefore he does weild some power. Personally I think they view our weakness as a result of Iraq as an oppertunity, basically a window in which they can acquire the weapons they need to deter us from regime change and achive their objectives in regards to Israel.

      Don't Trust Politicians

      by Donkey Rising on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 01:11:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Only an insane person... (4.00 / 9)

    could walk away from a meeting with Clark and not realize that this man could single-handedly lead us from the abyss. Let's hope the primary system fails in its usual bidding to lift the chaff above the wheat.
  •  Clark for Prez (none / 1)

    Why do people want Feingold so badly?

    Clark is the best on healthcare and the best on the War on Terror.

    Best of all, Clark is very liberal but he appears to be moderate. Warner actually IS a moderate, and Feingold is going to look too crazy.

    •  Cornell physics prof Peter Stein (none / 0)

      put it this way during the 2004 primaries:
      http://magazine.14850.com/...
    •  There are some Democrats I like and trust (4.00 / 6)

      Feingold is one of them. But there are plenty of reasons why imho he cannot take the nomination. Unfortunately, he can split the left.

      For me, I just want a candidate that loves this country. That doesn't put corporate greed first. That's General Clark. He is not of the beltway.

      If the left is split we'll end up with a typical DLC politician.

      So here we are: we have someone who could win the general election but is being shut out by the big-bucks that run the insiders' club.

      BTW, he has said, that he doesn't worry about beating McCain. Now that brings a smile.

      •  post script (none / 0)

        My friend was one of the bloggers today. Her husband played for the party this evening.
      •  I think this is right. (none / 1)

        Right now it looks like Clark will emerge as the consensus anti-Hillary candidate, and, God willing, win the nomination.  But a couple things could happen to screw that up.

        1. Warner could wise up and start moving further left to differentiate himself from Hillary.

        2. Edwards could make a strong enough showing to further splinter the anti-Hillary vote and make Hillary the nominee.  I'd say if Clark doesn't get better on the stump, there's an increased threat here, because Edwards' camp will be able to persuasively argue that CLark doesn't have the chops.

        3. Gore will run and blow the whole thing wide open.  

        In any case, I'm for running Feingold for two reasons:

        1. We need to tell the country who were are.  Clark, Edwards, Warner, Hillary, Biden, Bayh, Harkin--there's not another candidate in the field who can make that statement like Feingold can.  I know Clark talks a great game these days, and I love the guy, but any time he runs for office until he wins office as a Dem, the conversation will always begin with the point that he used to be a registered Republican.  He can be construed as a pander, or at least a "Centrist," and I'm convinced that until we disavow the DLC third-way mentality in a Presidential election, witht he whole country watching, we're always fighting with a hand tied behind our back, because Republicans can always fall back on authenticity appeals and attacks about Dems who are visionless and don't stand for anything.  

        2. We need to work from the bottom up.  We should focus on the grassroots--state parties, then the house, and from there we can build to the senate races in 08 and beyond.  In some ways, if we win back the White House in 08 I think it hurts our chances of really changing this party and the country for the better, to strengthen and solidify an unapologetically progressive base and identity for the Democratic party.  This party needs way more than three more years to get its act together.  
        •  For the record..... (none / 0)

          Clark was NEVER a registered Republican.

          While a carreer military officer he was a registered independent.

          11/4 Changed Everything - Now, Henceforward, and Forever.

          by Sam I Am on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 05:10:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  My mistake... (none / 0)

            Nixon, Reagan, and Bush voter.  I don't mean that it is right to hold it against him.  I believe Clark has become a liberal and a Democrat out of conviction and disgust, but it's definitely a liability nonetheless.  It's a comeback to anything he says.  "Yeah, you talk a good health care game, but you were a Republican until you thought you could win the Dem nom, so why should we trust you?"  I'm not saying it's right, but it will cost him.
            •  liability? (none / 0)

              I'm not sure about that.  I think that lefty Dems might seee it as a liability, but it's definitely an asset in the General Election.  And a great draw for crossover voters.
              •  We were talking (none / 0)

                about the Dem primary.  I said at the beginning that I hope Clark wins the nom over Hillary, and that's because he's got a much better chance in the general.  He's the only candidate who can truthfully say that he's "not worried about McCain."

                But I'm also holding out hope that we can dare greatly and nominate Feingold just to tell the country how serious we are about changing it.  

        •  I've seen both Edwards and Clark on the stump (none / 1)

          and I assure you, Clark made Edwards look foolish!  I'm not sure what people see in Edwards but it certainly can't be the vision of a man who is capable of leading America out of the terrible mess that BushCo has gotten us into.  He comes off as an inexperienced lightweight to me.  If we've got to show that the Dems are strong on National Security Edwards will not be the man to do it, but Clark can and will, imo.
          •  It depends (none / 1)

            what the meaning of "good on the stump" is.  Obviously if you had a contest to write a Nat'l Security speech between Edwards and Clark, Edwards will lose badly.  Edwards foreign policy chops are at least as questionable.  When I say on the stump, though, I don't mean policy positions.  I think all of us here are entirely too wonky an audience to be able to appreciate how little difference the average American voter distinguishes the nuance between Bush and Clark's positions, let alone Edwards and Clark.  I agree that it will be apparent that one guy knows way more about the subject, but the specific content and positions has little to do with it.  It's on an impressionistic, optics level.  

            When I say "good on the stump," I'm referring to a candidates ability to speak publicly and get an audience to react.  Edwards was head and shoulders above the rest of the field in 2004 when it came to this particular skill.  It was essentially the only thing that propelled him into the front-runner ranks in January in Iowa--his ability to get people excited one-on-one.  He had huge "electability" problems--he compared unfavorably to Clark in that respect.  But he dusted Clark because he got audiences cheering and talking, and that generated good coverage.  It's an overvalued campaigning skill, but it's one that Clark didn't have the goods, and Edwards did.  

            In some sense, I think Clark suffers from Kerry's problem that he wants to be precise and correct, rather than popular and exciting when he speaks.  Probably because, like Kerry, he's spent his whole career addressing audiences of wonks and pondering every last detail of his words to maintain his credibility with the foreign policy brain trust.  That or the consultants were in his ear after he declared, and they fucked it up for him.  Either way, it's a real element of running a successful campaign, and Clark has yet to prove that he can get an audience buzzing, and that's basically how every campaign article evaluates candidates--not by how wise their positions are, but by how much the crowd cheers for them.  Sad but true.  My shrink said the week after the election, that he thought Edwards should have been the nominee solely on this basis--that the average voter couldn't give a rat's ass about how senators never win, or how much experience is necessary, only whether you seem exciting and inspiring.  I think he's a little overzealous, but he's also got a point.  

      •  Deluded (none / 0)

        Go ahead and adore Clark but please get your story straight.

        Not of the beltway!?!?   Not involved in corporate greed? Not associated with the DLC??

        1) Clark is "in" with the beltway crowd. Don't you remember his obsequious praises to the neocons, including Rummy, at a GOP fundraiser May 2001. You don't get invited to speak at a GOP fundraiser if you aren't part of the "in" crowd.
        And 8 months later, "I tremendously admire, and I think we all should, the great work done by our commander-in-chief, our president, George Bush," he said in the January 22, 2002 speech. As usual, Clark playing both sides.

        1. Corporate greed and sell out: Acxiom, the data mining giant,"a company that came up with a plan to make money that directly involved messing with the U.S. Constitution and rights that the country has enjoyed for the past 200 years." Clark signed on with them as a lobbyist making hundreds of thousands of dollars lobbying Cheney and the neocons to collect info on Americans.

        2. DLC? He sure was their darling in the 2004 race. WIthout their support he very likely would not have entered the race to thwart Dean (see Clark's post-race interview with Charlie Rose)

        And then there is Clark defending the heinous School of the Americas, notorious for training the worst abusers of human rights in Central America.

        Again, go ahead and adore him but please do your research and know who he is--or at least who he very recently was!

        •  WASN'T CLARK A LOBBYIST IN REPUBLICAN FIRM.? (none / 0)

          Didn't Clark work for a Republican lobbyist firm just before he decided to run for president in "04?

          No courage = No $$$ for Dems

          by MO Blue on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 06:28:25 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Nice smears... (none / 0)

          All have been refuted.  Go ahead and keep repeating them.  All you do is hurt the Dems.
          •  Not smears but rather public record (none / 0)

            •  Irrelevent smears... (none / 0)

              And all you're doing is hurting the Dems.  Good.  Keep doing it.  We'll wind up with a Bush clone in 08.
              •  Irrelevant!?! (none / 0)

                My god woman, I want the truth, whether it's the good, the bad or the ugly. I don't hold any candidate to be our one and only savior and I would hope that professed progressives would hold all candidates equally accountable for their past.

                I find several areas of Clark's past quite troubling, esp in light of who he wants us to believe he is nowadays.

            •  Want some facts? OK, here you go (none / 0)

              Clark never worked for a Republican Lobbyist Firm.  He was however on the Board of an Arkansas firm and did register to lobby, as required by law, on their behalf for a period of approximately 4 months.  He left that Board in 2003 once he bagan to run for President.

              Now some like to hold up the company that he worked for, Acxiom Corporation, as some kind of Boogy Man, so it is important to set the matter straight on that as well, and we have the perfect person to do that in Robert O'Harrow, the Author of "No Place to Hide".  For those of you who may be unfamiliar with Mr. O'Harrow or his book, you might do a google search.  In short he is one of the leading experts on, and critics of, the personal data collection and surveilance industry.

              Acxiom is one of the firms that responded after 9/11 to concerns about how Air Traffic could be kept safe and likely terrorists prevented from boarding flights through careful screening to prevent further hihackings.  Here is what Mr. O'Harrow had to say about both Acxiom Corporation and Wes Clark, while speaking at a Center for American Progress Conference held May 4, 2005 in Washington D.C. on the topic of ""Homeland Security and the Data Revolution".  Clark was actually the featured Speaker at that Conference.

              Robert O'Harrow Jr:
              "...There is a guy that I think many of us in the room respect and admire deeply, General Clark, and he serves as a great example of someone who was deeply involved in representing a company called Axiom. And Axiom was one of those companies that responded with - I know that from my reporting - very patriotic motives. They had a lot of that as a marketer and they shared it and they shared it to good effect; it helped. They also saw ways that they could change their business model and become part of the security industrial complex. And one of the people that was helping open doors for Axiom in Washington was General Clark. The reason I raise that is because I kept finding that General Clark got to places before I did and people spoke admiringly of his ability to say what he knew, to say what he didn't know, to play it straight, and to in every case do it in the smart way, which is why people respect him."

              There is a whole discussion about this topic on a Democratic Underground Thread:
              http://www.democraticunderground.com/...

              Another poster wrote there:

              "I worked closely with Axciom - I know these guys...

              I'm not sure I would catagorize them as a "data mining" company. The are primarily a data storage company and they do marketing analysis - largley for the automotive industry. They store data for RL Polk and JD Power among others. They are an Arkansas company - same state as Wes Clark's home."

              •  try this salon article (none / 0)

                "To some privacy advocates Acxiom's role in CAPPS II signals the worst kind of commingling of private and public sector. A company that keeps data on millions of Americans approached the government with a plan to use that data in a way that, at least to some, resembles a vast travel surveillance program. "This may have been the most successful marketing campaign in history," says Bill Scannell, a former journalist who is now a full-time CAPPS II protester. "They came up with the product, they packaged it, and they managed to lobby to make it the government's plan.

                If it's true, it's so diabolical and so evil that I don't even know where to begin. You've got a company that came up with a plan to make money that directly involved messing with the U.S. Constitution and rights that the country has enjoyed for the past 200 years."

                And, to further add spice to the mix, Wes Clark, on the campaign trail, has strongly criticized the PATRIOT Act and President Bush's stance on civil liberties. Lobbyist, screen thyself? "

                http://www.salon.com/...

                •  Clark lobbied Cheney for Axciom (none / 0)

                  Clark made out well pushing a company on the neocons that eventually led to passenger pre-screening and the No-Fly lists.

                  "Clark used extensive contacts in the Bush administration to lobby on behalf of a company eager to get post-9/11 security work. As an Arkansas businessman, Clark had buttonholed Vice President Dick Cheney and, NEWSWEEK learned, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, aides to FBI Director Robert Mueller and his former chief deputy commander in Europe.

                  The aim: to get a contract for Acxiom, a Little Rock firm whose "data mining" techniques are useful in tracking terrorists. The lobbying--for which Clark was paid about $400,000--must have helped: Acxiom got a contract. Everything was aboveboard and disclosed, Lehane said. But Clark's eagerness to do a deal was ironic, given his more recent criticism of the Bush administration's handling of security."

                  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...

                  •  Did you notice how they got their info? (none / 0)

                    Clark went out of his way to give the press full disclosure about all of his business and personal records.  You left that part out of your snip from the article, but that is how the article starts.  Clark openend up a special "reading room" for members of the press in New Hampshire prior to the Primary there, where he had all of his records brought so that reporters could freely look through them.  It was a statement Clark wanted to make about tranceparency in Government, and in full disclosure by those who seek to represent us.

                    Clark knew that by so doing he would also be giving ammunition to his enemies, because that is how the spin game is played.  Find something someone can be convinced is controversial, take it out of context, reframe it, and use to atttack.  Clark didn't care.  It was the right thing to do.  That is one of the things I like about this man.  He tells you where he stands and why, whether you agree with him or not.

                  •  Chew on this too while you are at it (none / 0)

                    At the same "Homeland Security and the Data Revolution" Conference that I mentioned above, Clark directed this comment to Robert O'Harrow Jr.:

                    WESLEY CLARK:
                    ...Can I just say one more thing about this impulse to privacy that you've mentioned, Bob, because when I was doing this - and I want to say this because Nuala is here, because when the government starts working programs and it does know where they go and where they going they are always cautious because everybody knows that these programs that do data are very sensitive. Before the government could even get a grip on some of these programs, when the word comes out on them they are blasted before people even understand it. So on the one hand, I understand exactly why there is an impulse for privacy. People - companies like Axiom were told, "Look, you just can't compete for this contract if you talk about this to the press because we don't know what the program is and we want to have - we want to be able to -" this is - I'm speaking for the government - "We want to be able to see what data you have available. We want to figure out if we can use it, and we don't want to have to answer a million enquiries from the press about it until we get it done. Then we'll run it through.

                    You know, my instinct on it was a little bit different than the government's, but I didn't have any influence on them. I mean, my instinct would have to bring in the ACLU and to say, "Please create a group that's sort of like a trusted group that we can bounce ideas off of and we want to run these ideas by you. And if you have strong objections, we want to hear them. We want to hear them right upfront. What we ask is that you will work with us in a collaborative sense so that - you know, you tell us before you run out to the Washington Post the next day and we have got (unintelligible.)" So, you know, we are just exploring ideas. We want to try to put this together and I do think there is a need for that. There is a need for enough privacy in governmental decision-making that the government can come out with programs and then have a chance to explain them, not to take anything away from the press because that balance is a dynamic balance. It's fought by and maintained by hardworking reporters who make a lot of phone calls and get turned down a lot, but it's a very important public duty.

                    So I am not sure if the balance is right is what I am saying. I don't know if it's right and that is one of issues we ought to explore..."

                •  If you read that, read the replies it brought also (none / 0)

                  Including these that I will paste below.  By any chance did you have to fly much in the months that followed 9/11?  I did, frequently, and it was really unerving. I know lots of people who simply refused to get on any airplane, and that hurt a lot of working people who depend on people traveling to make a living.  

                  One flight I was scared shitless.  I didn't think of it when I booked it but turns out I was flying from LA to NY directly over Utah at the exact time that the opening ceremony for the Winter Olympics was going on.  Put yourself in my seat then and rethink how you might feel about having passengers screened before boarding.

                  OK, some replies to that Salon article ( I don't know if it is cool to repost the names here of people who wroter letters elsewhere without their knowledge, so I didn't.  But I'm not claiming these were written by God or anything:

                  "Farhad Manjoo's article, following on his Sept. 4, 2003, article "Brave New Skies," is full of journalistic fluff and misdirection that is far below Salon's usual standards.

                  Giving "Bill Scannell, a former journalist who is now a full-time CAPPS II protester" a soapbox to say Gen. Wesley Clark doesn't deserve to be president is just one step above using anonymous sources. I went to both of his Web sites and came away with the impression this guy is a crank, not a credible spokesman for privacy issues.

                  If you take the article apart looking for specific charges and balanced responses, you are left with nothing more than warmed-over assertions.

                  Tell Farhad Manjoo and his editor to polish their journalistic skills or look for another place to publish. There are already too many places that offer fluff, spin and hype -- Salon doesn't have to join them."

                  "Your reporter's article on Wesley Clark and Acxiom omit the perspective and events from the man you are targeting. This is a colored article without all the facts.

                  The CAPPS II system and the general's involvement have been criticized; however, the timeline [of] his involvement and his reaction to what Acxiom [did] without his involvement while he was on the board is disregarded.

                  Acxiom came under fire after a subcontractor to JetBlue Airways bought some Acxiom data and used it in ways that JetBlue said violated its privacy policy. Gen. Clark had had nothing to do with that incident.

                  For the record, he quit the board.

                  Second, Clark's position is that in some cases collecting data about people is necessary, but should only be done without trampling on people's civil liberties. See his position on the PATRIOT Act. I agree with this, as hopefully most others would. CAPPS II is an attempt to capture passenger information in order to stop terrorists from hijacking. It is a controversial program. And had Wesley Clark been more involved in the development of the program, he would have ensured this would have involved civil liberties groups.

                  In the most recent New Hampshire debate, Clark said, "Well, I don't know about CAPPS II because I have not seen the program, and I don't think many of the people who are worried about it have ... I was on the board of the company [Acxiom], and I did take them around and introduce them to various members of the United States government, the Defense Department and so forth, because their technology will improve our security. Had I still been on that board when all this was going through, I would have insisted that the American Civil Liberties Union and others be brought in to pre-approve CAPPS II."

                  The conclusion your journalist draws is speculative."

                  "I find the timing of this article -- the morning of the Tennessee and Virginia primaries -- suspect. I also find the logic suspect. The author makes a dubious connection between advocating for more vigorous screening of pilots and a program to help the government screen passengers -- two vastly different endeavors.

                  The genesis for CAPPS II is not with Acxiom; rather it is with ClearForest, a New York City company that provides data-mining algorithm software for the Israelis and NASDAQ. The U.S. has been interested in its possible application to terrorism for some time, which is what the Israelis use it for. Then there is Oracle, whose CEO went before Congress and offered to help create a federal identity database.

                  Your author states that "it's not clear" whether Clark mentioned addressing ways to balance privacy concerns, yet Jerry Jones, general counsel for Acxiom, stated otherwise to the Washington Post: "Clark repeatedly stressed the need to 'properly balance legitimate privacy interests and the need for security.'"

                  Finally, all of the information Acxiom possesses is public, such as DMV records (although the law only recently changed on that), housing purchase records and criminal records. None of it was gathered illegally or surreptitiously. In fact, much of the information the government already possesses due to tax returns. Acxiom merely provided a way to collate that information. So the idea that Acxiom invaded anyone's privacy is ridiculous. The CAPPS II program is actually an improvement over the system currently in place, which allows government sources to contact the TSA and add individuals onto one of two "no fly" lists without even specifying the criteria. This has resulted in war protesters and other activists finding themselves targets at airports. Once on the list, it's nearly impossible to be removed. The current system also targets people with similarities to common Arab names, resulting in ordinary citizens whose last names might be Abdul, for example, getting flagged every time they try to go somewhere. CAPPS II will seriously reduce these problems.

                  If anyone should get the blame here, it's certainly not Wes Clark; he didn't create the program, he didn't implement it. He merely brought two sides together to see what they could do to make air travel safer without compromising the rights of Americans who have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

                  People are extremely naive if they believe the government can't at any time legally obtain records about what kind of car they buy, where they live and what kind of house they own, and where they work and how much they earn, their Social Security number, and how many children they have."

    •  Just interested in your (none / 1)

      comment on Clark being better than Feingold on health care.  Could you explain?

      I like both Clark and Feingold, and wouldn't be disappointed if either got the nomination.  So far, however, my impressions of Feingold have been growing as being the one I could fully support.  Feingold pretty much stated a while ago what Clark is saying now.  I just think Feingold is a little clearer about detaching all the political goals Bush has attached as conditions to our presence and involvement in Iraq.  The reality is they've been a diversion, as he terms it.  The real goal is combating terrorism, not waging war ON Iraq and continuously placing our concept of "victory" on the forever changing political carrot of reshaping Iraq.  That could truly keep us there forever, and never really get us any closer to "victory" over terrorism.  This isn't a defeatist position, it's formulating a new definition of victory that we are failing to recognize the longer we chase fantasy goals in Iraq.  

      I think both Clark and Feingold are headed in the right direction, I just think Feingold's assessment is less susceptible to falling into the political goal pitfalls that Bush has set.  We should never have so deeply ingrained ourselves into the political fabric of the Iraqi government.  We have to realize than inherent flaw in our concept of victory that's defined our actions.  It's not a victory, it's a vacuum, and it is, in fact, a diversion--a very expensive one.  

      But getting back to my initial question, in what way is Clark better on health care than Feingold?

      •  I think what the writer (none / 0)

        was referring to is Clark's recent State of the Union address where he called for a single payer system. (link)

        The ...Bushies... don't make policies to deal with problems. ...It's all about how can we spin what's happening out there to do what we want to do. Krugman

        by mikepridmore on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 05:37:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Feingold has guts (none / 0)

      He has consistently voted against the worst of the repugs assaults on our civil rights, against the war, against the tax cuts, taking the principled stance in the Senate. He comes from a red state, and did not take money from special interests.  He only took small donations from constituents.  In other words, he believes in our country, in our institutions, and is fighting from WITHIN... That takes more guts than coming from outside of both parties, and taking principled stands... We have to take him at his word for what he will do. With Feingold, we KNOW WHAT HE STANDS FOR! I do have a great deal or respect for Gen Clark. I think he is honest, sincere, and well meaning.  He is very intelligent (not that this qualifies him for office as we know, we had Reagan, Bush I and II in the White House)and would do a great job anywhere. But he is not part of the establishment. Same as Dean, and now Gore.
    •  Why do we need (none / 0)

      a nominee that has to obfuscate his position. Why is it a good thing that he fakes right and goes left? That seems disingenuous from the get-go.

      Ban Intolerance Now!

      by brahma on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 07:21:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What are you talking about??? (none / 0)

        n/t
      •  because (none / 0)

        to many (approx. 49% of the US population), being known as a "liberal" is an automatic turn-off.  People like to consider themselves moderates.  People THINK Clark is a moderate, when his positions are really more liberal.  It's a struggle I've had with myself.  My co-workers tell me he's a "conservative" or "moderate" democrat.  This appeals to them so I don't want to tell them that they're flat out wrong...but they are.

        But, having said that, Clark's not obfuscating anything.  People believe about him what they want.  If they actually read his position papers, they'd realize exactly where he stands.

        •  My mistake (none / 0)

          Good point. I was making the fundamental error of equating the externally promulagated PR of the person with the person themselves.

          Anybody who reads his stuff and takes the time to understand it realizes that he is very progressive. He's not faking right, those who want him to be able to win over the DLC followers are restating his positions to make him appear centrist.

          I don't think that this is what Hillary is doing. She's actually saying the centrist/moderate drivel. I can't tell if it's a wink and a nod to the progressives, of if she will follow Bill's winning path to the center.

          Ban Intolerance Now!

          by brahma on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 05:54:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Feingold (none / 0)

      People want him so badly because he's been doing a truly awesome job in the Senate recently, everything from rallying the Democrats around important votes to crushing the vile Cornyn with that "Give me liberty or give me death" line. He's been principled, eloquent, and fiery.

      All that said, he wouldn't be my top choice for the presidential nominee. It's a notoriously difficult jump for Senators to make, and I'm concerned he'll seem too extremist to appeal to swing voters--but perhaps most importantly of all, I don't want to lose him in the Senate. We need him there so desperately. It's not like we have a surplus of fiery, principled, eloquent Democrats in there standing up for the right thing over and over.

      If he turns out to be the nominee, though, I'll work my ass off for him. He's a great guy, he'd be a great president, and I think he might be able to win, though I do think Warner or Clark have better chances.

  •  When does Clark advocate we get out of Iraq? (none / 0)

    He's been hemming and hawing about Iraq for the past year.  Last July, Clark spoke with a group of House Dems who wanted to establish a withdrawal timeline, advising them to back off and talk about "diplomacy," instead (echoing the DLC/Hillary Clinton nonsense).

    Then, in August, he said that the President only had "a few more weeks" to set things right in Iraq, or he (Clark), too, would be calling for withdrawal of our forces.

    Since then?

    Nothing from him.  Just more of the same.

    I am so sick of hearing about what a genius he is and about how he has this plan or that plan for fixing Iraq, but the truth is Bush is in power and more people are being killed everyday in a situation that is only deteriorating.

    I'd have a lot more respect for Clark if he joined General Ododm  and Jack Murtha in urging the administration to get out sooner rather than later.

    Yeah, Clark's plans for Iraq may be brilliant, but they don't mean jack shit... and I suspect he knows as much.

    He ought to put his weight behind a plan to get out.

    What will his new "Bush-better-__-or-else-I'm-for-a-pullout" deadline be?

    Don't tell me... November `08.

    •  Clark's iraq view does not matter, at this time (none / 0)

      On when we should stay it does not matter because he is not in congress and has no say.

      If he wants to wait until December 2007 to say "bring 'em home," fine. But if HILLARY (or biden, or bayh) does that i'll be pissed because they could have done it earlier and potentially made a difference with it , especially if we do very well in the mid terms.

      •  Pathetic excuse and not true. (none / 1)

        Of course Clark's Iraq view matters.  How can folks go on and on how brilliant and impresive he is and then say his view doesn't matter?

        Load of shit.

        He should lend his supposed intellectual, moral and ethical hedt behind saving the lives of troops he so admires.

        If he's the heavyweight described so glowingly in these posts, then why NOT get behind a withdrawal strategy?

        What is stopping him? Please tell me the downside.

        •  When we leave Iraq (none / 0)

          Clark has no say on this. His views dont count for congress.

          It would be nice to see him call for total withdrawl but it would not influence anybody , i dont think. I am very sure he will eventually add it to his platform but i really dont care at what date.

          •  I can't believe the excuses offered up for Clark . (3.00 / 3)

            ... on this blog.

            Excuse after excuse after excuse.

            "He's not in Congress."

            What about leadership.  Real leadership on an issue that matters?

            Compare him to Odom.  Of course, Odom isn't planning to run for President in `08 so he's not ducking the toughest issue we face as a nation... like Clark is.

            •  Bob-- (none / 0)

              go over to WesPAC and read his policy position on it.

              oops. I hope the gate wasn't too expensive.

              My blog.

              Twitter: @DanteAtkins

              by hekebolos on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:14:02 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  you want it both ways (none / 1)

              you're saying Clark's plan for fixing Iraq is irrelevant because Bush is in charge and whatever Clark wants won't happen, and yet you want to hold him responsible for not advocating immediate withdrawal.
              •  seems like,... he just wants it, ...his way (none / 0)

                .

                Why do rightwing conservative idealogues hate freedom & democracy?

                by Knightrider on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:30:55 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  I said 'immediate withdrawal?' (none / 0)

                Really?

                Point that out to me because I must have missed it.

                I'm saying that if he really wants to lead, he;d be using his heft to argue for a withdrawl timeline, not some set of policy points he knows will never be achieved under Cheney.

                Cheney will only act if and when it appears that the American public is turning against the war by an overwhelming majority.  If Clark is as impressive as the Clark crowd in this thread claims he is, then he is an opinion leader sho could shape that perception to the public.

                Instead, he hides behind excuses of the sort offered here.

                •  Based on what benchmarks!! (none / 0)

                  What if Iraq has no relative measurable stable gov't by YOUR deadline? How will a timeline prevent Iran, or AQ, from exploiting Iraq's fragile government and general security by your 'standard?'  Or do you have that plan all worked out?

                  What's the outcome that you envision?  Or is it another idea, just like W's grand illusion of a cakewalk, but this time in reverse.

                  Why do rightwing conservative idealogues hate freedom & democracy?

                  by Knightrider on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:50:47 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  That's simply not accurate (none / 0)

                  Clark has said that the instability in Iraq is partly caused by the constitution that shuts Sunni's out of the oil revenues.
                  He has also said that besides a new constitution to fairly divide the oil revenues, the regional players like Syria and Iran must be included in the solution on Iraq.
                  Clark is the only one who has been courageous and honest enough to say this country must talk to Iran and start talking today.
                  How in the world can anyone in this country trust Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice et al to muck things up any worse through their gross negligence and incompetence in Iran after their catastrophe in Iraq?
                  They have made this a very dangerous world.
                  As Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, Clark negotiated with all our partners in NATO. He believes in diplomacy and negotiation first and force as a last, last, last resort. He respects the men and women who serve and respects how we're viewed in the world and respects the constitution and the rule of law.
                  But I respect your right to think there's someone else who may have the experience, courage, intelligence and critical thinking to solve all these problems. There probably are others, but Clark, on top of everything else, can win in the red states in the general election.
          •  Actually, Clark views matter deeply to HASC (4.00 / 2)

            ...that was both during his public testimony before the HASC about the prospects for war with Iraq in Sept 2002 and about the Iraq quagmire in April 2005,...aside from his closed session meetings with its members.

            Clark was right-on then, when he warned of the consequences;.. and he is right-on now, when he called upon this administration to open a dialogue with Iran, as well as Syria and the region.  Instead, Iran has benefited and has become the real winner with W's elective war against Saddam.  

            Also, Clark never said we had 'a few weeks.', instead he wrote that the "window of opportunity" for dialogue and diplomacy with Iran was closing. ,,,  apparantly there's about one month left now.

            Why do rightwing conservative idealogues hate freedom & democracy?

            by Knightrider on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:27:41 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Clark is a classic, 'I-told-ya'-so' (none / 1)

              "Look how smart I am."

              Reminds me an awful lot of Biden in that regard.

              •  Not so (none / 1)

                 9/26/2002
                In Congressional testimony before House Armed Services cttee, Clark made it very clear that "time was on our side", force should be used only as a "last resort" after all diplomatic efforts were exhausted, the UN and a broad coalition were imperative, Iraq did not yet have nuclear weapons, inspections were the way to go, "no" to a preemptive war, and many other prescient intelligent observations if you care to carefully read all through this:

                http://www.house.gov/...

              •  Also, From That Testimony (4.00 / 2)

                in September 2002:

                What is at risk in the aftermath is an open-ended American ground commitment in Iraq and an even deeper sense of humiliation in the Arab world, which could intensify our problems in the region and elsewhere.

                This is exactly what we saw in the Palestinian elections. Not to mention the Iranian elections last year, where we had a huge opportunity to reach out to the moderate candidate and completely failed to do so.

                Clark is also the only presidential candidate to my knowledge to speak out on securing the loose nuclear material that's scattered around the world. (See Thwarting Nuclear Evil-Doers.)

                Clark has every right to say "I told you so" because he did tell us so. And he has every right to say "look how smart I am" although he never does. He doesn't have to.

                Smart is a huge asset. (See "Smart America" in Frameshop: Target President Profile.) The Democrats need to run a smart campaign in 2008 and every other year from now on. That's one big reason why I supported Clark in the last election and I'll no doubt support him again in this one.

    •  Hey Bob (none / 0)

      I was going to post on this in my subsequent diary, but since you asked:

      On Iraq, the General said today that given the administration's failure in Iraq, we have two options now: one is a C- option, and the other is the F option.

      Essentially, at this point, there is a four-month deadline after the ratification of the constitution to emend it by a simple majority vote.  The General said that what needs to happen is that we need to work to get the Sunnis more involved in the constitution to make sure that they are able to work with the government, and not against it, and to use our forces to enable Khalilzad to have the authority and position of strength to get this done, in negotiation with Iran and the ayatollahs.

      The F option is to keep on with the present course until it is too late to engage the Sunnis, at which point the Sunnis will start fighting against the government and the Peshmerga would start taking care of itself, creating essentially a tri-partite Iraq with the Sunnis waging guerilla civil war terror against the Shia.  If we wait until that happens, we will probably have no choice but to start withdrawing the troops because it will, in the General's opinion, be too late to salvage the situation politically at that time.

      oops. I hope the gate wasn't too expensive.

      My blog.

      Twitter: @DanteAtkins

      by hekebolos on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 11:55:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I hate to say this... (none / 0)

        But his supposed "deadlines" have been moving targets since the Spring of last year.

        Now, he sets a new (arbitrary) deadline.  And  he again says that Bush regime must do something right to make it work when they have proven that they are unable, unwilling or uninterested in making anything work in Iraq.

        All I hear from him is one feeble excuse after another.  

        "See, I told them they needed to do this and they didn't do it!"

        Well, gee, you're a genius, Wes, and they're idiots and out guys are still getting killed.

        How about he throws his weight behind Murtha?

        Now THAT would be ballsy.

        But I don't suppose he'll do that.

        Wonder why?

        •  You mistake the point a little bit (none / 0)

          He supports withdrawal, but not on an arbitrary timeline--though I do understand what you're saying about his moving deadlines.

          Unlike any of the other candidates you could name, Bob, Clark has seen his comrades die on the battlefield.  He understands more than anyone what it's like.

          The fact of the matter is, I trust him to do the right thing for the country, because he has the experience and expertise to do it--and he can win an election too.

          oops. I hope the gate wasn't too expensive.

          My blog.

          Twitter: @DanteAtkins

          by hekebolos on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:10:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What a truckload of manure. (none / 0)

            ".. comrades die on the battlefield."

            Yeah, and more guys are dying every goddamn day while he touts his intellectual credenbtials by pointing the finger at the Bushies saying, "See?  They didn;t do as I suggested!  If they did, we would be winning!"

            He has the same nonsensical approach to Iraq that Biden and Hillary Clinton have.  That is, complain about how the Bushies are running the war, while, at the same time, saying we can't have a withdrawal timetable because either it will helkp the enemy or "we must win in Iraq."

            They want to have it both ways.  It's the sort of fence-straddling non-position that sinks our presidential candidates everytime.

            •  Well, I've got an idea for you (none / 1)

              next time he attends an event in your area, why don't you go accuse him of this "manure" yourself.

              Yes, he has the intellectual credentials, but he also wants what's best for America's long-term security.  He has his opinion on what needs to be done for America's long-term security, and believes that an immediate pullout with no contingencies would endanger America's long-term security--and as much as I want to see all our troops home safe and sound--or at least taking it to the actual enemy in Afghanistan--I believe that he is right.

              Like it or not, fine.  But don't call it "manure."  That's a slight to the honor of one of the most patriotic Americans you'll ever see, and I've been fortunate enough to meet him.

              oops. I hope the gate wasn't too expensive.

              My blog.

              Twitter: @DanteAtkins

              by hekebolos on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:22:53 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Fuck hero worship. (none / 0)

                My god, you'd think he was second coming of Christ.

                I have news for you.  He's a politician.  He keeps making excuses on Iraq and has been for a year to avoid taking a stand.

                Whatever.  He looks like another hack.

                •  That's not news,.. that's tabloid (none / 0)

                  ...and you're doing more of the hacking and making up excuses...

                  ...btw, Clark was born on the 23rd of December. Not that this should mean anything, of course, ... I've always questioned exactly what date Christ was really born on, anyway.

                  Why do rightwing conservative idealogues hate freedom & democracy?

                  by Knightrider on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 01:04:03 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Bob Johnson (4.00 / 2)

                  Your comments are bordering on an angry rant, rather than making sense based on logic and facts.  Your anger should be directed to the neocons who got us where we are today.  THEY are the ones responsible for our men and women dying on battlefields, not Wes Clark.  

                  Clark said before the war, even as Powell said to Bush (and no, I'm not a Powell fan)don't go there.  It's not the right war, the right time.  If you go there, you're responsible for what happens.  We'll, we're there now and Clark, more than any other person who may seek higher office, knows what our options are.  More than anyone else, he knows the consequences of not trying everything to minimize future problems.  To simply yank our forces out would leave a dangerous void and an unstable country that we'd only have to revisit in a bigger, more dangerous way.  He didn't create this mess and he has no stake in seeing it deteriorate anymore.  

                  I'll echo what hekebos suggested.  Go see and hear Wes Clark in person.  Raise your questions with him because he will answer you.  Raise your questions with any of the other candidates running and compare their responses with his.  But, until you do this, your anger and your diatribes are misplaced.

                •  Why the hell (4.00 / 4)

                  is it Clarks or ANY OTHER DEMOCRATS job to tell Bush how to fix Iraq?  It's his fucking problem.  We can offer alternative visions of what the dems would have done so voters have a choice.  Seems to me that's what a lot of the democrats have done, to a greater or lesser degree.  Can we please stop attacking dems on this site please? (except Lieberman and Cuellar!)

                  Maybe we have to keep moving the targets because the Bush regime keeps fucking things up worse and worse.  How in the hell can a timeline or target now look the same as one 6 months ago?  This "moving target" criticism seems awfully unfair; democratic solutions, targets, timelines, etc., have to keep up with an unfolding SNAFU.

                  I hated Bush before it was cool.

                  by daveriegel on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 07:27:05 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  So what you're saying is... (none / 1)

            ... I trust him to do the right thing for the country, because he has the experience and expertise to do it--and he can win an election too.

            ... that we have to wait and keep our fingers crossed that Wes wins in 2008 -- and then we can get out of Iraq.

            Nice.

            That's a helluva' position.  Tell it to the families of all the guys who will die between now and then.

            Sorry.  Not interested.

            •  Obviously (none / 0)

              the situation will change a helluva lot between now and when the presidential election happens.

              Do whatever you want and keep up with Kucinich or something like that.  I'm done arguing.

              oops. I hope the gate wasn't too expensive.

              My blog.

              Twitter: @DanteAtkins

              by hekebolos on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:24:07 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  clark cant pull out (none / 0)

              Clark is not Rumsfeld nor is he Hillary. They potentially could do something legislatively.

              He is just one guy. its not like his declaration will mean anything. You know how much Bush is in a bubble.

              •  Like I said, where is the leadership? (none / 0)

                ...
                •  Jesus Christ. (none / 0)

                  Bob, would you like to shoot down any other '08 contenders while you're at it?  

                  Do they ALL suck, or just Clark?  

                  I hated Bush before it was cool.

                  by daveriegel on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 07:29:49 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  My View Is Closer To Murtha's Than To Clark's (none / 0)

                  Still, Clark is my first choice in 2008. I attended the Hollywood event for Clark yesterday. The vitriol that you are unloading on one of our own is hard to understand. You have to appreciate what Clark brings to the the table. I've talked to many swing voters who lean right and many out and out right wingers who say they could see themselves voting for Clark. In the event I attended yesterday, he was supporting Democratic challengers in House races, giving them credibility on National Security issues. Of course, I'm so blinded by hero worship and respect for the General's military credentials that I will  refer to a scene from a great miltary movie that this reminds me of.

                  Rufus T. Firefly: Where's my Stradivarius?
                  Officer: Here, sir.
                  Rufus T. Firefly: I'll show 'em they can't fiddle around with old Firefly!
                  [he pulls a tommygun out of his violin case and opens fire]
                  Rufus T. Firefly: Look at 'em run! Now they know they've been in a war!
                  Bob Roland: Your Excellency!
                  Rufus T. Firefly: Hahahahahaha, they're fleeing like rats!
                  Bob Roland: But sir, I've got to tell you...
                  Rufus T. Firefly: Remind me to give myself the Firefly Medal for this!
                  [he fires again]
                  Bob Roland: Your Excellency, you're shooting your own men!
                  [Firefly fires again]
                  Rufus T. Firefly: What?
                  Bob Roland: You're shooting your own men!
                  Rufus T. Firefly: Here's $5, keep it under your hat.
                  [holds out his hat to take the $5 back]
                  Rufus T. Firefly: Never mind, I'll keep it under my hat.
          •  That was an argument in support of Murtha. (none / 1)

            IMPEACH THEM NOW! It only takes One State.

            by arbortender on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:23:00 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The General (none / 0)

              talked a lot in our private bloggers-only meeting about Murtha as well.  The General's main focus at this point is taking back at least one chamber of congress so that decision-making about Iraq, as well as information and intelligence, can pass through a Democrat-led branch.  Until then, we don't have access to the Pentagon, or the information available only to the executive branch.

              oops. I hope the gate wasn't too expensive.

              My blog.

              Twitter: @DanteAtkins

              by hekebolos on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:27:17 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  exactly (none / 0)

          his supposed "deadlines" have been moving targets since the Spring of last year

          Yes, because he's reacting and adjusting to what's happening on the ground.  If you hear him speak, he'll talk about certain milestones that you have to reach....specifics about each cabinet, each department of the government.  As things progress on the ground, a smart tactician would adjust.

          And, as for his feelings about Murtha, he loves Jack Murtha and supports his position.  That's different from agreeing with it, however.

      •  Wes had never previously gave any deadlines... (4.00 / 5)

        But recently he gave two benchmarks that leave the window of opportunity still open.

        1. If the new government can bring the Sunnis in. He gave it about four months from December. So far it has not happend and the civil strife is worst than ever. '

        2. The second window is that we are allowed to be their by the elected government. If the government asks us to leave, Wes says we have not legitimate way to stay without becomeing a colonial power.

        So by summer we shall know - well before the 2006 election. He wants to avoid a bloody retreat and a loss of stability to the region. He thinks in terms of the big picture and the long range consequences. He is a strategic genius.

        However, by early summer we may have passed the point where Sunnis can be brought into the process as the government moves more and more to the shiite majority and with force against the Sunnis (as in the recent incident of the arrested folks being found as corpses). So Wes will then announce the need for withdrawal.

        He says that short of a Vietnam style abandonment of the people in the country who supported the U.S. and the tons of equipment we have there it would take four months to get the troops out and a year to salvage the equipment to keep it from the hands of insurrgents.

        He thinks. He calculates. He bases his decisions on facts. He does not make political calculations but factual decisions.

        So that is what I say is the kind of leader we need.

        Noel

    •  He says that we can get out fairly quickly (none / 1)

      every once in while he blogs at his site. We asked him specifically about this. Not liking exit dates does not mean that he wants to stay there. Nope. In fact, Clark believes an exit date only makes things harder and give the republicans a club to bang over our heads.

      1. Declare that there will be no permanent bases.

      2. Put pressure on the Shiites to change the Constitution while they need our training and $$$.

      3. Shift the troops to watch the Iranian border

      4. TALK to Iran and Syria as part of a regional transparent meeting

      5. Stop killing Sunnis

      6. Bring a balance within the Iraqi security forces.

      ----that's it. Murtha is great, but what makes you think that withdrawing to the periphery to run bombing raids is a better plan, or a better way to leaver. Odom has no plan. A withdrawal date is not a plan.

      This is an important region and it is important to think regionally.

      General Clark said today that he believes the online community needs to discuss one unified position.

      •  Blah-blah-blah (4.00 / 2)

        Dick Cheney is President.

        All these plans show just what genius Clark is, but they have absolutely no foundation in the reality of our situation.  Because none of his "conditions" will ever come to pass.

        I'm sure he cares about our troops.  He should do the courageous thing and line up with Murtha and Odom and the other former generals calling for us to get out of Iraq sooner rather than later... before our military is ruined for 20 years, just like the post-Vietnam era.

        All we get from Clark is yammering.

        •  If none of his conditions (none / 1)

          will ever come to pass it's also fair to say that his call for an immediate exit wouldn't come to pass either.

          whether Murtha, or Odom or Clark call for a withdrawal the Bush admin (or the Cheney admin if you prefer) will take not a scrap of notice.

          so does Murtha or Odom calling for withdrawal make it any more likely that a withdrawal will happen? Or make the troops that die after they've called for a withdrawal any less dead, or their families any more consoled?

          Clark says what he believes. He's not pointscoring either way. He believes more can be done in Iraq and he does has some qualifications that entitle him to have an opinion on the matter.

          Fine, you disagree. But you can't keep accusing him of having no hope of influencing the strategy of the admin -- and yet making it look like his opposition to immediate withdrawal makes him somehow to blame for what happens in Iraq.

           

          •  Read my post above. (none / 0)

            He has only two conditions: that the elected government bring the Sunnis in and that they do not aske us to leave. The failure of the former and the upcoming of the latter mean strategic withdrawal.

            He gave the former four months or so from December, so lets say early summer if the violence does not cool downa nd the Sunnis are not drawn in the withdrawal should be planned. It would, he said, take about four months (as it did in the fist Gulf War).

            Pretty decisive to me.

            Noel

        •  OK, Bob,... (none / 0)

          ...I think you've made it clear you're not Clark's biggest supporter. So who DO you support who's not a "politician" and/or who isn't heaping loads of manure, re: Iraq. Murtha's certainly a stand-up guy and all, but he STILL is a politician, no matter HOW you slice him.
          Sadly, we're stuck with the candidates we HAVE, not the candidates we WISHED we had.

          "Personal density is directly proportional to temporal bandwidth." Mondaugen's Law

          by Newton Snookers on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 07:30:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Clark wants out of Iraq ASAP (none / 0)

      with as little damage as possible.  The difference between what he's saying and what "get out now" people are saying is practicality.  The fastest way to get out with the least damage is what Wes is advocating.  Boy it sure would be nice to be able to wave a magic wand and bring everyone home, but there are too many people there, too much of a mess made, too hard to get them out.  IMO, if either Wes or Russ were in charge, exactly the same thing would be done.  The rest is all politics.  And, frankly, we probably need both the Clark and Feingold angles to get the American public to wake the hell up.
    •  Sometimes (none / 0)

      the aggressor steps back from the precipice of declaring war to let the events play out. I'm assuming that was Clark's strategy, Kos has taken the same position on nuking the DLC. He was at one point two weeks from nuking them, but we have heard nothing on it since. I'd prefer to think that, rather than having been bought off or intimidated, both have taken different but non-obvious paths to their goals.

      Ban Intolerance Now!

      by brahma on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 07:27:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Bob (none / 0)

      It's pretty clear you despise Clark, if you don't like his position that's fine, go vote for Russ or Gore.

      Jack Murtha is a good man and his heart is in the right place, but I really couldn't disagree more. WE BROKE IRAQ, we did it, we went out on a limb and did it. Clark opposed it but it is what is now and we have to live with the results of our country's actions.

      Clark is acting on principle and foresight, Bush wants us to stay in Iraq forever and use heavy handed tactics, and the Hillary DLC position is just Bush light, clearly withdraw is politically expedient.

      Clark does want us out, and he does disagree very strongly with Bush. But he doesn't want to leave behind a festering terrorist heaven that just ends up killing more Americans. And don't get me started on that BS that they'll all start getting along "if only we went away", it just isn't true, read your history for goodness sake!

      It's not just about leaving, it's about leaving in a way that doesn't cause further damage to an already severely destabilized region. In case you haven't noticed things are getting dicey over there between Iran and the election of Hamas.

      The situation is ripe genocide in Iraq, and if don't believe that then your no different than the Clinton's who looked the other way while half a million Rwandans were butchered in cold blood, and we didn't even make that mess so if anything your worse.

      Political expedience or wanting to withdraw doesn't excuse over looking OUR responsibilities, we broke it, it's our job to do the best we can to fix it and though George Bush is disaster, we owe it to this country to push for a change in strategy and I know I'm in the minority, but I beleive breaking a country entails some responcibilitieswe can't just walk in destroy a country and say opps we made a mistake and leave the locals to sort it out, that's dispicable.

      Don't Trust Politicians

      by Donkey Rising on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 02:05:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  On the contrary, I don;t despise Clark. (none / 0)

        He's a smart guy playing a political game just like everyoione else.

        What I find humorous is the hero worsjhip of thne guy, evident in the posts here.

        As for as the inane "we-broke-it-we-fix-it" baloney, the reality is we can't fix it.  And the sooner we figure that out, the sooner we will get out and let real rebuilding take place under the auspices of either Arab states or other third party entities.

        I find it hard to believe that nearly three years into this mess, supposedly intelligent people are still buying into Colin Powell's "Pottery Barn" crap.

        It was bullshit three years ago and it is doubly bullshit today.

        Name one thing that is better in Iraq now than it was after we first invavded.

        I am so sick of that bullshit it makes my stomach turn.

        We obviously learned nothing from Vietnam.  Absolutely nothing.  You're repeating that inane idea makes me wonder about your own understanding of the situation.

        One other point on Clark: when push comes to shove against Hillary Clinton in a nasty primary fight, does anyone really believe that Clark will take off after his sponsor, Hillary Clinton?

        What a laugh.

        If he's tunning for anything, it's for the VP slot on Hillary's ticket.

        I am constabtly amazed at the folks here who want to see an end to Iraq yet support Clark.  Talk about a disconnect.

        And how patronizing you are about Murtha.  Perrhaos if a few more Democrats like We Clark stood with him, we'd be closer to a resolution on Iraq instead of where we are today.

        How pathetic.  Go Clark.

        •  And what Arab state is going to step in? (none / 0)

          Really who is going to do it Bob, WHO?! Iran? Syria? The Saudi's? The Eygpytians? None of them are, for the same reason they didn't come into to fight along side us, it works to Iran and Syria's benefit to see us floundering in Iraq, it's great for them.

          As for the Saudi's just us being in Iraq probably adds 5$ a barrel to the price of oil if not more just because of the anxeity of traders, they love having us there they won't come in to help, they've got their own issues anyway.

          And Eygpt is caught in a flux between radical extremeists and those pushing for democracy, their army isn't going anywhere any time soon. So please Bob tell me who the hell excatly is going to step in to fill our shoes when they benefit from having us there?

          The only government in the mid east that wants us out of Iraq is going to be Iraq, all the others have everything to gain by keeping us there, and those that don't simply don't have the military power to fill our shoes.

          Don't Trust Politicians

          by Donkey Rising on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 05:55:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Okay. (none / 0)

            So tell me, kind sir, how Iraq improves while we're in country.

            It ain't gettin' any better while we're there.  Ever.

            •  I think Clark laid out the strategy quite clearly (none / 0)

              End the aggressive raid tactics, tear down Abu Ghraib, and promise not to build permanent military bases and reduce the exposure of our forces and fall back into an advice and support role as much as possible, the less they see of the U.S. military the better.

              Use our military leverage in training and equipping the Iraqi army to broker a deal with Shiite politicians to federalize the oil profits and take other measures to insure the constitution includes the Sunni's, the alternative is all out Iraqi civil war.

              Begin bringing troops as much as possible based on how capable their security forces are, and the political conditions namely the inclusiveness of the Iraqi constitution in regards to the Sunni's, and if they tell us to leave, we leave. Clark has clearly stated to do otherwise would be an act of colonialism.

              Is it perfect, no, Iraq is so messed up NO solution will be "perfect" including Murtha's plan, but at least this way we just don't pass the buck along to someone else, which seems to me to be what this strategy will achieve in the end, ultimately someone has to be responsible.

              Don't Trust Politicians

              by Donkey Rising on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 04:42:37 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Does Clark think Bush won in 2004? (none / 0)

    If he does, he is of no greater value to the American people than any other Democrat. Kerry took the Clark strategy—strong on defense—but we still don't know if it worked, since we don't know who won the election. So why invest ourselves in this strategy the second-time around? Sounds self-defeating to me.

    If Clark showed some courage and publically said that we don't know who won in 2004, I'd take him seriously. Otherwise, it's impossible to avoid the conclusion that his patriotism is skin deep.

    Liberalism is the origin and center of American politics. Thus, to reject liberalism is to reject America.

    by Alexander on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 11:53:27 PM PDT

    •  Try meeting him sometime (none / 1)

      Clark is no Kerry.  I've had 3 hours' worth of private conversations with the General.

      Calling into question who won the election (though election reform is one of the General's priorities) doesn't make someone strong on national security.

      Having the background, the intelligence, the right values, and the capability to handle the situation is what makes one strong on national security.  And Clark has that.  Let's compare Clark's 34 YEARS of military service at the highest levels to Kerry's swift boat, and then tell me that Clark can expect to suffer the same fate.  I don' think so.

      oops. I hope the gate wasn't too expensive.

      My blog.

      Twitter: @DanteAtkins

      by hekebolos on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:00:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  National security is nothing without freedom (none / 0)

        The Cold War was supposedly about protecting our freedom. Well, now we are not free. Free people know that they elected their government. What we know is that who we elected in 2000 did not become President, and we don't know for sure who we elected in 2004, although according to the best available evidence, it was Kerry.

        So why should I take Clark seriously at all as an American, if he does not make electoral reform his main issue, as opposed to "one of the General's priorities"? I want freedom, not just "security".

        Liberalism is the origin and center of American politics. Thus, to reject liberalism is to reject America.

        by Alexander on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:29:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well... (4.00 / 3)

          not much I can say here.  He talked a bunch about the NSA wiretapping, about preserving the constitution, separation of powers, civil liberties--everything you could ask for on the "freedoms" standpoint.

          Obviously he cares about election reform.  But in addition to making sure your votes get counted, you need to make sure people actually vote for you too.

          oops. I hope the gate wasn't too expensive.

          My blog.

          Twitter: @DanteAtkins

          by hekebolos on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:38:31 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  In additions to increasing the Veterans budget (none / 1)

          Electoral reform is his main domestic issue.  He's currently leading an effort to make Election Day a holiday.  I'm sure it won't be his last initiative in this area.

          -Hope never cost Corporate America a dime -Somebody blow Bush so we can impeach him already.

          by DWCG on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 06:53:46 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's a very good idea (none / 0)

            Other countries have their elections on Sundays.

            If election reform is his main issue, why doesn't he call for elections being run by independent federal civil servants, as opposed to local partisan political operatives? It would be nice if a prominent national figure would carry out a campaign for effective election reform.

            Liberalism is the origin and center of American politics. Thus, to reject liberalism is to reject America.

            by Alexander on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 10:30:51 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  He essentially did (none / 0)

              he told me right before he went up to speak at the fundraiser taht one of the most important things we can do is to make sure that partisan officials aren't in charge of elections.

              oops. I hope the gate wasn't too expensive.

              My blog.

              Twitter: @DanteAtkins

              by hekebolos on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 11:30:17 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Very good -- thanks (none / 0)

                Of course, this will take some serious legislation.

                Until there is a strong movement in this country for electoral reform (unfortunately, dKos doesn't appear to be a fertile breeding ground for one), Republicans will keep on "winning" national elections, no matter how good the Dem candidate is, or how well he is doing in the opinion polls.

                I will be watching Clark more closely now. But it sounds to me like he talked about election reform only privately to you, as opposed to in his speech. Is that the case? And if so, why?

                That sounds to me like Kerry telling Mark Crispin Miller (the NYU prof who wrote Won't Get Fooled Again) that he found Miller's account that the election in Ohio was stolen convincing, but then denied having said so when asked about this by the press. (Kerry, with his record of equivocation, has no credibility on this comared to Miller, by the way.)

                Liberalism is the origin and center of American politics. Thus, to reject liberalism is to reject America.

                by Alexander on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 01:33:41 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  Why invest ourselves (none / 0)

      in the alternate universe that has Kerry as President. Of course Clark thinks Bush won, check the box scores. Let's spend less time crafting tin-foil hats and more time building a platform that represents progressive policy.

      Ban Intolerance Now!

      by brahma on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 07:30:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  If Dems don't win on national security (none / 0)


    then they will not win.  Period.  
  •  Thanks hekebolos! Clark Knew!! (4.00 / 4)

    Dems are stronger on National Security!  We engage in diplomacy, as well as military. It's Dems who propose fact-based strategic planning; and not  towards wild faith-based idealogical ideas, like Bush, the neocons and the GOP!

    Recall these excerpts from Clark's speech:
    THE REAL STATE OF THE UNION 2006
    THE NEW AMERICA FOUNDATION
    Monday, January 30, 2006

    "What has happened to us?

    We Americans can no longer hide behind our oceans, or pretend that the dialogue of politics should be confined to disagreements about domestic policy alone.  And as for the partisan charge that Democrats are living in a pre-9/11 world, let us be very clear:  the policies followed by this Administration since 9/11 -- the belligerent tone, the unilateralism, the excessive reliance on military force are not making us safer; they are increasing the dangers we face abroad and distracting us from the most important challenges here at home. ..."

    Dems, like Wes Clark, clearly understood how to protect America,... they understood foriegn policy and the geopolitical constructs best,.. they knew what the real issues were!!

    ..snip: ....
    • Letting Bin Laden slip through the noose at Tora Bora, in December, 2001 and failing to commit sufficient forces to Afghanistan to finish the job there gave the terrorist movement continuing stature and enabled a host of local imitators to ride his coattails of impunity.

    • Naming an "Axis of Evil" helped drive the North Koreans and Iranians to accelerate nuclear weapons efforts and probably spurred a deepening cooperation, even as the term itself offended allies and convinced millions around the world that a just American effort against those who attacked our country was being transformed into a self-righteous moral crusade against those of different religious convictions or geostrategic alignment.

    • Invading Iraq, neglecting North Korea, and ducking the diplomacy on Iran -- and labeling it all with a bellicose-sounding strategy of preemption left us concentrating the greatest resources on the least urgent strategic problem and doing so in a way that has exacerbated the threats we face.

    • Ignoring our European allies and sidelining NATO left us bereft of the strong Allied support necessary to succeed in Iraq and simultaneously meet challenges elsewhere. ...

General Clark warned HASC and ran for POTUS in '03 because he knew that Bush committed the "biggest strategic blunder in American history!!"

Why do rightwing conservative idealogues hate freedom & democracy?

by Knightrider on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 11:55:36 PM PDT

  •  And I think North Korea possesses (none / 0)

    rockets capable of delivering its nuclear weapons to cities on the U.S. west coast.

    Earth to W: What are you doing about it besides delivering sound bytes?

    Chaos: Not just a theory, its a way of life.

    by Agent of Fortune on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:02:23 AM PDT

  •  Our platform (none / 0)

    was handed to us on a silver platter quite a while ago.  

    It's a freakin' feast.  But, alas, the dems have a dark tunnel mentality that is so deep and long that, apparently, there is no great shining light of simple truth that can penetrate it.

    It's driving me insane.

    "In all chaos there is a cosmos, in all disorder, a secret order." Carl Jung

    by Unduna on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:03:54 AM PDT

  •  He shouldn't say "beg" (none / 0)

    ... sounds too McGovern, Reps will have a field day with it.

    John Galt is the new Walter Mitty.

    by Bob Love on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:19:28 AM PDT

  •  his speech at the New America Foundation (none / 0)

  •  Kudos hekebolos! (none / 1)

    Your first impression is similar to mine.  I came out convinced that General Clark would be a great President.

    He spoke and everybody came out energized.

    Alysheba and I arranged an interview with General Clark which we hope to publish soon.

    I look forward to your next diaries.

    It was a pleasure to meet you.

    Dailykos.com; an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action -1.75 -7.23

    by Shockwave on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:34:56 AM PDT

  •  Clark's Problem (4.00 / 2)

     Wes Clark is a heroic American who has dedicated his entire adult life to serving his country. He led 100,000 troops in combat in Bosnia. He is a graduate of West Point, a Rhodes Scholar, a man of integrity and intelligence, and 100 times the leader that Bush or Cheney is.

     I voted for him. But he had three problems when he ran in 2004:

     1) He decided too late to run and didn't build any ground operation in Iowa. As a result, he pulled out of the Iowa caucuses and didn't compete there.

     2) He was new at campaigning and made some rookie mistakes. He bobbled the Iraq War question in his first week in an interview with the New York Times, appearing to give contradictory answers about whether he would have voted for the war or not had he been in Congress. Second, he shouldn't have appeared on a podium in New England embracing Michael Moore. Moore endorsed Nader in 2000 and is simply too divisive with too many Americans. Also, Clark hadn't done enough prep work before the campaign on questions like 'when do you feel life begins,' and stumbled in several TV interviews. Lastly, he wasn't a very riveting public speaker, although he got better as the campaign went.

      3) Because the Dem primaries were front-loaded, as soon as Kerry got a little momentum, Dems coalesced around Kerry, wanting to reduce inter-party fighting. Clark won Oklahoma, but by then, the contest was over because Kerry was winning everything else.

      The good news for us Clark fans is that he can fix several of these things if he runs in 2008. A Clark-Warner ticket or a Warner-Clark ticket would be a red state juggernaut. We need candidates who can win in the NASCAR states, people who rural men and gun owners are comfortable with, as they were with Carter and Bill Clinton. I'm not one of those folks, but the math is very clear. You have to get to 270, and it is very difficult to do that without picking up a few southern states. Clark-Warner would take back Virginia, Arkansas and West Virginia from the GOP, which would provide about 30 electoral votes more than Kerry got, easily enough to win the White House if they held the other states Kerry won.

      Come on general. Give us one more run...

  •  Clark and Kossacks! (none / 1)

    Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us

    In deep thought!

    There is hope!

    Dailykos.com; an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action -1.75 -7.23

    by Shockwave on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:50:37 AM PDT

  •  Wrong, wrong, wrong. (none / 0)

    The General is either putting you on with positions, or woefully uninformed about the Project for a New American Century, the neocon's gospel since 1991.

    The Bush crew went after Iraq because that is the weak link, the first link -- they wanted to get America's military solidly into the Middle East so they could then proceed to destabilize Iran, then Syria, and be ready to take over the oil fields in Saudi Arabia if it falls.

    Here it is -- their plan has always been to create regional war, wider chaos, complete anarchy in the Middle East -- so they can do anything "necessary" on a war footing. Including nukes.

    It also lets them advance a radical right wing agenda domestically, amounting to martial law and de facto theocracy.

    It's all in the Project for a New American Century.  The neocon program has always been to seize power and rule America -- never to govern it.

    If the General wants to pretend he hasn't read the PNAC documentation or website, that's his game.

    Don't you believe it.

    "The rule of the wise must be absolute . . . rulers ought not to be responsible to the unwise subjects." ~ Professor Leo Strauss

    by antifa on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 01:39:54 AM PDT

  •  Does Clark have a chance? (none / 0)

    Without election system reform and media reform?

    We're already in permanent Republican-control mode and I really wonder whether they will go quietly.

    Look how they came back with a vengence after Nixon's fall.

    P.S. Won't Clark be considered too close to the Clinton crowd?

    Media Reform Action Link http://stopbigmedia.com/

    by LNK on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 02:08:16 AM PDT

  •  Clark event (none / 1)

    Good to see you today.

    The General makes even more sense than he made when we last saw him in the fall. He admitted that, while no timetable was appropriate, perhaps ground forces might have to withdraw sometime soon, depending on the constitutional situation.

    He really seems to have thought out the whole Middle East dynamic pretty well, and presents a compelling vision of that world in the next few years.

    I will blog about the meeting tomorrow, but thanks for what you wrote today.

    SteveAudio.blogspot.com

  •  I'm back wanting (4.00 / 2)

    Clark for President

    Clark/Feingold

    Assassin: Its worse than you know. Malcolm: It usually is. 宁静

    by TalkieToaster on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 03:31:21 AM PDT

  •  Couple of links for ya'... (none / 0)

    "... if you wish to know how libertarians regard the State and any of its acts, simply think of the State as a criminal band..." -- Murray Rothbard

    by bradspangler on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 03:32:47 AM PDT

  •  WES and (none / 0)

    RUSS IN A HEARTBEAT.

    "If you're not outraged, then you are not paying attention"

  •  I'm a broke college student (none / 1)

    but I'm going to save some cash so that I can donate to Clark's '08 campaign as soon as it's official.  

    I first found out about Clark from my roommate, a girl from Tennessee who was both deeply religious and very liberal.  I was skeptical at first since I'd never heard of him (and I think that name recognition + late entry are what got him in the end).  But the first words I said after the '04 election results were, "Wes Clark would've won this thing in a landslide."  He, honestly, is exactly what we need.

    -2.75, -3.90 -- Please don't eat the moderates.

    by iCaroline on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 05:39:06 AM PDT

  •  Democrats and General Clark should act fast (none / 0)

    Considering from what I heard about McCain, Rumsfeld and Chancellor Merkel at the Munich Security Conference, Democrats should be even more aware and eager to recapture the national security issue with all their strength.

    McCain was commended in Munich, as Germans seem to believe that he is "a good guy" as he "defended civility" against Bush with regards to the torture issue. Rumsfeld is executing his what I call charm attack on the "old" European allies, and Chancellor Merkel is "doing her job" to play the seduced one, openly demanding "one should do much more together" and that "NATO must be the place where the political consultations about new conflicts will be conducted". Rumsfeld must be "aroused" about such a nice behaviour of our German Chancellor. Not to forget that it's the US who blocked direct consultations of NATO military leaders with Iranian ones, of course. Merkel plays well so far, acting as the middleman messenger may be.

    McCain though is a dangerous man, he exhaled cold war air in Munich, confronting the Russians and basically telling them the wrong stuff at the wrong time, namely that the dangers today be a Russia, that exports its autocracy. "Russia is neither a democracy, nor a leading economy". Russians clearly reacted stoic and McCain can only be called a snake, IMO. I will never trust McCain. If Lieberman does, he should leave the Democratic Party and become independent.

    Gosh, I hope Merkel is just a good diplomat. I still don't believe that she doesn't see through a Rumsfeld and a McCain. But who knows.

    Anyhow I count on General Clark to speak up. Who would be better suited to recapture the security issues with the Europeans and the NATO and with Russia than General Clark? His involvement is needed and he needs clearly to find a way to debunk McCain's snaky ways to confuse people's minds. I hope he finds ways to speak up, analyze and be heard.

  •  Clark is the man. (none / 1)

    He needs to be on the Democratic ticket, along with Feingold.  I don't care in which order.
  •  Moderate vs. Centrist (4.00 / 2)

    I have a theory and I'm going to borrow the words Moderate and Centrist to talk about it.

    In my view, the word "Moderate" has to do with the speed at which one thinks the country should move toward one's ultimate position.  Therefore, a moderate liberal or a moderate conservative is someone who could be either just off center or completely to one side, but believes in taking baby steps to get there.  The final result in a moderate's perfect world could be either very far left or very far right (depending on whether it was a moderate liberal or moderate conservative).

    The word "Centrist" means near the center.  The final result in a centrist's perfect world is near the center.

    In my opinion, Wes Clark is a moderate liberal.  He's very far left if you just look at his opinions on issues.  But, he wants to take it one step at a time and make course corrections along the way if necessary.  To me, this is the perfect approach for liberals.  He really is a liberal, but his methodical, step at a time approach, his "moderateness," makes him acceptable to a huge fraction of Americans.  

    In fact, take away the fear of change that many liberals tend to bring out in the masses, and I think you'd find that 75% of them really are liberals at heart.  They're just scared of change, and that's a fear that the Republicans take advantage of to no end.

    We will win with a moderate liberal.  We could win with a centrist, but I'd prefer a moderate liberal cause then I know we're moving where we want to go.  (And I actually happen to think we might move FASTER with a moderate because the moderate will face less resistance.)

  •  Outsourced Our Diplomacy... Brilliant (none / 1)

    Outsourced our diplomacy to Europe - whoa that's a good one (and it helps that it's true).

    Wes Clark did not have my confidence in 2004, but he's earning my trust with his consistent message and action in the Democratic party. He may be a very formidable candidate in '08, especially if he keeps talking like this.

    He's right. We NEED to talk about plans from here, but we also MUST talk about how we got here -- that's shining the light on the cockroaches. He's got the right lines. This could get very very good. Can't wait til after 06 elections and he starts getting very public again. It seems like it's gonna be a whole new and improved candidate, a real political leader to match his military creds. And hopefully lesson learned: no swiftboating next time. Damn that makes me raw.

    Texas: Molly Ivins, Ann Richards, Bill Moyers, Barbara Jordan, Lloyd Bentsen, Jim Hightower, Dan Rather, Lady Bird, Sam Rayburn, Willie Nelson, LBJ

    by TX Unmuzzled on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 07:14:01 AM PDT

  •  I Really Like Clark (none / 0)

    He has been my guy since before the last election.

    And part of the reason for that is he seems to be the only Democrat willing to go head to head with scumbag Republicans on National security issues... Don't ask me why that is, Republicans are SO incompetent on this issue that Democrats should be lining up to take shots at them... Americans need to know all the ways in which Republicans have made us LESS safe, then they will have no excuse to pull the lever for any corrupt Republican again.

  •  Wes Clark ... (4.00 / 2)

    ... has the national security and commander-in-chief credentials to gain the trust of the American people in 2008. No other Democratic hopeful has the required national security and commander-in-chief credentials, not Clinton, Feingold, Biden, Warner, Gore, Dean, Vilsack ... or anyone on the Republican side for that matter. Clark is our ace. He can take us to the White House. The only question is whether he can gain the Democratic nomination. Our party does not have the trust of the American people to keep them safe. The party apparachiks have to wake up and realize that we won't win if the public doesn't trust us to keep them safe. I'm hanging around long enough to see if we can muster the wisdom to nominate Wes Clark for President. I sure hope so.
  •  Clark Needs to Get Real (none / 1)

    regarding the real reasons the powers that be do not want Iran to have a nuke:

    1. they are scared to death of Iran in general because they proved themselves strong enough to throw out the U.S. installed puppet Shah of Iran.

    2. they are concerned Iran will nuke Israel, or at least provide a counter measure to the fact Israel has nukes.

    3. (this should be at the top of the list) they are concerned extremists will torch off a nuke in the middle of the main Iraqi and/or Saudi oil fields, thus rendering that oil impossible to obtain for decades.

    imagine the impact to the world economy should such a thing occur.

    "Sanford is a sleaze politician who found his plastic Jesus". Ed Schultz

    by Superpole on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 07:57:28 AM PDT

  •  Hooked on a Feeling! (none / 0)

    You know how you get a feeling when you see a person. Like Bushshit, that smirking mouth and those lying eyes with a wormy backbone.

    Well I get just the opposite feeling with General Clark. He's got titanium backbone with eyes as clear as a sunny day that you want to go on forever and better yet he has the IQ and integrity that you know you could trust in a leader. (And no he didn't pay me to say this haaaaa!) Just my own two cents worth. I think he has an appeal that will woo the masses out of their voo doo evangelical mooney style misconceptions.

  •  About the rattlesnake analogy (none / 0)

    With real life rattlers, the young ones are the worst ones to be bit by.  They dispense their "whole wad" of venom when they strike.  Bigger ones don't.  More dangerous when a very young (small) one bites you.

    Not saying Iraq/Iran are the same regarding rattlesnakes.  Or not.  Just saying it's a flawed metaphor.  Suggest not using it.  In case you have the opportunity to pass along.

    FYI, I have a good opinion of the General, and have no intention of trashing him by saying this.

    Blessed are those who can laugh at themselves, for they shall always be amused.

    by Land of Enchantment on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 08:11:18 AM PDT

  •  Great thread. I love these discussions. (none / 0)

    Enjoyed the give and take. Good to put all that stuff out there now so the myths and misapprehensions can be put to rest and we can get on with taking back Congress (with and without voting reform) and heading for a win in 08. The neocons overreached and are tottering. We shouldn't underestimate them, but they have feet of clay no matter how armored they appear.
  •  We All Forget the Anthrax Terrorist (none / 1)

    I'd add the anthrax terrorist, who is still running around somewhere in the US we'd have to guess.

    What the hell has Bush done about catching the Anthrax Terrorist? He has never vowed to get him, never talks about him, never refers to him. (Is this connected to the last published analysis that showed the anthrax could come only from the US military; that the targets were liberal senators who opposed the patriot act, and "liberal" broadcasters?)

    Show me you can get bin Laden and the anthrax killer if you are serious about getting those who commit terrorism on the US.

    Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

    by Jim P on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 09:05:28 AM PDT

  •  Adapting to the 21st Century (none / 0)

    Thank you for the diary. I am a lot more open to Clark now than I was and I certainly didn't dislike him before. I think that he may be our best bet, especially with a very progressive, domestically-oriented VP.

    I guess my reticence was mostly because I go back to Vietnam days and have a pretty instinctive wariness of military people. It isn't easy for someone who came of political age in the 1960s to get his head around the notion that most of the military and even a lot of the CIA are progressives in today's Washington.

    I know that some probably always were reasonably progressive, but I think that there are a lot more that are that way now -- it is the only thing that we can thank Bush for, he seems to have turned the better part his own military against his party, a very bad move politically.

    We have only just begun and none too soon.

    by global citizen on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 09:32:55 AM PDT

  •  You should see the number Tweety pulled (none / 0)

    on this great man when he interviewed him before the primary. All because at the time, he was the Clinton first choice. And the Mouth Puppet goes after anything Clinton.
  •  Are they building nuclear weapons? (none / 0)

    I have still yet to see the proof.  All I've seen is the same sattelite photos that were used for the Iraq mobile weapons labs, and remember how legitimate those were.

    So far all we know is that they're using nuclear power facilities.  If they are trying to build a bomb, they are far away from completing AND testing it.  And remember they certainly have to test it. these are a lot of ifs.  I'd rather not fight another war on a lot of ifs.

  •  If Clark thinks Bush won in 2004... (none / 1)

    he rashly jumps to unfounded conclusions. People can have different opinions about who won, but noone can know who won, since valid recounts were blocked by the Republicans.

    If you think Bush won that election, you are evidently getting your views on the election from the MSM, which acted as a propaganda machine for BushCo in that election just as much as it did in the run-up to the war.

    If you want to fulfill your obligation as a citizen by making yourself adequately informed about this fundamental issue affecting our society, I suggest you read Won't Get Fooled Again by Mark Crispin Miller.

    Liberalism is the origin and center of American politics. Thus, to reject liberalism is to reject America.

    by Alexander on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 10:40:08 AM PDT

  •  Wrong Approach (none / 0)

    Democrats win on DOMESTIC issues -- healthcare, jobs, trade, education -- not relatively obscure foreign policy issues -- North Korea, Iran, IAEA, etc.  It's impossible to understand why some of you think that is a winning issue.  Tried that in 2004, and lost to the worst president ever.

    West Michigan Rising the blog for progressives building our left coast

    by philgoblue on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 10:56:06 AM PDT

  •  I was there too... (4.00 / 3)

    The Big Dog was there too and it's amazing to me that the same bullshit rumors and attacks and compliments are posted as were during the 2004 primary which ended so long ago.

    Facts ( and merely about Clark himself)
    * I've seldom seen a more dynamic speaker in front of a crowd. He was ill-prepared at best in his campaign but 2 years and more of constant work for Congressional Candidates and the Party has done exactly what you would expect: hone the skills.

    While Edwards was without a doubt the best stump speaker of the 2004 Primaries...now I think Clark would give him a real run for the dollar.

    A person at the WesPac fundraiser, which supports him in his travels, made a point to telling him that while his speech in the afternoon to the large crowd of hundred was passionate in his defense of our freedoms and The Constitution, his TV appearances seem measured and not nearly as passionate and it's the passion that the Party needs from all it's Candidates. He took the comment seriously and suggest he would do his best to add  the passion on his next appearance.

    * He called for the commonsense, but seldom heard, "Country before Party" as a basic theme for our Party and this election. And the crowd, and I'm certain the voters if they heard it, just loved it. It's that kind of selfless patriotism that has been so sorely lacking for so many years.

    Hekebolos will add more details later as we talked about the blogging of this event. I plan to have up the complete Audio of the afternoon speech ASAP in Flash format so there will be no long downloads. I'm waiting for it to be sent to me so I can convert and post at my own site and link here.

    If anyone can listen to that speech and not find a lot to agree with....well I can't imagine that as a reality.

    Do I give a damn about what happened before the last election? *NO

    Do I give a damn that he was poorly served by staff and lack of Political experience and had to drop out of the primary? *NO

    Now, do I care that he is deep, long-term thinker that understands there are NO quick solutions to any of the major problems that face this country? *YES

    • Am I impressed by the differences in the man that inspired me into the very early stages of the Draft movement and then the Primary? Very very much so. This is a different speaker and a person who understands the process much better.

    • Do I think he's the automatic nominee? Nope
    But as was said after his REAL State of the Union speech" 1/30/06 on the Tom Paine site: "He just upleveled the tone and quality Presidential debates."

    Before anyone judges Wes Clark hear the speech. God hopes I have that damn audio up in the next day or so. The fella that had the most professional equipement may not be the guy to reacts the fastest.

    Listen to the speech. Forget the past; then make a reasoned, educated judgment.

    Just a red meat eating Democratic dawg...at PolCampaign

    by BigDog04 on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 11:03:16 AM PDT

  •  Great first hand account at SecuringAmerica.com (none / 0)


    Another great post and read from blogger, ms in la,... is at;

    http://securingamerica.com/...

    ----------------------------------

    Why do rightwing conservative idealogues hate freedom & democracy?

    by Knightrider on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:07:57 PM PDT

  •  I'll Support Clark (none / 1)

    But not for President this time around. He needs to run for another office first ^_^
  • Permalink | 392 comments