Wes Clark Blogging at TPM: Changing course in Iraq requires leadership

Changing course in Iraq requires leadership

After my op-ed "Before It's Too Late" appeared in the Washington Post Friday, I read some of the concerns about the viability of my proposals. I really took those criticisms to heart, and I hope my appearance on NBC's Meet the Press yesterday clarified for you the points I am trying to make.

We all have to realize that this military action in Iraq and Afghanistan is conducted by the White House and Pentagon. There is only so much that we as Democrats can do to have a direct impact on that. But what we can do as citizens from the outside is to keep their feet to the fire on developing and revealing a success strategy, which the President still has not done after more than 2 long years in Iraq.

Some in our party have suggested that we simply "stay the course" in Iraq, while others advocate either immediate troop withdrawal or defining a timeline for reducing troop levels in Iraq. What I believe that I have offered to the national conversation in recent weeks is an entirely different way to succeed.

Not only do I disagree with the premise by which this Administration started the war in Iraq, I also disagree with their current strategy of urging American "resolve" and fighting in Iraq in an open-ended manner. Simply "staying the course" is not an option, and neither is cutting and running. Too much is at stake. There is still time succeed, but the President needs to stand up and admit his mistakes and be willing to do the hard work that is needed to build a stable and peaceful Iraq. He needs to implement to exhaustion a three pronged strategy -- I outlined it in my op-ed, so I won't do it again here -- and work the regional politics to bring about a sustainable solution before the armed and political opposition to our presence in the region crystallizes, and finally justifies, a demand for the return of our troops.

More at:

http://www.tpmcafe.com/section/tableforone

There are already almost 50 comments and questions. Those who have had questions for and about Wes, this is your opportunity to express yourself. And if you have a comment on what he's written, now would be the time to post those, too.

TC

It's not "stay the course," it's get out, but get out without causing future damage to Iraq or future damage to Americans by creating more of a training ground for terrorists to attack innocent Americans.

I don't know why so many here have forgotten the lessons of Afghanistan (and I mean from the 80s, which created the Taliban and al-Qauda because the United States broke its promises).

"After my op-ed "Before It's Too Late" appeared in the Washington Post Friday, I read some of the concerns about the viability of my proposals. I really took those criticisms to heart, and I hope my appearance on NBC's Meet the Press yesterday clarified for you the points I am trying to make."

When was the last time Bush took responsibility for his words or actions, thought about criticism leveled, "took it to heart", and went public to clarify his position?

N E V E R

The fact that Wes cares about what each of us hears, thinks and understands is EXTRAORDINARY. Those are the words and actions of a TRUE LEADER.

TC

I believe that we should be out of Iraq as soon as possible, but to come out, we need to do the work that will promote our interests in the region to the best of our ability. This means setting up an Iraqi state and working with Iraq's neighbors to defuse further conflicts and strife in the region.
If in that process the Iraqi government asks us to stay there for another year or two at a reduced level, it would be hard to say no. But I think our overall interests are best served by removing our forces from Iraq over the longer-term.

I hope this clarifies his stance for those who think he's merely saying to "stay the course," which, of course, isn't what he's saying at all.

He is just a natural leader. Really and truly... right down to his bones. His honesty and intelligence is just amazing.

Where the heck is wT2? Maybe she's over there right now!

TC

Q - "What do you believe are the most effective actions grassroots activists can take to alter this administration's trajectory with Iraq?"

Wes - "I think this public dialog and the work by Cindy Sheehan to get the media to focus on Iraq are very effective.

But in addition, we must protect the men and women in uniform and the armed forces from the fallout of Iraq. And we must never believe that America can truly become "anti-war" because in the conduct of foreign affairs, sometimes military force has to be on the table and used, if only as a last resort. -- Wes"

An actual adult as a leader... what a concept!

TC

I love the fact that he's answering comments too...Do the guest bloggers on TPM usually do that? Too cool, our General is. :)

It's not stay the course nor, naively, pull em out NOW!

I cannot believe this party can't get it together behind common sense and long term vision. And, use the 60% who think Bush is right not to pull troops out (Gallup poll, I think) to build upon constructively....

Bush his holding something like 80% of his base. If we can't see that the correct way which Clark suggests to deal with Iraq can also can capture some of that base, then Democratics are really lame.

I think some would benefit from a direct Q&A session with the General (Welsh Terrier... yoo-hoo! :) )

Interesting comments over there.

I hope all here who have questions and concerns will go over and get some answers.

TC

i posted my question to General Clark on TPM and also below in this thread ...

btw, on TPM, i have the same username ... you can find my post over there by searching on the page for "welshTerrier2" ...

convinced of Clark's abilities to be president, you're still open-minded enough to take a good, long look at his (hoped for, at least by me) candidacy.

:hi:

Thanks for asking your question over there, btw.

i have never made statements about "Clark's ability to be president." my disagreements with General Clark are based on the issues; not on his "ability".

you think is correct.

But, I'm sure you knew what I meant.

What a great place. And I respect General Clark so much, he is thoughtful, intelligent, pragmatic and liberal. :bounce:

However, I'm surprised and amazed why General Clark has not brought up the most important point in all this.

The oil reserves in the caspian sea are being occupied by the United States troops, not the Iraqi people. Why in the world are we taking this "debt" for so called remaking their country?

There is no reason for us to be stealing oil and this fuels insurgency, unrest, and civil war.

I say it again and a thousand times over, get all united states troops out of there who are protecting the oil. Get them home where they belong quickly, and work with the United Nations on directly intervening and promoting an open peace dialogue so Iraq and its opponents can settle their differences.

He's going to be blogging there all week, and he seems to be pretty responsive. You might also find some other post that asks a similar question.

Hello General Clark. I can't thank you enough for participating in this forum. This is exactly the way democracy should work. Those on the national stage have become far too distant from the American people.

In an earlier response, you stated: "I believe that we should be out of Iraq as soon as possible, but to come out, we need to do the work that will promote our interests in the region to the best of our ability. This means setting up an Iraqi state and working with Iraq's neighbors to defuse further conflicts and strife in the region."

The question I have is "What exactly are "our" interests and exactly whose interests are really being served by continued occupation?"

Those who call for a stabilized Iraq presumably do so for several key reasons:

1. it's the right thing to do for the Iraqi people
2. it will promote regional stability
3. it may reduce the risk of terrorism in the US.

All of these are noble objectives. But I don't believe any of these is the genuine objective of Bush and the neo-cons.

The signs have been very clear. First, we saw a veritable parade of justifications for the invasion of Iraq. A leaked memo reported by CBS news the afternoon of 9/11 showed that, after being presented with extensive information about Al Qaeda, Rumsfeld asked whether there was sufficient justification to go after Saddam regardless of whether doing so was "related or not". The Downing Street Minutes also show a propensity to go to war on false premises and "fix the facts around the policy".

So, the question becomes, if we, the American people, support further efforts in Iraq, as you have called for, what assurances are there that the mission is not furthering "inappropriate objectives"?

To be more direct, I want to discuss American imperialism and the foreign policy abuses of America's oil cartel. The oil industry has been realizing record profits since the war in Iraq began. The close ties of the oil industry to the Bush administration are undeniable. Perhaps those on the right might even argue that the acquisition of oil, even through the use of warfare, is in "our interest". But if that is the real reason this war is being prosecuted by this administration, and I believe it is, such issues should be put before the American people for their consent. I, for one, do not approve of such conduct especially where the benefits seem to accrue to commercial interests and not the interests of the American people.

Furthermore, we see disturbing signs of long-term occupation. First, we see the construction of permanent military bases. I don't accept the idea that such structures are needed for the protection of our troops. What evidence is there that our troops need these more permanent installations? Most of those killed or wounded seem to incur their injuries while in transit. The troops should clearly be provided with whatever security is needed but permanent military bases send the wrong signal.

I believe, given the corruption of the Bush administration and their imperialist goals for "big oil", that calling for more occupation does nothing but further their objectives. While the goals you believe in for Iraq could, in the right circumstances, benefit the American people, I don't think they are achievable given the amount of damage already done by this administration to America's image nor are they achievable with an administration that is not committed to "our interest" in the first place.

I would be very interested to hear your comments about American imperialism, big oil, windfall profits taxes, the corrupting of our government by powerful corporate lobbyists, and the whole discussion about who really is being served by our policy in Iraq.

Again, I can't thank you enough for participating with "the little people". I'm confident that these exchanges will result in a more educated populace and more educated leaders for our country.

I've said it before.

That is a great post. I'll keep my fingers crossed that he answers.

Great minds and all that! (See my post at #12)

TC

We'll start the wT2 Fan Club, me and you, TC. :)

Seriously, the public discussion going on right now, by Clark, Gary Hart, and other Democrats, is something this country has needed to be hearing. wT2 shows it can be done thoughtfully and respectfully. Differing opinions do not have to split this party.

I *heart* wT2, and could not agree more! We can be the Clarkie Chapter of the wT2 Fan Club. LOL!

This is a dialogue that this Party needs in order to move forward to the Party we need to be. I only hope all those with real questions in their minds will go voer and ask them (The Caspian Sea Oil question is a good one!). Wes will be there all week, so ASK AWAY!

How often do we get access to a national voice, and are able to ask questions and give comments? This is an extraordinary opportunity to Get to know General Clark and his views on so many things.

TC

I'm joining the C Chapter of wT2.

Will we be "card-carrying" members?

I want the General to answer that question too.

I'm still trying to figure out how one gives three speeches and blogs all in a day.

Good answer:

Here are my thoughts on what America's strategy in the Middle East should be built upon:
(1) We've got to actively participate in resolving the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians

(2) We've got to encourage the engagement by moderate Islam in the ideological struggle within Islam

(3) We've got to use U.S. power (broadly defined, not just military power) as a catalyst for regional cooperation, even with regimes we may not like

We should always try to support our allies and help those countries whose values we share. We do believe that the values of freedom, self-government, and human rights are values which every human being can and should share. And through a variety of means we should be encouraging those values.

But democracy cannot be imposed -- it has to emerge for successful transformation. So there's much work to be done to act on our values, teach them abroad, and encourage the development of social structures which are compatible with those values.


Wes

and blogs all in a day."

I'm convinced... the man never sleeps. He is a human dynamo. I am so jealous of that kind of energy and stamina!

TC

you're much too kind ... see my PM to you ...

someone said that Clark will be doing this all week ... i guess i'll have to keep checking back to see if he posts a reply ...

That is an excellent question, and one many here have asked in one form or another.

wT2, you are a real class act!

TC

i can't thank you enough for your kind words. Everyday, I see the passion you feel for the issues we share and I deeply value your opinion.

if General Clark answers my question, I'll certainly post his response on DU ...

You speak for everyone when you ask Clark those questions, I will go to see when he answers them.

"Passion" is what I have, for sure, but, when you are a woman of a certain age, and feel as strongly as I do about things, it's always hard to tell how you are perceived... LOL!

You are a sweetie to see that passion in such a positive light. I appreciate it. :hug:

TC

I rated it up. I do hope he answers...and I'll join the fan club, too. :)

It's not as complete as you would like, I am sure, wT2. I wish he could have gone into the imperialism and oil part more fully for you.

What I would really like to see is an online debate between wT2 and Wesley Clark. ;)

i have no time right now to respond to General Clark's post in greater detail ... i'm showing a film at my house tonight on the Colombian drug wars and need to take care of some business ...

WesDem is correct that the General did not really address the issue, the central issue, of imperialism to the degree i would have preferred ...

frankly, an honest answer to my question that alleges US imperialism as the root cause for the Iraq invasion would likely have been political suicide ... of course, it would also have been the truth that the American people need to hear ... now there's a paradox for our leaders ... they can't win if they say the truth and they can't help solve the greatest issue facing this country if they do ...

i wonder whether General Clark's statement about oil and energy independence that we should "buy it - rather than having to fight for it" was as close as he dared get to hinting at the truth ... it would truly have been momentous if he had acknowledged that this was indeed the motivation for this insane war ...

be back much later ...

Clark somewhat skirted the question in that he stated that the oil production was a large factor, but didn't contribute to the situation there.

I think he is skirting the issue on purpose. We are USING marines and troops to protect those oil fields and take it out of their fields by the shiploads, and even over to Israel and other countries there.

Why are they sitting there building HUGE bases around their oil fields and production plants? What possible need, what possible motivation?

If you want to stabilize Iraq, general clark, you first have to give the Iraqis back their own oil and resources.....The pipelines blowing up, insurgencies, angry citizens on strike are all due to united states soldiers building bases in their homes and taking away their oil.....

It is time to stop the silly exscuses, IMO, and get our men and women away from their oil foundaries. The war will get alot tamer and thus troops WILL be able to come home....But will our economic interests come home with it.....Harder to answer...

He thinks we should pledge to the world that we have no intention of maintaining long term military bases in Iraq. We will leave when a sovereign Iraq government asks us to and/or when the situation is stable enough for us to withdraw our forces and let Iraq manage its own security issues. That would include leaving any bases around the Oil fields.

Is Clark saying that the US won't militarily intervene when our "vital interests" are threatened by the inevitable self-rule movement in five or ten years? Or is he just saying we won't have bases there?

views and listen to others via TMP!

Because unfortunately, the majority of the mainstream pundit class has no vision whatsoever in encouraging such a discussion....even a certain Arianna Huffington.

Could someone please give this woman a clue!

My op in reference to her confusion as it relates to Wes Clark.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2044169

You know the perfect world full of perfect people everyone dreams of. I mean really. How can you even begin to argue with that ideology? But we did that anyway. Didn't we? We Scraped his entire project and Political Party. Didn't we? We then formed the United Nations as our vehicle to spread peace and democracy to the world in accordance to our Constitution. Didn't we?

to set up a stable Europe in which all the countries in the region had a stake in maintaining the stabiliy and in which there were institutions for the working out of differences that protected everyone's sovereignty and avoided recourse to military conflict.

Overall I think it's been pretty successful.

The problem is we're trying to get HITLER to do it!

I have my own question, but will wait till others have a chance to get their answers.

Wes Clark understands Grassroots and our power, that's for sure! Those are some tough questions being asked of him.....for the entire week! I think it's great!

This was an elective war, with little justification

he has been out of the military for 10 years.

Besides, he's make a better President. :)

TC

I would suppose that the 10 years is to insulate the civilian ledership from the possibility of a military coup d'etat. Good idea but very ironic. I take it you do not disagree with the sentiment, just the choice of individual.

Yes, Clark will be a great President. Smart people are always better. But any idiot can be President, as is so painfully the case at the present. Replacing Rummy (my mission in life right now) will require someone with outstanding mettle if it is to accomplish anything in the end.

Someone heroic and trustworthy. Any ideas?

(Can't get Paul Wellstone out of my mind - snif)

"Status Quo" is Latin for "Same old shit." Same old shit that didn't work in the first damned place. "Stay the course"..when the "course" is a one way trip to hell. What "leadership" our country has. I wouldn't follow that leadership across the damned street. Hey *, if it doesn't work, doing more of it is INSANE.

"Change the course, NOW! or get out!"

While I like and admire Kerry, I know that Wesley Clark would never have let that little draft dodging chickenhawk chimperor swift boat him!!
No F'n way about it.
We'd have a whole world of allies in Iraq cleaning up Bush's mess, haliburton and cheney would be up on charges relating to the no bid rigging, Iraq wouldn't be turning into a subsidiary of Iran, and our soldiers would be taken care of.....

Damn that would have been the deal.

I'm amazed how politically correct almost everyone is in 100+ posts. Here we have an opportunity to actually communicate with a political hopeful for the '08 election and we feed the same softly cushioned, politically correct words back that we scream about on other boards. Maybe having been around famous people in my life has removed that blinding luster that dazzles many because no matter what our position in life we're still all people.

I do thank you for your service to our country General Clark and I thank Josh Marshall for making this discussion possible.

I'd like everyone to reflect for a minute about why Cindy Sheehan has had such a great impact and why we admired Paul Hackett in his Ohio race. Both have struck a chord in millions of Americans because they speak truth to power and to the American people and do so passionately. This is what we're looking for in leadership. Dean has it as well and it scared the opposition so much they had to neutralize him.

First, in regard to the question at hand. You answered it General Clark when you closed your WashPo oped with

"If the Administration won't adopt a winning strategy, then the American people will be justified in demanding that the Administration bring our troops home."

One of the lies fed to us is that this administration has a "winning strategy" of stabiliizing Iraq. The goal is instability which is to be reached with our continued presence in Iraq. That's why we need all those permanent bases. (General, you can't be serious to suggest that a base the size of Sacremento isn't designed to be permanent.) You infer otherwise, which makes me question your grasp on what's going on. I'm sure you've read the stated goals of the neocons running this trainwreck in the Project for A New American Century. The next target is Iran after another 9/11 type attack and it won't matter who's responsible because the war plans are ready. So yes, demand that the troops come home, appeal to the UN and NATO to take the leadership role for Iraq to establish a federation of states in Iraq that shares the oil wealth equally.

In the meantime privatization of SS will be back on the table this fall with some covert plans on how to get it into legislation - a similar tactic as the Medicare Rx bill. These traitors are bent on destroying the New Deal, labor unions, and the UN - to mention only a few. Everyone watching the outsourcing of America and the prices at the pumps, and disappearing health care and pension plans understands this.

So let's get back to leadership. I'm going to be candid with you. In the '04 primaries you lacked the passion and the communicative skills, which led me to vote for Edwards in the primaries. He was passionate and wasn't controlled by the corporations, but he needed to broaden his vision. I then supported Kerry totally only to be disappointed at his total lack of calling Bush out in the debates when the opportunity was in his hands. He always stopped short, making me uncertain if he really wanted this presidency. His campaign was inept making me question his leadership ability. He folded his cards immediately making me question his judgement.

I like your ideas generally. I know you must have courage. I bet that when you're talking privately about your country and what you see happening that you're passionate and honest about your thoughts, ideas, and feelings. Bring this to the public. While you're communicating better intellectually, you really need to work on the other - a sense of conviction and truth.

When you're out there in your public appearances this is what we're looking for in a leader. We're out here, passionate and caring deeply about our country, our troops, our future. We've all contributed money we couldn't afford, but did without to help save our country. Only to be disappointed. Only to start feeling that we now are being exploited with request upon request for every cause and every organization. And yet - we still don't have a leader who tells the truth. Without Conyers, the Black Coalition and Boxer we'd be totally discouraged.

We are hungry for a leader and all we find is the same pablum coming from both sides. The right starts screaming about a truth that's been said and like Durbin they all fold and apologize.

If you want to be that leader, then damn take a lesson from Cindy Sheehan and Paul Hackett. Speak from the heart, speak with passion and resolve, speak the truth. Call for a congressional investigation on this administration. Last I looked high crimes and misdemeaners were still impeachable and in our Constitution.

When those in our administration have their first allegiance to the national security of Israel and jeopardize the national security of the United States, it's treason. Notice how the neocons cry out anti-semitism whenever it comes up (which it does on C-Span), totally overreacting to logical questions - all designed to strike fear into any dissenter of being politically incorrect. There's a major difference between the Jewish religion and the state of Israel.

At the heart of the investigation are two people who work at The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a powerful pro-Israel lobby in Washington. The FBI investigation, headed up by Dave Szady, has involved wiretaps, undercover surveillance and photography that CBS News was told document the passing of classified information from the mole, to the men at AIPAC, and on to the Israelis.

CBS sources say that last year the suspected spy, described as a trusted analyst at the Pentagon, turned over a presidential directive on U.S. policy toward Iran while it was, "in the draft phase when U.S. policy-makers were still debating the policy." This put the Israelis, according to one source, "inside the decision-making loop" so they could "try to influence the outcome."

Those not on the neocon bandwagon are war profiteers who are stealing money from the Iraqi and the American people.

I think treason is evident and the next move should be impeachment and any other legal remedy available to right the wrongs.

The immediate goal to any solution in Iraq is regaining seats in Congress by insisting on transparency in our election process. The rest will follow. We need leadership to reach that goal. Are you ready to put yourself on the line to be that leader?

so i didnt see your post

interesting to see the similarities that you and i write about in regards to general clark

It's nice to know I'm not the only one yearning for real leader. What I didn't say in my post over there was that I don't think he can put it there. It's something that's either there or isn't. Which is the other quality that both Cindy and Paul Hackett have - they're both natural.

i am in agreement with poster "pw" on the tpm blog

it has been an issue for me - if i might push the military aspect aside - that general clark does not speak in the forceful language that i would love from a democratic leader
so ultimately i dont find myself supporting everything he is saying
like welsh terrier i am seeking and open but i am also not feeling in agreement with general clarks positions

i trust general clarks word (and he is one of the few aside from john conyers and maybe barbara boxer)
i believe he is a giving loving intelligent sincere man and is very needed in this national dialogue we are having/trying to have about this heinous war
and he is saying a whole lot more than basically anyone else though that bar is set quite low by current democratic representatives

he really stands out and im glad he is on the side of caring and sanity - thats a great and admirable start esp for someone who wants to be involved in politics
but there is something - again putting aside his military background because i am so against war - that doesnt engage my full support

* first i want someone who will publicly proclaim that national voting is in shambles and needs serious immediate reforms and that we will not abide a repeat of 2000 or 2004

- i want the fierceness and determination of cindy sheehan
- i want the pointed talk of al sharpton (howard dean shows this also)
- i want the the courage to do whats right of john conyers
- i want the love for our earth of robert kennedy junior
- i want someone to fight against corporate/lobbyists rule that permeates our government and decides how and where money is spent
- i want someone to care enough about the impoverished and homeless that they will actually sincerely try to do something about it

and while im at it i want someone to very publicly recognize that indians land and their heritage and their resources were trampled and stolen and it continues to this day and that it matters to try to restore any of what was taken from them
and the absolute same for african americans (i only put them second because im going chronologically here)

and i want someone anyone to hold this cabal truly accountable and not mince words
not someone who pushes aside what bush has done as old news or "well since were there we have to succeed"
there is absolutely no such thing as "success" in vietraq and there never was and never should have been
it isnt even enough to call it a massive epic tragedy
i want them all jailed as war(ring) criminals who have been allowed and encouraged to get away with devastating thievery and murder

and thats just a start

sorry to get off on that roll
i was talking about general clark and was describing what i want

on edit: i feel that general clark does support many of the issues i raise here (environment and minority rights etc)
i was just summarizing what i want in a leader and mixed that in with my points about general clark
thank you to clarkie1 for bringing this to my attention

And I suspect they will again in 08'.

It is true that Clark is not talking about issues such as the environment, health care, education, etc., as much as he did in the campaign. Right now, his energy is focused not on running a national campaign embracing all those issues, but offering a critique of the current administration's foreign policy.

I know that Clark cares about these issues that concern you, and if he runs again I am sure you will hear him speaking up more about them. It is just that now the majority of his time and energy is (appropriately, I believe) focused on pointing out the administrations failures and how we can better deal with the present situation in Iraq we are tangled up in.

i do believe that general clark supports these issues and that was my mistake not to say that outright
i hope i can edit that

this was me speaking out about what i want and i should have been clear and said i wasnt pointing those fingers at general clark
it was just my summary

thanks for talking to me~~

and there are several reasons that add up as to why...some are small, and some are larger, but they all add up--

"The Confederate flag flies in the face of our most deeply-held American values - diversity, equality and inclusion. I believe that the only flag we should fly is the one that brings us together - the stars and stripes - and that the Confederate flag should never, ever be flown on public buildings. Democrats should all condemn the Confederate Flag--Wes Clark
http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1507782

The fact that Wes Clark wrote and signed the Amicus Brief supporting Affirmative Action in the U of Michigan case, and speaks openly about his support for it often.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2004-01-05-clark-women_x.htm
http://www.clark04.com/articles/010/

Named African-Americans to top spots in his campaign (Charlie Rangel, Andrew Young and Jamaal--his spokesperson, as well as others)
http://clark04.com/press/release/138/
http://wesleyclark.h1.ru/endorsers.htm
http://www.clark04.com/africanamericans/endorsements.html
http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/topstories_story_345071545.html

Promoted Black officers consistently in great numbers during his 34 years of service as an officer.

Wes Clark's Statement on DC Voting Rights and Home Rule
"It is fundamentally unfair that the citizens of our nation's capital have no vote in Congress. Equal and meaningful representation is what inspired our fight for national independence. Taxation without representation was unacceptable to Americans two hundred years ago. It is just as unacceptable today."--Wes Clark
http://clark04.com/press/release/110 /

Was the only high ranking officer who made major noise about what was happening in Rwanda at the time that it was happening, http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795
http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/001104.html

Has written extensively on subjects such as Aid relief and has been consistent in his efforts to bring the issue of Darfur to the table.
http://securingamerica.com/articles/npr/2005-08-22
http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=2848&l=1
http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=1139&l=1
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/4018.html
http://www.eamedia.org/2005/nr05/01.php
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2003/12/3/182120/311 (Aids)

Native Americans supported Wes clark in "droves",which is why he came in 2nd to Kerry in New Mexico, Arizona, South Dakota, and first in Oklahoma.
The largest Native American Publication, The Native American Times endorsed him--
http://www.nativetimes.com/index.asp?http://www.indianz.com/News/archive/001201.asp
http://www.indianz.com/News/archives/003225.asp
action=displayarticle&article_id=3613
http://clark04.com/story/66/

As so did The GLBT community
http://www.gaycitynews.com/gcn_249/equalrights.html
http://www.aegis.com/news/wb/2004/WB040109.html
http://www.clark04.com/glbt/blade_interview.html
http://www.clark04.com/glbt/planetout.html

as well as the Hispanic Community
http://www.puertorico-herald.org/issues/2003/vol7n43/ClarkEarly-en.shtml
http://www.puertorico-herald.org/issues/2004/vol8n05/Poll0805-en.shtml
http://clark04.com/es/story/Ortiz/
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/clark/articles/2004/02/02/clark_says_hes_the_hombre_to_beat_bush/

I could go on and on.....But I won't.

(edited to remove "dead" links--Shit!)

Anyone can ask him a question or make a suggestion or a comment.

I feel strongly that Wes has the answers to anything you can ask him, and if he doesn't -- I know this for a fact -- he will have no problem saying he doesn't know, and he will find out.

Also, he is compassionate and strong. He realizes the awful divisions the Bush presidency has made, not only in this country, but also in this Party. He is out to bridge and mend those divides. And, being the realist that I know him to be, I don't think he would rather questioners be polite, as much as have them be "open" and willing to "hear" what he has to say.

Wes is a uniter. And, I disagree with a post upthread, I also feel he is a natural leader. At least, that's how I see him. He was endorsed by a huge array of groups and individuals that had nothing to do with his miltary side. He has an advanced degree in Economics, he has filed Amicus briefs for civil rights cases, he has a special interest in alternative energy sources... he's so much more than "just" a retired General. If you want him to talk about things other than Iraq or the military, go over to TPM Table for One, and ASK HIM YOUR QUESTION. Don't just complain that hhe's not talking about other issues -- he's answering the questions in front of him!

Go there now:

http://www.tpmcafe.com/section/tableforone


TC

and the post i refer to on the tpm blog

i try to make it clear that my issues with general clark are not everything that i have listed as my wants in a leader

he stands for some wonderful things
but i do feel something not in alignment with him perhaps starting with his words about the military and the war
im anti war so thats part of it but beyond that i have tried to explain that in the above threads

sorryif i have not made my points clear
i have been glued to the hurricane coverage on this board and perhaps am not clear enough in what i need or want to say right now so i will leave it there

But the thing is, the entire Democratic world is talking about this right now, this week. It's a huge issue and it's on the table. The war, whether to stay or go, or do it a way in between the two, is a public discussion this country is ready to have, and not a moment too soon. His words relate specifically to the Op-Ed he had on Friday in the Washington Post, which was the subject of the first day's blog. Today he's talking about the GI Bill of Rights, which is desparately needed for military families. But the rest of the week, he's said he will be talking about domestic issues. It's kind of a discussion series. He's blogging from the Midwest, so I think he will probably blog on issues affecting Americans there, and there is no escape from war there, either, but he specifically mentioned jobs and workers. I'm hoping for a day on Darfur, myself, but the problem is he has so much to say on so many things, I guess it's hard to get everything in there. It's great that TPM is giving him the opportunity, though, really great.

We all know you're a good person and good will is what matters. Your opinions are your own and they are respected. Everybody's entitled to criticize Gen. Clark, as long as it's honest criticism and not lowdown smearing, and you're not in that category.

Those who are, look out!!

I always appreciate thoughtfulness and respectfulness whenever it is shown. I couldn't agree more.

TC

i appreciate your post here

thank you for your caring and for wanting the changes our government and nation desperately needs

take good care

again i want to say thank you
i do believe general clark is an exceptional man

and the point you make is right on
we have to have this discussion - its way past time

its an ugly horrific situation that desperately needs leadership and as i hope i said in one of my posts i am so grateful for wes
he is actually trying quite hard to get this dialogue going and truly beyond that get something moving to end this nightmare

we need him and owe him a great deal

thank you friend i appreciate your words very much
and i do look forward to this movement that wes is an integral part of

faithnotgreed :hug:

I appreciate that. Your posts were very respectful, too. I can feel what you want and how badly you want it.

I, too have always been "anti-war". I was a hippy-dippy peacenik back in the 60's and 70's. But, now I prefer to think of myself as "Pro-Peace". In this dangerous, post-9/11 world, it would be terribly naive to think that if we ignore war and just don't pick fights with other countries, there will be peace. I think we need to do as Wes says -- talk to EVERYONE first -- and only when everything else is exhausted, only as a last resort, with every chance given to peace, would we ever fight another war.

Wes is a man of quite strength. I often see him as a real-life Atticus Finch. When he is roused, you'll know it, but he also know that to walk softly, yet carry a big stick, is the way to get the most people to listen.

TC

Hey, sister :hi:

:hi:

TC

:kick:

GO ASK WES YOUR QUESTIONS!

TC

:kick:

GO ASK HIM YOUR QUESTIONS!

TC

...Mere alcohol doesn't thrill me at all,
So tell me why should it be true,
That I get a :kick: out of you?"

-- Cole Porter

TC

I am so very, very, very happy to see you happy. :pals:

:hi:

Two entries in one day! I'm amazed he's able to blog so much, answer online questions/comments and still have time to run around all of Wisconsin today. I don't think any of the other TPMCafe guest-bloggers even bother to answer questions, much less try doing it while carrying a hectic schedule.

to good government.

As he has previously stated, he believes that this country was founded as a "liberal democracy" based on principles of the Enlightenment that emphasize rational discourse as a way of confronting conflict and difference.

He even found time to fit in a little radio interview this morning.

I don't believe the other guest bloggers did respond to comments.

Amazing, isn't it? A leader who actually wants to hear what we have to say....

At the risk of annoying those who can't stand the support the General has, I have to say, he's just so good, isn't he? I'm very proud to be a supporter....even if it means being called a "Clark sucking idiot" or whatever that oh so respectful term was.....

I think we should take it for our sigs :7

I don't get it.

Someone, a supporter of the man whom both the General and myself worked very hard to get elected this fall, frustrated I guess by the continuing support Gen Clark still has, referred to us Clark enthusiasts as "Clark sucking idiots" on a thread not too long ago...Nice, right? Oh well...

I do get tired of being called names like this.

But I was fooling around about the sig :)

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/219

There is a video of the speech, as well....

Hell Yeah! I'm feeling better already!

I was sittin' watching and clapping! That man was on fire!

Made me feel like being a Democrat was the best thing there is!

I feel like dancing!

"The difference between Democrats and Republicans can be compared with the movie, Wall Street! ...

They believe that Greed is Good; whereas, ...
We believe in the Common Good!!!

We're the Party of the Future and ...

We're the Party of Leadership that this Country needs!- WKC

Hot Damn! :smoke:

along comes WKC to make me proud... and ready fight again.

says:

Go post!

Today I carried my laptop to the general store and read TPM with all the vets. I somehow don't think these were Josh Marshall usual readers. Hey, but who knows? Anyway, they all agreed with the General.

And that... is just the sort of thing a Clark sucking idiot would do.

Hehe...Clark sucking idiot vets...I love it!

Um, I'll take two.

:hide:

only one general store per family ...

Bernie Quigley at The Free Liberal.....

I remember first of all Wesley Clark’s silvery-grey hair and his great smile, almost ear to ear when he is among friends, as he was in Little Rock, standing at a podium and addressing a small group who had come out to hear him announce that he would be running for President of the United States. It is the smile of a man with a certain Southern innocence – a man seemingly incapable of duplicity; or at least incapable of intending to be duplicitous – a smile unbeknownst to us northernmost New Englanders who have to think before we smile. It is a smile that is an honest and spontaneous reaction to life that is characteristic of many Southerners. But behind the Southern General could be seen the strong, classical lines in the distinctively handsome Semitic face that came from his Chicago father. Somehow, right away, I was reminded of Anwar Sadat, who had the same innocence and fundamental joy of being, and instinctively bolted to soldier’s attention without a moment’s hesitation to receive the bullet in the chest that would take his life, with complete and solemn acceptance. Wes Clark would be a man like that. But that a man of such simple faith and honest patriotism could gain the Democratic nomination was a reach.

(snip)

Today, most Democrats are characteristically ambiguous about the situation in Iraq and in the Middle East, although John Edwards, through his wife Elizabeth, seems to be edging toward opposition and pulling out. Likewise, there is a movement among Republicans to cut and run.
Not so with Wes Clark. Recently he has been appearing on Sunday talk shows and has posted an op-ed in The Washington Post, expressing his position very clearly.

(snip)

General Clark, as he has shown in Vietnam and Kosovo, is nothing if not tenacious. And the issues he presents will not go away. His reemergence in the press may be a sign that we are beginning to face the mess we created when more than 75% of voters in our country approved of this mind-boggling fiasco in Iraq. It has been my feeling from the beginning that when we are ready to face the music we will turn to Wesley Clark.

http://www.freeliberal.com/archives/001362.html

incredibly difficult situation that Bush & Cheney have created. It is obvious that they are as lacking in military know-how as they are lacking in the moral capacity to do anything that benefits the USA -- much less Iraq and the rest of the world.

I still believe that it is important to have a strong anti-war movement that says "Get Out Today!" This movement needs to put pressure on the House and Senate, and to increase the size of the non-violent protests across the country.

In doing so, we will not close the door on Wes Clark -- quite the opposite, it helps to open it up. Many of us realize that the path from the Bush insanity, to the withdrawal of US troops, will almost certainly have to follow Wes Clark's lead.

"Clark's Consistecy"
By Ed Kilgore | TPMCafe

In and beyond General Wesley Clark's Table for One posts, he's showing a really admirable consistency in his national security views, and his particular take on Iraq.

It's well known that Clark opposed the invasion of Iraq on national security grounds, but it's sometimes forgotten that he, like many other war opponents (including Howard Dean) took the position that the U.S. could not afford to lose the post-invasion struggle to make a post-Saddam Iraq stable and semi-democratic.

Now that the Bush administration has gone the extra mile to screw up Iraq, Democrats are understandably under a lot of pressure to simply call for a quick withdrawal. Clark, who's emerged as the Democratic blogosphere's early front-runner for the 2008 presidential nomination, has no particular political incentive to dissent from the "fixed timetable" trend, but he did so very conspicuously in a Washington Post op-ed last week.

His own proposals for Iraq hit a lot of important points: the need to use some diplomatic muscle to keep "foreign fighters" out of Iraq; the demand for a truly robust, and Iraqi-directed, reconstruction effort; the wise injunction to engage non-Iraqi Sunnis from around the region and the world to work with Sunnis on the ground; the urgent necessity of making American military power a temporary help-meet rather than an imperial presence. And Clark hit exactly the right moral note in scoring the administration's unwillingness to call on other Americans to sacrifice for an Iraq engagement that is now taking American lives, jeopardizing American security, and eroding American influence around the world.

These are pretty much the same themes Clark hit in his 2004 campaign. At a time when some Democrats are being told they have to publicly recant every positive statement they ever made about the war, while others are still trying to change the subject to domestic issues, the General's consistent unwillingness to follow the path of least resistance is welcome.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/8/30/212343/967

TC

in so many words. And nothing is going to change until we get some.

Is Clark available?:)

along with Bill Maher:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4534849

TC

Excerpt (Classic Wes Clark!):

Strong families make for strong communities -- we know this. To
keep our communities strong we need to strengthen the family by
providing equal opportunity for success through education, job
creation, and a livable wage. How can we move forward as a nation
if we leave so many of our families behind? We can't. How can we as
a people claim to hold our values so dear when we look into the eyes
of a hungry child, or see a farmer who works 15-hour days and can't
get by, or meet a woman raising her children on minimum wage?
Don't we owe it to ourselves to be all that we can be as a people of
faith? To reach out and offer hope and opportunity to the least
among us? To preach peace and prosperity and to live equality
and justice?

This is called the heartland, here in Iowa. There's a lot of heart here
and across our great nation. We cannot be afraid to embrace our faith
and our ideals. Not now -- not here -- not anywhere -- not ever.

Entire blog:

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/8/31/122436/786

Leave a comment or ask him a question while you're there!

TC

There's this quality to this week's entries of someone just logging on and having his say. Also, he's been reading the continuing posts, not just out of curiosity to see people's responses, but to participate in an on-going conversation. He "gets" it.

On that early Maher program, WKC spoke of liberalism and democracy's demand for debate and dialog. That is a theme he has returned to in various ways again, and again. He sees the blogs and forums as a fulfillment of that Jeffersonian concept.

Politicians have turned to the web for many reasons, some just because it's hip and their media specialist think it is the "thing" to do. But Wes is responding to this, our chosen medium, because he believes that the exchange of ideas and information is crucial for a healthy democracy. I think that Jefferson would be blogging if he were around today.

I need to return to read the Iowa thread, which earlier today including posts from someone who condemned the OP, because it didn't talk about Iraq. Well, guess what? The Iraq post from earlier this week is still up, and can still be commented on, so what's the beef? Obviously the person knew enough about the net to understand the word "post," so he/she also knows that the Iraq conversation is alive and well. Some folks will go to great lengths to bitch, even to the point of ignorance.

"Many Iowans have been talking to me about red states and blue states, which is understandable since the mainstream media and political pundits have drilled these terms into our heads. To my mind, however, when I look out over this land and visit with people here, I cannot help but be reminded that we have much more in common with each other than we have differences."

The very first reply by poster KevStar was very exceptionally insightful:

"I'd like to contrast what you said here:

'This is called the heartland, here in Iowa. There's a lot of heart here and across our great nation.'

which is a pretty inclusive and non-controversial statement, with something Dick Cheney said during the campaign:

'I just think the values in the middle of the country are superior to the values of Massachusetts.'"

The Republicans win by dividing America, and that's their greatest weakness. Clark gets that, and he's the best leader we at the present to exploit that weakness.

"on the Majority Report with Sam Seder in the 9 o'clock hour...ET"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2049090

TC

Goodness, he's a busy man these days!

when Sally is through faking an orgasm in a crowded restaurant, a woman turns to her waiter and says, "I'll have what she's having."

I feel that way about Wes's boundless energy. If I had even a miniscule percentage of the wattage he puts out, I would be so happy.

Speeches, fundraisers, all-day blogging, tours of states, conference calls, radio interviews... it's unending! When on earth does the man sleep?

I am so jealous. I'll have what he's having, thank you! LOL!

TC

Doesn't seem like Retired is in his vocabulary.

Inquiring minds want to know!

http://securingamerica.com/node/203
Snip>General Clark will be attending the Ambrosetti Forum in Northern Italy. Since 1975, during the first week of September, Ambrosetti has been running a Forum called "Business strategies: the scenario for today and tomorrow" at Villa d'Este in Cernobbio. Heads of state, top representatives of European institutions, ministers in office, Nobel laureates, and experts from around the world come together every year to discuss the issues of greatest impact for the global economy and society as a whole.<snip
Sounds interesting.

to discuss the issues of greatest impact for the global economy and society as a whole."

"Global society", "economy"... And, some people think that he only has military knowledge and expertise. :)

TC

Like you, I have been moved by the images coming out of the Gulf Coast in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. This terrible disaster affects all of us as Americans, no matter where we live, regardless of whether or not we actually know someone who suffered directly. I've seen it everywhere I've been this week -- in Washington, DC, in New York, in Arkansas, in Wisconsin, and in Iowa. People everywhere are talking about it, worrying about it, and wondering how best they can help.

It's times like these when our true spirit as Americans is most apparent. The first response that we all have is, "How can I help?" And that reaction is just one of the things that makes our country so special. Despite our many political, personal, and religious differences, were all united as Americans, looking out for our fellow citizens in their time of greatest need.

Our friends and neighbors in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, and throughout the South are in our thoughts and prayers. I urge you to help in whatever way you can, by contributing to the *Red Cross, the *Salvation Army, and many other **worthy charitable organizations who are on the frontlines of this disaster, bringing needed relief and supplies to this devastated area. And if you can help more locally, through your church or other organizations, now is the time to do it.

Let's all do whatever we can to help our neighbors across the Gulf Coast during this devastating time.

* Links given
** Many links given

More at:

http://www.tpmcafe.com/section/tableforone

There are already almost 40 comments and questions. Those who have had questions for and about Wes, this is your opportunity to express yourself. And if you have a comment on what he's written, now would be the time to post those, too.

TC