Clark's Iraq Policy recommendations: "Before it's too Late"

I have noted over the past week or so that there seems to be some confusion on DU as to Clark's stance re: Iraq.

Clark's stand has been consistent for some time: If the Bush administration does not change course, the American people WILL be justified in demanding that the troops be brought home. The question is, when is it too late? Now, there are a lot of people out there trying to pit Democrats who think it's too late against Democrats who think it's not to late in Iraq. For example, recently on FOX news Sean Hannity repeatedly and rudely kept pestering Clark to denounce John Murtha's proposal. Clark correctly redirected the topic back to the essential fact that 57% of the American people believe believe the U.S. should never have gone into Iraq when he said "I'll tell you who is with John Murtha, 57% of the American people are with John Murtha." All Democrats agree this war was a mistake we need to get out of Iraq a.s.a.p. without causing a regional conflict. The Republican leadership wants to "stay the course" with no clear strategy or endgame. We Democrats, however, are UNITED against this war, the only question is how to best extricate ourselves from it without even more shit hitting the fan in an already dangerously volatile Middle East.

And the greatest tragedy is of course the thick-headedness of the Bush administration. Unlike true leaders, they have consistently and persistently turned a deaf ear to all constructive criticism of their "stay the course," policy. However, they finally seem to be getting the message that this war is hurting them politically...because finally it is. They have lost majority support.

What we must hope is that under this pressure the Bush administration somehow finds a smidgen of leadership, and withdraws from Iraq in a way best serving the the interests of Iraq, the wider Middle East, and by extension the national security interests of the U.S. and the rest of the world. We have to be thinking in broader terms than how best to decrease the likelihood of civil war in Iraq, we have to be thinking about how best to decrease the likelihood of unrest in Iraq leading to a regional conflagration.

Dems are putting out different proposals on how best to deal with Iraq, and all are worthwhile because they put more pressure on the Bush administration to change course, and all the plans have merit to a greater or lesser degree depending upon our own personal opinions. However, it is essential to remember that none of us can control what the Bush administration does. In the end, they will follow their own plan (or lack thereof). We can only hope to have influence, because staying the course is the worst option all. And we all agree that if it's not to late already, it will be soon unless the course changes.

OP-ED: Before It's Too Late in Iraq
Reprinted with permission.
By Gen. (ret.) Wesley Clark
Washington Post
Unabridged Version

August 26, 2005

<snip>

With each passing month other intervening factors compound the difficulties and probably reduce the chances for the mission in Iraq to succeed. The election of an Iranian hardliner makes dialogue with Iran more difficult. Ineffective dealings with Syria probably reduces Assad's leverage in controlling jihadist infiltration into Iraq. Fractionating forces within Iraq have grown stronger, and Iraq's economic infrastructure more fragile. Iraqi patience is wearing thin amidst the continuing violence and hardship in Baghdad. And the apparently growing flow of jihadists in and out of Iraq not only testifies to an increasingly sophisticated insurgency but also a new source of training journeymen to fight against us in the global war on terror. SO URGENT MODIFICATION OF THE STRATEGY IS REQUIRED, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE TO DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN WITHDRAW.

Adding a diplomatic track to the strategy is a must. The US should form a standing conference of Iraq's neighbors, complete with committees dealing with all the regional economic and political issues, including trade, travel, cross-border infrastructure projects, and, of course, cutting off the infiltration of jihadists. Iraq's neighbors should be asked to assist. This will also provide a better opportunity for meaningful back-door discussions of Iran's nuclear program, Syria's interests in Lebanon, and Turkish interaction with the Kurds in Iraq. The US should tone down its raw rhetoric for US-style democracy as an answer to all problems and instead listen more carefully to the many voices within the region. A PUBLIC DECLARATION FORSWEARING PERMANENT BASES IN IRAQ WOULD ALSO BE HELPFUL IN ENGAGING BOTH REGIONAL AND IRAQI SUPPORT AT THIS POINT.

On the political side, the timeline for the agreements on the Constitution are less important than the substance. It is up to American leadership to help engineer a compromise that will avoid the "red lines" of the respective factions and leave in place a state that both we and the neighbors can support. So, no Kurdish vote on independence; a restricted role for Islam, and limited autonomy in the south. And no private militias.

In addition, the US needs a legal mandate from the government to provide additional civil assistance and advice - along with additional US civilian personnel aimed at strengthening the institutions of government. Three month in-country tours should be replaced by a minimum two year stay for civilian advisors and technical experts. Key ministries must be reinforced, provincial governments made functional, a system of justice trained and established, and the rule of law promoted at the local levels. With the majority of Iraqis having known no other leader than Saddam Hussein, there will be a continuing need for assistance in institutional development, leadership training, and international monitoring for years to come, and all of this must be made palatable to Iraqi sovereignty. Hand-in-glove are the requirements for infrastructure repair, job creation, and economic development without which no government will be safe from an insurgent force. Monies promised for reconstruction simply must be committed and projects moved forward, especially in those areas along the border and where the insurgency has the greatest potential..

On the military side, the vast effort underway to train an Army must be matched by efforts to train police and local justices. Countries as far away as Canada, France and Germany should be engaged to assist. Gulf states should also provide observers and technical assistance. In military terms, striking at insurgents is necessary but insufficient – instead, military and security operations must return primarily to the tried and true methods of counterinsurgency – winning the hearts and minds of the populace through civic action, small scale economic development, and positive daily interactions. Ten thousand Arab Americans with full language proficiency should be recruited to assist as interpreters. A more successful effort must be made to control jihadist infiltration into the country by a combination of outposts, patrols, and reaction forces reinforced by high technology means. OVER TIME, AMERICAN FORCES SHOULD BE PULLED BACK INTO RESERVE ROLES AND PHASED OUT.

The growing chorus of voices demanding a pull-out should seriously alarm the Bush Administration. For President Bush and his team are repeating the failure of Vietnam – failing to craft a realistic and effective policy, and in its place, simply demanding that the American people show resolve. Resolve alone isn't enough to mend a flawed approach. IF THE AMERICAN ADMINISTRATION WON'T ADOPT A WINNING STRATEGY, THEN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL BE JUSTIFIED IN DEMANDING THAT THE ADMINISTRATION BRING OUR TROOPS HOME.

http://securingamerica.com/articles/wapo/2005-08-26

very cogent of you!

Glad to see that many Dems have many plans for Iraq! and I am proud to say that Wes kinda of got the ball rolling, whether any one will remember this or not......at least the administration is being forced to answer with a plan of its own...so enough.

I'll always remembered when Clark said that it's not about winning so much for him, but having his ideas adopted. I think he is enjoying success in this realm, and that's a good thing! :hi:

of mice and men gang aft a-gley....
Congressman Murtha hit it on the head...the Iraqis don't want us there. The American people want a plan to get our forces out of there. That's the kind of leadership they're looking for. Murtha's plan of getting the troops out of there but having them ready to intervene for American interests, only, is a more practical solution than the reshaping of the neocon plans which ex-Gen. Clark is proposing. Murtha's (and Gen. Zinni's, and Gen. Odom's) premise is totally different.
The leader who can pull this off needs to have the confidence of the military. Wes Clark has squandered whatever confidence and support he ever had. If the Democrats are going to run a military man, he must be something like Eisenhower.
John Edwards seems like somebody who's man enough to say he was wrong in his original support for this neocon war. It's the same epiphany that Jack Murtha has come to. These are the men (and maybe women too, if they would quit trying to straddle like Pelosi and Hillary) that we can respect, the ones who have paid the price to lead.

:patriot:

Will he wait and see where the polls lead and follow again? Clark was exposing the neo-con agenda when Edwards was still four-square behind it. That is leadership! Maybe you should read both plans and you would see there is not a lot of difference between Murtha and Clark. Also you should realize Clark's plan was written in August when there were no other Dem plans out there. Clark stated that time was running out and that the point would be reached where the options would be reduced. Seems like he knew what he was saying. You should realize that Murtha is in contact with Generals, which Clark was, and Nato, which Clark commanded. By saying that we should run some one like Eisenhower, are you saying Clark is to brilliant? To say that Edwards has paid the price to lead means you need to spend some time researching Clark's background.

Anyway, Joe Biden, the Senator representing MBNA, repeated Clark's plan this morning on two networks. Keeping to the style that Biden has perfected over the years, he didn't credit Wes Clark. Shocked!

Edwards: A little more like Biden me thinks--not a pinch of Eisenhower.

....some people's idea of leadership...

I, myself, quite like Pulitzer prize winning author Samantha Power's articulation of in her introduction of Wes Clark, (December 2003, I think) - "The mark of leadership is not to standup when everybody is standing, but rather to actually stand up when no one else is standing."

And Edwards would be a better choice.

:rofl:

I hope that was meant to be funny because it certainly was.

He's a retired general--who could be returned to active duty at the whim (if you want to call it that) of the president. Probably not this "president," though... :rofl:

the military? Are you suggesting Edwards could handle the military affairs and plans better than Clark? I laugh at that concept. Do you think the military would look up to Edwards as Commander-in-Chief better than Clark? I can't even imagine that in my mind. SORRY!

about what he thinks and what he was proposing.

And I agree totally with that:

Trouble is actually getting the other countries involved. They don't want to rile up the radicals within their own borders by being seen as collaborating with the Americans.

He has the right combo of leadership and democratic values. His military service give him national credibility and respect. I think the swift boat attack days are over, or will be no longer effective as dems now know how to respond and the country has seen that magic trick before so is skeptical.

:hi:

And good choice of 2008 primary candidates!! :)

since that time, the rate of American deaths has increased ... Murtha pointed out that we are now seeing in excess of 700 "incidents" per week ...

3 months ago, Clark had said: "winning the hearts and minds of the populace through civic action, small scale economic development, and positive daily interactions" ... it hasn't happened ... the Iraqis have said that there has been virtually no reconstruction ...

Clark had talked about training police and local justices in other countries ... it hasn't happened ...

Clark called for a public statement "foreswearing" permanent bases ... it hasn't happened ...

Clark was dead on the money 3 months ago when he called for major changes in the US Iraq strategy ... it was clear to him that bush's policy had failed ... and Clark was right to highlight the urgency of needed changes ... he stated: "SO URGENT MODIFICATION OF THE STRATEGY IS REQUIRED, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE TO DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN WITHDRAW."

and he saw then what he should call for now, that the American people, absent the urgent changes he called for, should demand that the administration bring the troops home ... it is time for Clark to step to the front and lead the movement of the majority of Americans who want this war ended NOW ... the time for speeches about "a better way" passed us by 3 months ago ...

Clark laid out his program very clearly 3 months ago ... bush did nothing ... it's time for Clark to implement his own advice by, and I quote him here, "DEMANDING THAT THE ADMINISTRATION BRING OUR TROOPS HOME."

and I rather suspect he wants to get some more facts about what is actually going on there before proclaiming that "it's time" to demand the troops home.

Clark has been accurate to a "T" on this war - from the fact that it never needed to be fought to the fact that, since Bush was gonna make us fight it anyway, then we should have had ample boots on the ground (we didn't) to the fact that we should lessen the military's role and strengthen the political process so we could move on outta there.

I'll give him some time to assess the situtaion - because, believe me, I'm sure he has better sources than you or I - before he makes this statement.

In the meantime, here's what Clark *is* doing:

"Former CNN executive Eason Jordan wants to start a company providing security information for journalists, contractors and other groups in Iraq," TVNewser said in May.

Now the NY Post advances the story: "Jordan has already lined up at least two bigwigs -- CNN founder Ted Turner and ex-presidential candidate Gen. Wesley Clark -- to sit on the board of his new company, according to a well-placed source.

The company is being called Iraq Safety, and aims to hire security types and journalists with experience covering wars to provide logistical and consultation services to companies operating in war zones, the source said."

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/cnn/eason_jordan_launching_iraq_safety_28459.asp

I'm sure this board will give him even further access to the best information possible to make the best decision possible.

I'd say we're closing in on that time for Clark to demand immediate ouster.

Murtha has repeatedly emphasized how overwhelmed he's been with all the calls he's received supporting his position ... he said he's never seen anything close to it in his 32 year years in the Congress ...

i keep saying there's a tidal wave out there just waiting for someone to step up and give a face, a voice and some leadership ...

it would be a huge political benefit to Clark is he steps up to the plate ... but that's not why he should call for immediate withdrawal ... the reason he should do it is not because the American people would support him but because he would be supporting the American people ... and they have the policy right ...

I realize that you point out that in your opinion the real reason to call for an immediate pull out right now should be driven by the situation in Iraq and within that region, not American politics. If Clark were to make that call for an immediate withdrawal now it would provide a tremendous boost to him as a political leader within the Democratic Party, I have no doubt about that at all.

One of the reasons why I feel so much more comfortable with Clark than I do with most traditional politicians is because I know he is in politics for what he believes is best for our nation, it's the same reason why he chose the military for a career and stuck it out when private industry came knocking at his door trying to lure him away with riches. I don't think Clark confuses what is best for his career with what he truly believes is best for America. It is ironic because Clark was right about Iraq all along. He knew we should never have gone in there. He knew the arguments and the evidence was never compelling enough and the risk of making matters much worse was much too high. And Clark has already acknowledged this past Summer that a window of opportunity was closing for the U.S. to be able to contribute anything to stability in that region. Right now I honestly believe Clark views his personal career secondary to trying to make the best out of a terribly costly and dangerous situation in Iraq. The timing of his statements is guided by that and that alone.

Timing is critical. I increasingly suspect that there is a lot more going on behind the scenes than any of us are fully aware of. Military tactics seem to be evolving in Iraq with much more direct use of Iraq forces taking on aspects of what American forces used to do on their own. Then there was the one Sunni Party that negotiated their support for the Constitution referendum in return for a pledge that it could be amended after the December elections. I also remember noticing about a month or so ago that the Arab League sent a high ranking emissary to Iraq. The Arab League is Sunni dominated, and they had mostly taken a hands off approach to Iraq. He met with Sistani and was well received. Next I noticed that the UN Security Council unanimously extended the U.S. mandate to remain in Iraq by one year, at the request of the Iraq government. Then, I think I have the order right, Kofi Annan went to Iraq personally. Somewhere in here Sistani decided to withhold his support from the ruling Shiite/Kurd coalition for the coming elections, after having endorsed them during the last elections. Condi Rice started showing up in the Middle East in person for negotiations on a range of issues as well. Then three or four Sunni parties that had all boycotted the earlier elections started saying they might participate in the December elections.

Now we have this news coming out of Cairo:

Iraqi Leaders Call for Pullout Timetable By SALAH NASRAWI, Associated Press Writer
Tue Nov 22, 8:38 AM ET

"The leaders agreed on "calling for the withdrawal of foreign troops according to a timetable, through putting in place an immediate national program to rebuild the armed forces ... control the borders and the security situation" and end terror attacks.

The preparatory reconciliation conference, held under the auspices of the Arab League, was attended by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Iraqi Shiite and Kurdish lawmakers as well as leading Sunni politicians."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051122/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_conference;_ylt=Ag_hLHMRyPNMpjv3oPK8dW8UewgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA4NTMzazIyBHNlYwMxNjk2


The Iraq Elections are in three weeks. At first I was surprised that Murtha made the proposal that he did on the very eve of the Iraq elections, but I then made two observations. One was that he waited until after the Senate stripped the strongest language in the Democratic Resolution regarding Iraq out of the resolution. The other is that Murtha made a specific point of saying that he felt the factions in Iraq needed a clear message BEFORE the election that the U.S. was on the way out of Iraq, that we had no intention of staying there long range, and that it was up to people in Iraq to step up and solve their own National problem. I am starting to suspect that the Democrats have their trip together a little bit more than I may have given them credit for.

Immediately after the resolution they had crafted in the Senate to send a message to Iraq before the Iraq Elections got neutered, Murtha made his proposal. It is perfectly nuanced. Murtha does not have the full "support" of a majority of Democrats in Congress, but he has the full "respect" of an overwhelming majority in Congress. His call for withdrawal has no formal weight, but it is clear handwriting on the wall for everyone in Iraq to read. A pro military, pro Iraq war, war Vet and senior Democrat on the Armed Forces Committee says the U.S. days in Iraq are numbered. Message sent, and I believe message received.

I also believe some talks are going on between Democrats and Republicans in Congress who are starting to break free of Bush's hold over them. I can't see the exact shape of all the movement that is going on but the indirect evidence of it keeps piling up. The last party to ever admit to a change in policy will be the Bush Administration. They finally moved their position on North Korea but one would never know it directly from them, they do back flips trying to sound like they never change one percent on anything even when they are forced to belatedly reevaluate.

Clark has been doing his assigned role and doing it brilliantly. By putting his military credibility on the line he is providing cover for all the Democrats who are finding their voices to proclaim that the United States was misled into the Iraq war. He is providing cover to all Democrats who want to change American policy regarding Iraq up to and including Cindy Sheehan, who he urged to carry an American Flag during her protests. Right now I believe Clark has his eyes fixed on the ball of how to get the United States out of Iraq, given that Bush is still Commander in Chief, in such a way that 1) it actually happens and 2) it happens in a way least likely to result in the collapse of Iraq's democratic process into a civil and regional war.

Democrats have made sure that the factions in Iraq know that they United States will not be there to protect and/or incite them for that much longer. It is time for them to try to make a deal if they want to avoid further massive blood shed. I don't expect Clark to say anything, for political or any other reasons, that he thinks would complicate the end game strategy which I increasingly believe is now being played out as the December 15th elections approach. The odds of anything good happening in Iraq are always slim it seems, but the price of disaster is very high. I think the aftermath to the December Elections, and the efforts underway to mediate between the Iraq factions represented by the Arab League meeting just held in Cairo, represent the final stages of a closing window of opportunity, and Clark won't slam that prematurely. Critical events in Iraq now are measured in weeks, not months.

A sweet way to make money.

"Sweet" is so laden with judgment that I am actually surprised you made the comment that you did. Companies are in Iraq and other war zones for the worst and best of reasons, and everywhere in between. After 5 years of Bush it is getting to the point that anywhere outside of the U.S. and Canada is becoming a potential "war zone" for high profile or perceived to be rich Americans. If you are willing to shoot from the hip with comments like these, I wonder how you would relate to the widow or children of an American Businessman who gets killed in a war zone? I am no great lover of American business, but I purchase their goods and services all of the time, just like I do the goods and services of companies based in countries outside of the U.S.


Would you favor American assistance in the reconstruction of Palestine? How about the Gaza Strip? Do you think Americans can currently operate in that region, for example, with no concern whatsoever for their personal safety?

I would feel that the costs of war are being shifted to those who benefit the most, maybe.

I don't know.

It would really depend on the circumstances.

but disagree that there was ever ANY hope of positive outcome for this ill planned and immoral invasion.

White Christians have been invading and occuping Muslim lands for a thousand years. NONE have been successful.
George HW Bush was correct.

almost every step of the way. All throughout the 2004 campaign and eversince as well.

Let me get this straight. The US public wants the troops out now. Even more emphatically, the overwhelming majority of Iraqi people want US troops out now. Nearly half so much so they are willing to tell pollsters they want them attacked.

But Clark and Kerry and Pelosi say we need to stay, so that we can bring .... Democracy.

If folks believe that, i have a few bridges to sell you. Act fast.

I disagree with you that Clark, Kerry or Pelosi are saying we need to stay to bring democracy. I think that they are saying that if we use Diplomacy and the political prongs instead of just the military one, we can get out without having to watch things burning down as we go.

To believe that "saving" our American soldiers' lives is somehow the only thing that Progressives are concerned with is a "smoke screen" that belies any bridge. Sure we should be very concerned about American Soldiers, but we should also be concerned with the long range situation as well. To do otherwise would be foolish....

Murtha calls for Redeployment. Do you know what that means? It certainly doesn't mean leaving the region for good.

In actuality, I have heard of very few plans that are stating "act fast" "out now". Even Kucinich and Feingold are advocating an exit plan that keeps in mind the safety of our soldiers and calls for lotsa of diplomacy to be used.

The bottomline is that our volunteered soldiers are not the only one that are dying, so are innocent Iraqi who never even had a vote on whether they would be invaded or not. Sure the Iraqis want us out, but they want us out in a way that makes sense.

Screaming "act fast" and "out now" is as irresponsible as "staying the course". There is a third way out in closing Pandora's box, and giving the impression that American lives are the only thing that we should now be concerned about is desingenious. When Bush first invaded Iraq, progressives were concerned about the Iraqi Innocents. I think if we are to be consistent, then we should be just as concerned now that Iraq and the Iraqis don't end up after this invasion being totally worse off then ever before. That is not even a humanitarian approach...and I always thought that progressives were just that. Sure, if the Iraqi's are worse off, we can shake our finger at George Bush for the fucked up shit that he created....but I would hope that this is not our primary goal in dealing with this global Debacle.

You offer false choices; "Stay" or "out".

I do not think that W alone created the mess in Iraq. It started at least back in the Reagan administration, when they began to arm both sides in the Iraq/Iran war... continued with the attack on Iraq by bush the elder, the continuing of deadly sanctions and bombings by Clinton (with the goal of regime change), and then the invasion of Bush2.

I do favor a military defeat of US imperialism in the Middle East. That is in the interests of the people of the region, and the planet.

I think the US defeat in Vietnam was a good thing. That was a war based on lies (Democratic Ones) and continued with the support of a Democratic Congress for decades. The problem was that before that defeat happened the US killed so many, destroyed so much, that there was a warning to other people who might choose to develop along lines independent of US goals. Still, the victory of the Vietnamese people over the invading forces did at least give US leaders pause before making the same mistake again.

Murtha's plan goes further than most, but he too is very much committed to US presence in the region, a goal not shared by the people's of the region. They would no more invite US troops to stay as they would invite Israeli troops.

by killing and dismembering more Iraqis and American soldiers is NOT an option I can support.

of innocent Iraqis and a regional war simply for the sake of an a feel-good, emotional cry of "out of Iraq NOW!" coming to fruition is not something I can support, unless there is no less bloody alternative.

Life is precious.

The USA needs even MORE of this while we "think out" a way to defeat the insurgency....NOT!



Murtha is RIGHT!
" "The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.

Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region.

Section 3 The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy."


*NO more "Benchmarks for Success"!

*No more "Defeating the Insurgency"!

*No more "We broke it. We'll fix it by killing more Iraqis"!

All roads to more FAILURE!
Shades of VietNam!

...that doesn't mean now, for God's sake.

Murtha is right - but you're reading his plan WRONG.

BTW, Clark's always advocated DIPLOMACY.

Stop reading his words through a shade.

Maybe it is not me wearing shades?

The candidate groupies have been swarming all over Murtha's bill trying to twist it into "My guy is saying the same thing."

I tend to believe them. The groupies really can't see the difference.
(Freud's ego defenses at work.)

And in the end, it is not even up to "our" plans....so if I were you, I'd quite throwing names around.

Having a difference of opinion on shades of grey, as we do not control shit anyways is ok. Calling names is not.

I am as much of a groupie as you are. How bout that?

has a much better strategic and tactical sense than some young pissant who got an A in his high school civics class--assuming they still teach civics in high school--and now considers himself a political genius, is a "groupie??"

Tell me another... :rofl:

but anyone who has already chosen their 2008 candidate in 2005, and has committed themselves to that candidate to the point of incorporating their candidate's name into their DU screen name and putting campaign pics in their sig line....
well, they have as much credibility as a used car salesman hyping a particular brand.

Would you prefer "camp follower" to "groupie"?

It IS a looooong time until 2008, and much will change before the Primaries. I'm not pledging allegiance to any particular candidate yet and believe it is foolish to do so. I don't want to be blind to a potential winner emerging to supplant last year's losers. Bill Clinton was a late bloomer. It is wiser to keep an open mind, and work on "Democratic Party Issues" instead of joining personality cults at this stage of the cycle.

For Example:
Murtha's Resolution has left most of the "Stay until we Defeat the Insurgency" Democratic Candidates scrambling to cover their ass, and most of the already pledged "camp followers" working harder than a cat covering up shit. If the "Pro-Win-the-War" Candidates (Kerry, Clinton, Clark) are not careful, the Republicans will become the Party of "Withdrawing the Troops" and the Democrats will be defending their positions of "Withdrawal after Benchmarks"/ "Stabilizing Iraq"/"Defeating the Insurgency".
Won't THAT be a Can-O-Crap?

The next week will be more even more fun as the polls come out and the front runners try to say that this is what they have been for all along.


Way, way too early to be pledging allegiance to ANY candidate. Why close the door this early?
Keep an open mind so that you can clearly see these people and what they stand for.
It is much easier to say, "Boy, He/She really dropped the ball on THAT issue" when your screen name and sig line isn't a campaign endorsement.

Clark was drafted in '03 by many of the "groupies" you see here. We supported him in 2004 and see no one better to support the next time. We know him and know him even better now than before. He is a person of integrity and leadership who hasn't disappointed us. That doesn't come along every day. If that sounds crazy to you, then it's not just Clarkies you have a problem with. If Dean didn't become Chairman, most of his supporters would still want him to run in 2008. Many still have his avatar.

You self-righteous judgments and insults of the good people here reveal more about you than those you criticize.

heard of him, the stronger are my convictions.

If that makes me a "groupie," so be it. Won't be the first time I've been labeled a groupie because I support (and stand up for) a strong, intelligent, principled man who happens to be exceptionally good looking as well.

It's simply the predictable insult from the terminally envious...

Look, you want to support any "out now" plan there is, go ahead, feel free.

The fact is that neither Murtha or Kerry or Clark or anyone in the Democratic party has the power to enact any plan, whatever you think of it. I think that Clark's is the most informed and intelligent alternative. Murtha's I understand from the point of view that BushCo. has created a disaster in Iraq from which they most probably will not disentangle themselves without much more bloodshed, corruption and chaos over the next three years. I understand the desire to get out. The thing is, Bush isn't taking any of our advice.

What I would like the Dems to do is what Dean is presently considering, getting everyone behind a single alternative "plan". I doubt that will happen with full compliance, but it will be helpful to the Dems from a political standpoint to be on the same page and speak with one voice. The plan he is enthusiastic about won't make you happy, however, it is not "out now" but a longer term plan for a benchmark driven timeline. Given the fact that all we can do is comment from the sidelines, any plan that makes sense and points to a definite endgame for the american people to see is a good thing, imho.

We do need to get out of Iraq at the earliest practicable date. The war was not only unnecessary, it may be the greatest strategic blunder in American history. The insurgents are killing a lot of Iraqi men, women, and children, and our presence there is something neither we nor the Iraqis want to go on indefinitely. I want less pictures like the one above, not more. For every action we take, there is a reaction. And there will be a reaction, for good or ill, when we leave. We are still filling the power and security vacuum left by the removal of Saddam Hussein, and there are no easy answers. We have to leave something in our place when we leave if we can besides innocents and radicals willing to kill indiscriminately to gain power. If we don't we will see more bloodshed not only in Iraq but also quite possibly the entire region.

But at some point, unless the administration changes it's emphasis of solving this problem militarily, they will have gone beyond the point of no return and there will be absolutely no justification for any of our troops remaining there. However, at this point, as late as it is, there are other options besides immediate withdrawl of all U.S. forces tomorrow that can still improve the situation in Iraq. It appears some of those things, in a limited way, may finally be happening.

I mailed my letter of support to congressman Murtha yesterday. While I may not agree with every detail of his plan, it doesn't matter. We do agree that the administration must change course in Iraq and our troops need to come home a.s.a.p. I appreciate a great American with his credentials speaking out. As Clark has said "57% of the American people are with John Murtha." Americans want the administration to change the course, not stay the course.

It's important to remember that we can't set policy, we can only hope to influence policy. For that reason, differences of approach are less important than all Democrats speaking with a unitied voice calling for less of a reliance on the military on Iraq, and greater emphasis on other means of decreasing violence and promoting stability in Iraq and in the region.

Posting a picture as you did and implying that Dems who do not share your opinion that withdrawl of all forces tomorrow is the one and only best solution do not care as much as you do about decreasing bloodshed and relying less on our military forces in Iraq is inaccurate and counterproductive. We all want less bloodshed, not more. More diplomacy, truly helping the Iraqi people to build the institutions to help themselves, a commitment to no permanent bases in Iraq, and the other approaches Clark is promoting, not more of "stay the course." I am not aware of any Dem who disagrees with the suggestions Clark has made in these areas, are you?

Unfortunately, we are not the ones setting the policy.

Bush isn't going to withdraw all the troops tomorrow no matter how loud you scream it from the rooftops, but let's hope he starts changing course even if it's "behind the scenes" (he will never admint to a changing the course publically, of course) because that's all we can hope.