Clark calls for full investigation of NSA domestic spying

He accuses Bush of misleading the people about the extent to the program, and says a full Congressional investigation is "mandated." 'Course, he said pretty much the same thing when it was just a matter of warrantless wire-tapping, but I guess he had to be in Iowa to get any media coverage.

didn't monitor domestic calls only calls made to parties outside the US. Well first of all that was a lie since one phone was in the US. Now we find out he was monitoring every citizen of this country this SOB needs impeached. If anyone believes they were just collecting numbers they believe in the tooth fairy.

You got that right. There are so many lies and criminal acts, it's hard to know where to begin. Which one is the worst? I'd say this one has gotta be right at the top.

In any case, investigation is the start. Too bad it's won't happen until we have a Democratic House and/or Senate. Good news is, I feel it coming. Watershed election if we can just get people out to vote. Because you know the Bush-lovers will all turn out. But we also know they are fewer and fewer with every passing day.

We're going to need millions of investigations before bushco is done.

:patriot:

tangled up mess in Washington that bush* will leave in his tidal wave
of destruction and hidden illegal programs and lies.

It's going to take years to clean up bush's litter box he calls his Presidency. If anyone can do it...CLARK CAN! We need him right now. We can't wait for 2009 to get started. Dammit...too much harm can be done to our country and the world by then.

That's right. We've GOT to win in November 06 first. Otherwise, 2008 barely matters. Not for the damage Bush will continue to do, not that that's not bad enough, but without some election reform we may be right back where we were in 2000.

Clark was in Iowa campaigning for Des Moines representative Leonard Boswell (IA-03). He's being challenged and it's a seat the Repubs were hoping to win back. I'd say their odds have taken a nose-dive recently, but that doesn't mean we can afford to be complacent. Please, everyone, consider a contribution to Boswell's campaign. http://actblue.com/list/wespac

From General Clark's email this past week:

If Congress doesn't check the Executive right here and now, there is no hope.

Clark is very open about pinning his hopes for any real change before 2009 on that. Democrats HAVE to have the power to direct Congressional investigations of the abuses of this Administration. I honestly believe Clark feels this need deeply enough that if need be he will sacrifice his Presidential ambitions to doing everything possible to get Democrats elected to the House and Senate in 2006. I know those goals are not mutually exclusive, but by not building up a war chest in his own PAC now to hoard, and by not asking donors to lavish money on WesPAC so he can expand it's staff beyond a bare bones but efficient operation, Clark IS cutting into his chances in 2008. Most of the would be contenders are competing to see who can lock in a bigger and badder personal organization to impress political movers and shakers. Clark keeps asking us to donate directly to the Candidates running for office this year, and he's on the road seemingly every week taking that message to every corner of America.

I've heard Clark go on a little too long about the need to ensure that at least one branch of government is contolled by the opposition. That's a cute & clever argument if you're trying to swing a few extra votes in an off-year election. But that idea, unlike most of what he says, doesn't have legs. Is he arguing that if we sweep big in '08 that the voters need to turn us out of the Congress in 2010? Seems to be.

Voters should vote for who they think is better able to lead and serve, not based on the need to balance only in the area of political parties.

More to your point, the political chits he builds up pulling in a few extra MCs will more than offset any rebuilding effort he needs to tackle starting in January. He may be pitching toward the idealistic assessment of what he's doing, but behind it are strong, pragmatic calculations of what's best for the country and for his own ambitions. The best leaders of our past have been able to strike that balance.

I don't see anything past the need to ensure one branch of government is controlled by the Ds as anything more than a recognition that this crew needs to be stopped NOW, that our very way of life is under attack, and at least stopping the assault can't wait another two more years ...

As for his throwing himself into helping people win election this fall, I do agree that it is both a genuine thing AND a pragmatic and strategic thing ... He is in the very unique situation of not being in office or even an elected official who has the kind of status to throw his weight around to help people get elected ...

If it works out, and he helps a bunch of people get elected in the house, he will have a rooted in base in the house that will be able to return his efforts in kind ... It would be in a way, his being a general all over again, with middle ranking officers working in support of him ...

It's an age old argument really. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The problem with complete One party control over extended periods of time becomes that of corruption and arrogance. And of course Clark is including the judiciary as an equal branch of government. It would take a few cycles of total Democratic control of; both houses of Congress, the Presidency, he Supreme Court, and the Appeals Courts, before that type of danger could potentially become entrenched with a Democratic Party unchecked. And really the problem isn't so much one party rule, but one party steam roller rule. Republicans over the last decade keep changing the written and unwritten rules in Congress to lock the minority party (in our case us) out of any process where real decisions can be debated, be that the ability to make amendments to legislation, who gets briefed, who gets to sit in on inter house Conference committees, who decides which witnesses will testify in front of a committee etc. While a semblance of bipartisanship prevails, even a minority party can provide a check on a majority party.

Are you proposing that Feingold, Gore, Kerry, and Clark stay home and not campaign for Democrats during 2006? And what should be Clark's answer? Biden, Bayh, Hillary and Warner have all hired huge staffs and lord over daunting war-chests, not the General. They also don't have to go to work...General Clark does. So what would you have him do?

We've had periods before where one party controlled three branches of government. The difference is that those representatives had understood the meaning of separation of powers and they applied the concept of checks and balances. At least the appearance was attempted. But this! This must stop.

I'm surprised when someone calls defending democracy "cute."

Are you proposing that Feingold, Gore, Kerry, and Clark stay home and not campaign for Democrats during 2006?

I don't think I said anything at all like that. I said that Clark's campaigning for others, while certainly draining most of his WesPac funds, isn't strictly atruistic, as I felt Tom implied. What I meant to say was that his choice to go out into the hustings and fight is sound strategy and shows political acumen and considerable ambition.

I don't think ambition is a bad thing. In fact, Enlightenment authors like John Adams and Alexander Hamilton thought that ambition and a desire for fame were the best qualities for a good republican leader to have--because as leader of a state he would serve the common good of the people in order to exalt his own fame. I definitely see Clark in the Enlightenment mold of leader--effectively balancing realism, ambition, and honor to promote the common good. The first time I saw Clark on Bill Mahar's show, he was talking about how this country was created with Enlightenment ideals in mind and that is one reason our Constitution has stood the test of time.

As for the "cute" thing, let me clarify. I don't think it's intellectually honest to tell people to vote for Democrats for Congress, as Clark did, solely because you want a president and Congress from different parties. He wasn't just saying power shouldn't be in Republican hands; he said "power shouldn't be in just one party's hands." I think that's bunk. I assume he wants to be president and I'm certain should I live to see that happy day, he'll spend a good deal of effort trying to prevent exactly such a thing from happening (as he should). It's a clever sound bite if the sole calculus is to peel away a few extra votes from nervous ex supporters of the boy dictator. But it's disingenuous logic and it's certainly not "defending democracy".

If Dems find themselves completely in charge in Jan 09, they'll be judged in 2010 by how well they perform.

Meanwhile, Clark is trying to swing as many votes in '06 as he can. Maybe you're right that "Voters should vote for who they think is better able to lead and serve, not based on the need to balance only in the area of political parties." To an extent, it depends. But whether they should or not, I don't think they do. I think most of 'em vote based on what Clark has called, "the party brand."

Believe it or not, MOST voters don't know the candidates that well. They only know they either like what the guys in power are doing or they don't. So in that sense, what he is saying is kind of like when Reagan asked, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?"

Clark knows that people are VERY unhappy with Bush. But that doesn't mean they're unhappy with the Repub who represents them. Clark is trying to capitalize on the anti-Bush feeling that by reminding folks that Bush wouldn't be able to get away with near as much if Congress were doing its job, and that he can be held accountable for what he's screwed up in the past.

It's a message that can work in '06. That's what matters most right now. Seems to me we ought to let 2010 take care of itself. Because if we don't get some checks and balances working, we might not have anything to worry about as soon as 2008.

Again, I hope I live to see the day. But if there's a President Clark in 2010 with Democratic Congress, you can damn well bet the Republicans will be showing that very clip. If you think it's an effective thing to say now, why would it not be an effective thing to say once the shoe is on the other foot?

Um, I guess that would be the Shoe of State.

If there's a President Clark with two Democratic houses of Congress in 2010, I'd be sort of surprised if the Repubs didn't pull out that soundbyte and try to use it against Democratic candidates, or against Clark himself in 2012.

But I don't think it will matter. For one thing, the GOP will be making that argument anyway. They did in 1994, and it helped them win the House. A video of Clark from 2006 would just be a fairly small amount of additional ammunition. But more importantly, people won't care if they're happy with what Clark and the Democratic Congress are doing. And if they aren't, then they should consider whether they want Democrats in control of everything. But that scenario doesn't worry me a great deal.

Besides, it'll take some time for Dems to acheive control or even some level of balance within the Supreme Court and the rest of the federal judiciary. I got a bad feeling it'll be all too obvious that we haven't by 2010. That in itself should be enough to deflect any argument about one-party control.

I think skipping the caucus there in 2004 was fatal to his campaign - even though I know that he had little time to prepare for it since he only joined the race three months before.

Does anyone know how the good folks of Iowa are receiving the General? He seems to have made a lot of impressive statements on his trip there - statements that actually got picked up by the media.

It's up at the Clark Community network. It also includes a link to video footage from the taping of Clark's latest podcast in Iowa that was not included in that podcast:

"Clark in Cedar Rapids"
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/6077

Also here is the link for the podcast itself:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/6070

I'm going to have to get our resident button-maker to send me several for my trip to see him in Nashville on June 24. I'd say they'll be in great demand. :7