Wes Clark in WSJ today - "Forget about the neocons. This era is over"...

Wes Clark has an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today regarding Tuesday’s CT primary and what it means. The online version is subscriber only…I copied these passages from my boss’s hard copy of today’s edition…I imagine the full text will be on securingamerica.com eventually…

“But if I were a Republican, I’d recognize this as the beginning of the end. Forget about the neocons. This era is over.”

“For the Democrats, the election is a snapshot of a revolt in the making, but not yet done. The truth is that Democrats are as patriotic as Republicans, want a strong and secure America, and like every other American, want to trust the president and his team on national security issues. And perhaps, being in Washington, associating with the administration and lawmakers of the other party, it’s been more difficult for elected Democrats to sense the mounting rage in much of the electorate over the failures of President Bush’s policies, and especially the seemingly never-ending war in Iraq, and his blatant partisanship.

It’s been easy for some of the media to talk disparagingly about “bloggers”, but it’s also misleading. For the anti-Lieberman vote in Connecticut wasn’t just bloggers. The public doesn’t have to live with the reminders of old sentiments, jingoistic pronouncements, or votes in the House or Senate. Instead, the public is free to observe, listen and judge. And that judgment has been passed, especially on Iraq: The war was a mistake. Flawed intelligence, overly optimistic planning (or in some cases, none at all) and grandiose geostrategic designs, hyperinflated rhetoric about democracy, and perhaps raw political advantage. Whatever. The public hasn’t quite sorted it out – but they know a failure when they see one. And Iraq, as well as the larger Middle East policy, is such a failure.”

“The Connecticut race and Republican spinmeisters will be troublesome for Democrats. But the growing public awareness provides Democrats the opportunity to reshape our party to help America meet the challenges ahead. For Republicans, it signals the end of using patriotism to cover up for persistent failures to deal effectively with pressing national security issues.”

nm

:patriot: :kick:

eom

In a sane world he'd be President already. He's got it all.

Then again in a sane world Prez Gore would have been allowed to serve.

As long as I'm dreamin', VP Conyers or Kucinich is sure sounding good.

A powerful Idea can guide a nation like a compass, but the NeoCon compass is now exposed as defective. It proved fatally flawed in reality. Whether or not one ever bought into their vision of a triumphant America militarily imposing it's will on the world for the world's own good, once the NeoCons got control of the rudder they promptly steered the Ship of State onto the reefs.

They still have control and they still don't admit their failure, but the facts are clear, and it up to Democrats now to point out the facts of the NeoCon failure to the American people.

And not just the neocons, the whole conservative movement. It might take a couple of more years, but the tide IS turning. They are in panic mode. They are kicking and screaming and they might inflict some more damage on the way down. As I said, it might take some time, but when all is done, we will have a new progressive era for a couple of decades, at least. Conservative ideology is a complete failure. They won't be back for a while. Eventually, people will forget and want change so the pendulum might swing back to them in the distant future and then the cycle will repeat. Two steps forward, one step back. The last 6 years was one step back. Now it is time for two steps forward. :-)

Doubt Kansas or Nebraska is gonna be the next Massachusetts anytime soon, just as how San Fran stayed very liberal during the "conservative uprising", but point taken!

In this state, we have a popular Democratic governor, elected with many crossover votes from moderate Republicans, we have just guaranteed that the school board will return to control of those who accept evolution, and certain high-profile Republicans are switching parties. In fact, one new Dem will be our Democratic governor's running mate in the next election. We are a 3-party state. The Republican party is actually two mutually antagonistic parties. The extreme rightwing has taken over power in the Republican party in Kansas, and now mdoerate Republcians are beginning to pull away from their party, which is why soem are switchign tot he Democratic party.

I hope!

with the pundits, opinion makers, spinners et. al. they are having trouble getting traction.

Bu$h that he needed to work toward a cease fire in the Israeli Hezbollah conflict. If Condi is having a problem convincing Bu$h to do this, it must be because the Neocons don't want a cease fire.

This was implied in the report on Countdown, so it sounds like the Neocons still have some weight with Bu$h. Me thinks Israel wants a cease fire, and would like Bu$h to get involved to demand the cease fire so Israel can save face.

But to claim that the days of the Neocons are over is a bit premature imho, they're responsible for starting the fires in the ME and i believe would like to watch them burn for awhile longer.

there is a hair's breadth of difference between condi and bush.

He is not saying they don't have control at the moment ... He saying that there is undeniable evidence that the policies they have pushed for, driven and implimented have been a MASSIVE disaster, and people need to start pushing against them, to push them out ...

This is one of those things that the leaders on the left have been far too passive about ... WE recognize these freaks, and want them lined up and shot ... But, far too many Ds are afraid to even acknowledge their existance, much less call them out, and call on people to wake the F up and drive them from power ...

I can't explain why the democrats are so mute in this area, if i were a candidate i'd be screaming from the tops of building and pointing fingers at these rat bastards.

Dem's like all politicians want to get re-elected, but if Dem's don't start standing up to Neocon and all repugs period they're going to lose just like Joey.

One would think the election of Ned and Joey loosing a senate seat that he has held for 18 years would be an eye opener, but we can't tell how most Dem's took the lose of Joey because the terra news has wiped out all discussion of the Conn. election.

They seem to pick politicians like they do actors or movies. Clark
always was articulate & sensible. How anyone could vote for a
blithering idiot is beyond me.

"It’s been easy for the media to talk disparagingly about “bloggers..."

Wes is the man. He gets it 100%. He is brave, honest, wise, charismatic.

“The Connecticut race and Republican spinmeisters will be troublesome for Democrats. But the growing public awareness provides Democrats the opportunity to reshape our party to help America meet the challenges ahead. For Republicans, it signals the end of using patriotism to cover up for persistent failures to deal effectively with pressing national security issues.”

Holy shit... a politician with an actual head on his shoulders... somebody who actually recognizes the true significance of current events and ramifications for the future. I could definitely get behind a candidate like Clark.

K & R

Thank you General Clark for all you have done for the Democratic Party, for America, and the world.
:patriot:

Wes said a mouthful in a clear manner!

"The public hasn’t quite sorted it out – but they know a failure when they see one. And Iraq, as well as the larger Middle East policy, is such a failure.”

so true.....so true!

Hell, that's why the terrarist alert has been raised! Cause everything else this administration has done is nothing more than a miserable failure! Hey, Look over there.....(is what the Admin is in the process of doing with the "We Foiled that plot routine"!

....that the warmongers and the gop get so much mileage out of. Good for General Clark!

:kick:

Terror terror. Clark must not have seen the latest stuff that is being pumped at us today.

They have hijacked our country.

And remind us why we need them.

They are in control.

That is why it's a beautiful thing to have this on the WSJ Op-Ed page in the middle of all of the conservative shit editorials, talking about how the CT primary just shows how dangerous the Democrats are for this country and the world....

You can fight or you can throw up your hands in defeat and give up. Lucky for all of us, neither Chairman Dean nor General Clark are the giving up type....

I don't think it has anything to do with what I have said, as much as his listening to people like Pat Buchanen on the Imus show and the Mcglaughlin report. He thinks that Bush has really screwed up Iraq and now he knows how the Neocons have played with Bush and had their way.

People are catching on. Finally!!!! The Neocons have been unmasked. Bush is still under the Neocon spell, and a lot of harm may still be done; but the NeoCons have been unmasked as being clueless and inept. This makes people angry because there is this kind of sports mentality among many in this country that, "people want a winner". Also, there is the even bigger fact that people no longer feel safe.

Considering this piece was in this morning's paper, I imagine it was written yesterday and before all of this....

But that didn't stop him from predicting it. Here's another short excerpt...."The Republicans will suggest that Democrats aren’t up to it. They’ll play the terrorist-threat card, hope for a few more messages of bin Laden, and ask whether an antiwar party can be trusted to keep America safe. But this is just the spin."

You really should read the whole thing, which can be found here:
http://securingamerica.com/node/1329

I couldn't type the whole thing up this morning...and I think that would have been against the rules even if I could have...

Clark is sharp as hell. We need to get him out there speaking to the insane babble coming from the freakshow right.

what a great guy!

He`s brilliant, articulate, well-versed in foreign affairs, speaks several languages, has a stunning biography and, unlike AWOL Junior, actually has some combat medals. Clark is a rags to riches story that really warms my heart. Run Wes, run!

Not sure I buy that the neocon era is over though, since they are still so much in control, but otherwise excellent statements.

I don't think people are waking up nearly fast enough. We are 5 1/2 years into this plague on our country. What has taken so long and why are there still so many sleeping or hypnotized??

I hope that if/when the Dems can get back in control, that there will be such a stark contrast to how our country can operate "post 9/11" that people will look back and truly see what a dark time this been.

Understand, too, what Wes is doing here...countering some of the Republican spin....

You should have seen the other two editorials on that page about the CT primary....And the crazy picture of Lamont they published! I wonder how many pictures they had to go through to find that one...

Wes knows what's coming from the Republicans and he's striking back at it now, right away, even before some of it happens. We need Dems who are willing and able to respond like this.

Clark should be our candidate in 2008. He just gets it in every way. He would make a phenomenal President.

candidate.

Actually, it’s hard to grasp the full import, the true beauty and importance of this piece, without seeing the print edition of the Op-Ed page….There, at the top of the page, two large editorials about how the Democrats are the “cut and run” party and how scary this Lamont victory makes the Democrats, complete with a picture of Ned that makes him look like a crazed lunatic….and there’s Wes and his sanity in the midst of the insanity….

Whether or not folks want him as President in ’08 or ever, I do hope people realize just how important it is to have Wes’ voice out there speaking for us and how lucky we are that he’s willing to keep doing it.

I am thankful every day that General Clark is willing to stay out there, speaking truth to power and waking people up!!

Thanks for the post CarolNYC!!

It was never seaworthy in the first place. Now those that were smart scurried out and took their chances in the water, the others are in a death grip to scramble to the top of the air pocket.

Neo-conservatism has been an utter failure, domestically, foreign, militarily and culturally.

They are the Trotskyites of conservatism, believeing that a permanent revolution is needed to achieve the end result: an Ayn Rand-inspired megacorp ruling the world.

I also place some blame on the more conservative elements of the Democratic Party, for going along with the "free trade" agreements, not blocking judges we are stuck with for life, and enabling war for war's sake and oil.

Wes Clark has the intellect, clout, and moral standing to put his words to pen and get them read.

Be warned, Democratic Party, the working man has a long memory, and NAFTA and CAFTA are still hot topics on everyone's lips, regardless if it considered a fait accompli at Washington cocktail parties...and the revelations coming almost daily on the Bushco's failures and pathetic attempts at spin are not helping. In short, the neo-cons and their enablers are nailing their own political coffins shut.

the military industrial complex but that still worries me.

Also, generals in general running or taking office historically through the ages
especially in Roman and Greek history, are reasons for me to be at least a little apprehensive
maybe unnecessarily, but the historical record has spoken statistically.
He could be one that does not represent the dominate trend statistically.


but
I still like him, like what he says and nominate the thread.

was President warned us about? That one? The one that civilian leader keep growing because they have to prove they are not weak on defense....in particular those who have no military background and must prove to the Republicans that they are tough enough and do so by NOT addressing the pentagon spending and the MIC issues at all?

Here's what Clark has said about the MIC, and he does agree with you about many Generals and their links to the MIC:

http://www.nhpr.org/node/5339
"I think General Eisenhower was exactly right. I think we should be concerned about the military industrial complex. I think if you look at where the country is today, you've consolidated all these defense firms into a few large firms, like Halliburton, with contacts and contracts at the highest level of government. You've got most of the retired Generals, are one way or another, associated with the defense firms. That's the reason that you'll find very few of them speaking out in any public way. I'm not. When I got out I determined I wasn't going to sell arms, I was going to do as little as possible with the Defense Department, because I just figured it was time to make a new start.

But I think that the military industrial complex does wield a lot of influence. I'd like to see us create a different complex, and I'm going to be talking about foreign policy in a major speech tomorrow, but we need to create an agency that is not about waging war, but about creating the conditions for Peace around the world. We need some people who will be advocates for Peace, advocates for economic development not just advocates for better weapons systems. So we need to create countervailing power to the military industrial complex."--Wes Clark

Clark: Don't spare Pentagon
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/25/elec04.prez.debate/
"We're faced with a very serious deficit problem. We need to keep the--we need to go back to the top 2 percent and repeal those tax cuts. We need to put all the government spending programs on the table, including the military programs. And then we need a simpler, fairer, more progressive tax code. "

like I said,

I like him and would support him in almost any ticket combination

but none the less I still have reservations about military generals in politics historically.

Which of the 11 Generals who became President during our political history did you object to?
All 11 or just some of the 11?

In contrast, there were a total of 12 Presidents who never served...counting FDR (who tried to enlist but contracted measles although served as assistant Sec. to the Navy during Woodrow Wilson's presidency), and BushJR (who was AWOL far as I am concerned)and Bill Clinton (and his lack of service was one reason he appointed a GOP Sec. of Defense, and didn't go into Rhwanda after the Somalia Debacle).

Cause I'll tell you.....when you substract the 11 Generals, and the 12 who never served, you are left with 20 who may not have been Generals....but who certainly did serve, many with officer ranking, such as Thomas Jefferson (Colonel), Abraham Lincoln (captain), Teddy Roosevelt (Colonel), Truman (Major), Lyndon Johnson (Commander), John Kennedy and Jimmy Carter (Lieutenants) to name a few good men).

So whatever problem you have historically; I hope that you did some research prior to making that statement and can share with us your reasoned reservations backed up with a few facts as to why there should be a concern.

thanks!

I know we have been lucky in the history of this country.
The only generals have been

Washington
Jackson
Grant
Eisenhower

Three out of 4 is not bad and even Grant wasn't as bad as compared to what has happened throughout world history
but I was looking at the the history of the world which the ratio is reversed from the Greeks to the Romans and even to modern times.
Not to say that Clark would buck our own history and I didn't.

Who would have thought or even predicted in our history we would be seeing what this administration or junta
is doing to this country or the world?
That we as a country would have our military accused and I think justly so of murder, rape, torture and war crimes.
I certainly didn't and neither does my father who worked for the Joint Chiefs.


I am still very cautious with our government, military and military leaders as we all should be.

Gen. Clark is definitely no Gen. Curtis Lemay,
remember him? LOL

I said Clark gets my support.

guidance is too easy to justify anything anytime.

Here is a list of Generals who became President (they were not all 4 stars, but they were all Generals, nevertheless!)

They were not all Excellent, but they are many worse not listed...cause they weren't Generals.
George Washington
Dwight Eisenhower
Ulysses S. Grant
Andrew Jackson
William Harrison
Zachary Taylor
James A. Garfield
Rutherford B. Hayes
Benjamin Harrison
Franklin Pierce
Chester A. Arthur
Andrew Johnson

And I'm sure that Wes Clark is grateful for whatever support you might ever be to him or to those he himself support! :hi:

I do understand your trepidation.

It took me some time to "get over" the fact that he was a general and lifelong military man. Even after I threw my support behind him, I still had wavering moments, one in particular that I remember when I almost jumped ship. It wasn't anything Wes had done or said, just the fact that I (who would have been a Kucinich backer if Wes hadn't jumped in the race...and I still adore Dennis) was supporting this, this General...How could I support a General for President?!?!

Just keep listening and watching....I did and he hasn't let me down yet.

Again, thanks for the recommend...Whether you want him to run or not, you gotta love what he's out there doing now.

We all knew they'd play that card but damn...
I imagine a number of folks were reading this Op Ed while waiting at the airports this morning.

He did say one of the reasons appears on Fox is to get to see their talking points.

Here is some of what he said would happen if we invaded Iraq......

Note, that Wes said these things back in August, September and October of 2002, before the IWR vote!

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

"Going after Iraq right now is at best a diversion, and at worst it risks the possibility of strengthening Al Qaeda and undercutting our coalition at a critical time. So at the strategic level, I think we have to keep our eye on the ball and focus on the number one strategic priority. There are a lot of other concerns as well, but that's the main one." CNN, 8/30/02

"It seems that this would supercharge the opinion, not necessarily of the elites in the Arab world, who may bow to the inevitability of the United States and its power, but the radical groups in the Middle East, who are looking for reasons and gaining more recruits every time the United States makes a unilateral move by force. They will gain strength from something like this.

We can well end up in Iraq with thousands of military forces tied down, and a worse problem in coping with a war on terror here in the United States or Europe, or elsewhere around the world." CNN, 8/30/02

"When you're talking about American men and women going and facing the risk we've been talking about this afternoon... you want to be sure that you're using force and expending American blood and lives in treasure as the ultimate last resort. Not because of a sense of impatience with the arcane ways of international institutions." Senate Committee on Armed Forces 9/23/02
http://armedservices.house.gov/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html

regarding debate on Congressional authorization for war against Iraq, Clark said
"The way the debate has emerged, it's appeared as though to the American people, at least to many that talk to me, as though the administration jumped to the conclusion that it wanted war first and then the diplomacy has followed." CNN 10/5/02

CNN quotes located at http://www.clark04.com/faq/iraq.html

I'm really beginning to believe that Clark could be our candidate for '08.

1) Clark understands the complexities of combatting terrorism; defeating Al Queda is not accomplished through unilateral, preemptive military actions.
2) He's got the military credentials (in particular, the general's rank) that, from a historical perspective, make for viable presidential candidates
3) Clark is a good extemporaneous speaker, with charisma, and a handsome man. Of course, this doesn't necessarily makes him a better leader, but all are helpful characteristics in a candidate for public office.

yes, I do wonder how many were reading while waiting at the airports this morning...I hadn't thought of that....

The circulation is fairly large. Over 2 million subscribers. Then there are always the people who leave their paper in their seats and other people finding these papers and reading thems as well; particularly during a long wait. This often happens in doctor's offices and as you mentioned, would certainly happen in airports.

I subscribe to the WSJ. While the editorials are draconian, the articles can be excellent. In today's paper, there was the typical neo-con editorial at the top left of the page showing a picture of Joe Leiberman, praising him, and referring to Bush as "The Commander in Chief". The article was entitled "The Lamont Democrats". On the very same page was General Clark's OpEd. I will be curious to read the letters to the editor. Although I will wonder what letters they choose NOT to print.

I also subscribe to The News and Observer here in NC.... I enjoyed your website. :)

If they are down, if they are discredited, a hard boot must be used to hold their neck to the sidewalk. They must be actively and aggressively suppressed for however long our country is to survive. They are a chronic condition. We can never be "cured" of the neocons.

although I think that Wes' reference to the NeoCon being "over" it meant figuratively, as in "fugit bout them, they are soooo over"......in terms of the NeoCon movement having the same kind of serious juice given to them in the past.

Due to their demonstrated incompetence, lack of honesty, and a "strategy" to nowhere but Rapture, the NeoCons can no longer feel confident that they can sell the notion that they hold the Key to some "doable" "master plan" to keep American supreme, which was their "rap" was as far back as 1996! Sooner than later they will be KOed to a pulp by all who are no longer buying into their delussional vision of Power for the United States and its corporate partners. They have proven that they don't know what the F* they are talking about.....and those who might have bought into their vision once upon a time, will no longer.

But yes, we should never forget the kind of harm those espousing empire building using our military and bullying rethoric can do to a democracy as well as the rest of the world ...literally! We can't ever again let some dumbass Back-assward Think Tank ideology control American Foreign policy.

Next time some "Global Strategic" tank sends our future Democratic President a letter outlining their approach for world domination, he/she should certainly tell them to crawl back into the whole they hence came.....and that he/she's got an appointed Democratic cabinet to do the "strategery" portion of planning our place in the global world.

Clinton really should have told them to kiss his ass loud and clear when he had the chance. I guess that he was always trying to prove that he could be a Good Commander in Chief to those who included in their plans to doubt him purposefully and publicly.
As far as Bush, well...... he was bought by them.

Back during the 04 primary season, he often made the point that Bush was trying to change the way US Foreign policy works permanently to a policy of 'preventative war".

That is, Country A just has to look sideways at the US and it gives the US a reason to attack".

One of the reasons he felt compelled to run in 04 was this change in paradigm that could well change the way US foreign policy works for the next 50 years. His op-ed is really about the idea that the neocon's philosophy of "conquer to democratize" is a failed strategy and even the 'typical' voter is waking up to that fact


A good deal of the rest of it is a call to the 'inside the beltway' elected and punditry crowd to understand that they need to wake up to the fact that much of the US population ain't buying it anymore

and and

In essence, out here where people vote, the jig is up.

Director George Tenet referred the outing of Valerie Plame to the Justice Department. That was followed by the Pentagon leak in April 2004 of the Abu Ghraib photos. In May 2005, the FBI arrested Larry Franklin and two AIPAC lobbyists in the OSP-AIPAC espionage case.

This is all part of the same counter-offensive by career intel and military officers against the neocons and their insidious hold over the White House and DoD that led to the disasters in counter-terrorism, Iraq, and the growing crisis in the Middle East.

This game is being played for keeps, and is rarely reported for what it is, but it isn't new.

Neocons latest war....

Doesn't sound over to me...We got 2 more years of this bunch....and probably a Congress that won't put up much of a fight, no matter what happens in Nov. I have very little faith in the Democrats. How are they going to defuse Lieberman as he undercuts them this fall? (and Salazar and how many others?) Will they even try? Heck, are they hoping their old buddy Joe wins?

PS. I'm still wondering about Clark's dive right into the "support Israel no questions asked" on FOX early in the invasion---sounding like someone from the Bush Administration. As an "analyst" he failed to give an assessment that was in the "honest broker" mold. No mention of proportionality or ramifications for the reason. etc etc. Then he goes back to how we should talk to Syria and Iran, but in the meantime, he just accepted the Israeli action, even though it smacks of being the first step toward the confrontation with Iran/Syria that he is so cautious about wanting.

Major unresolved disconnect for me. It may be "forgotten" and glossed over, but I really want to know the WHY? of it. Just the Dem party line (although they seem to have shut up)?
Caught the enthusiasm from FOX? What??

he does feel and has said that Israel does a the right to defend itself, although I don't think the "no questions asked" is something that he has ever said.

I don't know of one politician except for a few liberal Representatives who have ever said that Israel didn't have the right to defend itself....and a few more who say Israel has the right as long as it is "proportional" (whatever that means....as violence begets more violence generally, and somehow determining what is proportional is pretty much subjective to a great extent.)

Wes' words smack the typical standard American stance in the Middle East for quite sometime (as does Kerry, Edwards, Feingold, Gore, Warner, Bayh, Clinton, etc., etc. (except perhaps Kucinich)).

To be honest with you, I don't recall the United States ever being true "Honest Broker" in the Middle East (when Israel is concerned)....although in the past, there have been instances, were we gave a better appearance of being not so much to the side of Israel.....while funding their military hardware at the same time (I don't know which is worse; the pretense to be what we truly are not, or being honest about what we truly are?)

However, in this fox interview, I think that Wes Clark does provide insight on his position.....In which his conclusion points to the fact that violence and retaliation will not be the answer for either factions currently fighting, but will only feed into thinking that violence is a means to an end.

Juliet Huddy: Okay, but today, as U.S. President, would you meet with Hizbullah and talk to them?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: No, I wouldn't be meeting with Hizbullah. Not at all. But what I would've done is, as soon as this started, I would've gone to the government of Lebanon and given my support to the government of Lebanon and made sure that we got humanitarian assistance and humanitarian arrangements worked out right away. Israel had a right to defend itself, and Hizbullah is an organization that had no business being armed or attacking into Israel. That was absolutely wrong, but the people of Lebanon, the civilians, the other 60% who aren't Shia and the 90% who aren't affiliated with Hizbullah, They shouldn't be punished for this. And this is a matter, now, that's got to be settled through diplomacy. It's not going to be settled by force, and the fighting that we're seeing right now is the jockeying to set the terms of the settlement on the battlefield, and then the, the, the settlement that comes afterwards, the cease-fire, whatever will, it will basically validate what's been achieved by force of arms.
http://securingamerica.com/node/1281
-----------

Gloria, if I can ask you a question?

Do you think that Iran and/or Syria are involved with aspects of Hizbullah or not? and If not, what tells you so?

I have read that Iran has supported Hezbollah, but there is no firm agreement on their role in this fight now and in fact, I read today that Nasrullah might not even be listening to Iran at all at this point.

As for Clark: Yes, I saw that interview you quote....HOWEVER, that does not erase his earliest appearances which I commented on extensively over at CCN under "Ruths Blog" on those early dates (7/18 blog in particular).

My big gripe was the lack of objective analysis and the tone of his comments as an "analyst" and the knawing feeling that he wasn't/isn't allowing any thoughts of how this would play out in terms of the PNAC plans for the Middle East. I woke up the first night thinking about the connections, for Pete's sake...I still see this being studiously ignored by Clark. To the point now that he says the neocons are over? What happened to P. 130 of Winning Modern Wars? There is a gap here --from pre-conflict to jumping back to straight military assessment, etc. by about the 3rd or 4th FOX appearance that week. It's that gap which is bothering me. Leadership would be filling that gap for me.

find it as disconnected as you do. I have not taken sides in this ME saga, because I think that everyone comes out a loser. Violence begets violence, after all, and so I have no zeal to "Defend" Wes on his statements that Israel has the right to defend itself....because for me it's neither here nor there. However, I don't agree with anyone 100% of the time, and yet I can understand his stance, as it is the stance of this nation since 1948.

However, Clark is still advocating "talking" to both Syria and Iran....who are widely suspected of running the pre-show in reference to Hizbollah's unexpected strength. This to me means that although Clark understands that both of these countries may be who has funded and trained Hizbollah (and I don't believe that Wes Clark would be saying this if he felt that it was questionnable)(and whether Nasrullah is calling the shots now or not, the influence of Iran and Syria has made the present circumstances possible which makes them accountable and involved)(even if the GOP is also stating that Iran and Syria are involved, doesn't make it incorrect--as we all know that even a broken clock is right twice a day), he is NOT now saying that there can be no negotiations; in other words, he is saying that since this happen, we should want to talk to these countries even more. I would be more concerned if Wes had now said that there can be no talking to Iran and Syria based on what has happened in lebanon. Now that would alarm me!

Regardless of the fact that the PNAC plan may have contributed in taking us where we are (and I believe that it has), the facts on the ground are unfortunately now the facts on the ground, and they must be looked at for what they are.

Clark has said that both Israel and the Bush Administration should not have ignored Hizbollah prior to this conflict, which is partially the reason that what is happening is happening. So he is also laying blame where much of the blame lies.

However, Hizbollah is not our friend, and they are NOT solely a political party (although I understand why they are in existence...still doesn't make their tactics anymore justified...cause again, violence begets violence, IMO), as they are also an army within a country, but not the army of the country. They have a goal, and their methods in attaining that goal are not near close to honorable, as you see they are not willing to step back in the name of stopping the death of innocent Civilians (which makes them just as wrong as the Israelies, in my eye), and they never have.

So Wes has spoken on the mistakes made by both Bush and Israel in not helping Lebanon out more, in particular, once they got Syria out of the country. He also believes that Hizbollah should not be in Lebanon operating as an army (an army that was the only one who ever fought and won a war against Israel), and that this organization is at fault for agressing against Israel as it has done in the past, knowing that Israel would most likely react forcefully, like it has in the past when Hizbollah has been involved. And although some have said that Israel has dealt with the Government of Lebanon in a much more restrained manner in the past, and that Hizbollah was rather suprised to the extent of Israel's response--they shouldn't be...because Lebanon, the country was not the agressor in this, and therefore, dealing with Lebanon's government at this point wouldn't necessarily stop Hizbollah....cause if Nasrullah isn't listening to Iran, then you can bet that he ain't listening to the Lebanese government either! the sad part is that Lebanon's payback for attempting to cooperate with demands to get Syria out is to be caught in the crossfire of two factions, one which resides within their territory and one who has an historical track record for attacking those territories. This is what is more than unfortunate, unfair and the reason why there is blame enough to go round.

But yeah...I'd rather see Clark take the stance of advocating for an unconditional CeaseFire.....although I don't know if that was done, whether we wouldn't simply experience a replay of this later on down the road--the way we see it replaying itself now, once again.

Are there easy answers on this one? I don't necessarily think so....although some might. :shrug:

Read this post of mine to if you want to know how I feel about Wes' statement that we can forget about the NeoCons:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2770725&mesg_id=2771960

many time--eg Boxer rebellion & Fitzmas. I celebrate the Lamont victory, but it's too early to tell if this is the beginning of the end, or an isolated success.

I'd love for him to be our V.P. candidate, and would wholeheartedly support him if nominated for the top position, as well.

If only this guy could win the Democratic Primary, he'd kick anyone's ass in the Presidential election, IMO.

and we got 2 more years of Bush's FUBAR policies to endure.

is a wonderful example of my intrigue with DU. Thanks to you all for such a cordial expression of ideas and sentiment. I too, have followed and supported Wes Clark, and consider him a fine example of the direction our party and nation should be going.

Clark-Edwards or Edwards-Clark or Gore-Clark -- we have some primo candidates moving up. I really want to support Wes Clark this time around.

Thanks so much for posting this Op-Ed and the link to the whole thing. After the events of the past 24 hours, this makes fine reading. :-)

Hekate

BFEE & Lieberman.
For some reason. ALL other democrats when faced with the mighty "911" words recoil like a vampire from the cross. Go figure,