The Peace Candidate for 2008

He might as well have been singing John Lennon’s old anthem. Last night, while sitting in the rabid FOX’s den, Wes Clark said this to Bill O’Reilly:

"What's wrong with this scenario? You talk with Iran, you hold them at bay. One way or another, somehow, western influence seeps into Iran and the people of Iran decide that there's a better way of living, than being under the Ayatollahs. Isn't that a better approach than saying we're going to have to go to war with Iran, definitely?"

Clark didn’t promise that we could all live happily ever after if we tried that approach. No, all he was saying was give peace a chance. Peace with Iran, it seems, has become a controversial proposition. Our war with Iraq, it seems, now makes war with Iran almost inevitable. Here is a headline from today’s New York Times:

“To Counter Iran’s Role in Iraq, Bush Moves Beyond Diplomacy” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/11/world/middleeast/11diplo.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

When it comes to diplomacy it appears Bush moves faster than the eye can see. The story starts as follows:


"WASHINGTON, Jan. 10 — In promising to stop Iran from meddling in Iraq, President Bush returned Wednesday night to a strategy of confrontation in dealing with Tehran, casting aside what had been a limited flirtation with a more diplomatic approach toward it.

Mr. Bush accused Iran of providing material support for attacks on American troops and vowed to respond. “We will disrupt the attacks on our forces,” he said in his speech. “We will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”

Mr. Bush said the United States would send another aircraft carrier and it’s supporting ships to the Persian Gulf. Administration officials said the battle group would be stationed within quick sailing distance of Iran, a response to the growing concern that Iran is building up its own missile capacity and naval power, with the goal of military dominance in the gulf. "


OK then, here is how Bush’s new foreign policy initiative in Iraq is shaping up. To make Americans feel safer at home, Bush is sending 22,000 more of us into combat in Iraq. To stabilize Iraq and stop the entire region from sliding into dangerous chaos and wider war, Bush is expanding the focus of our military to target Iran now also. Rarely has “more of the same” literally been so apt a description of a President’s policy. And rarely has a pop song from the 60’s provided such an apt response.

All Clark is saying, is give peace a chance.

Two days ago, on Washington Post Radio, while speaking about the Middle East, Wes Clark had this exchange with the radio hosts:


ANCHORWOMAN: Now we've fired things up, and there's so much violence between the Shia and Sunni that's spilled over actually, you know, outside of Iraq now into neighboring jurisdictions. We see fighting between Hezbullah and, and Hamas. I mean, i, it, how, how do we even begin to tackle all of that?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, we can't begin to tackle it by adding to the violence. That should be our last resort-

ANCHORMAN: Well, you mention-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: -because, you know in the, in, in the world, when you kill people, their relatives don't like it. And in that part of the world-

ANCHORWOMAN: Mm hm.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: -they vow revenge, and so if you, you may have to use force, but it should be the last option.
http://securingamerica.com/node/2101


I don’t normally recycle content from one blog entry to another, but this is a good place for an exception to that rule. The following comments by Clark are also found in a blog piece I wrote for A Left Turn FOR CLARK called “The Lid On Pandora’s Trunk; Stopping the Next War NOW.” The direct link to that is: http://www.aleftturnforclark.com/2006/12/the_lid_on_pandoras_trunk_stop.html#more

Speaking about Peace, Wes Clark said this, while campaigning for Democrats in New Hampshire in October of 2006:


"We're being set up again, just like we were with Iraq, and what I've found in my life is, generally that if you want a war, you can have one.

Most people are about equally brave, most people will fight. Most people love their families, they love their homes, they believe that whatever they believe in is the single one way to truth, reconciliation and the after life, and most people will fight for it. Most people are not philosophical about it, and whether you're walking into a bar in New York City after the Red Sox have played the Yankees, or whether you're dealing with the Bosnians and the Serbs, or whether you're talking about Christians and Iranians.

People will fight for what they believe in. So if we want a war with a billion Muslims, we can probably have one. I don't think we want one, we certainly don't need one, and we should do everything we can to prevent it. "


Looking back at my youth, you can call me a former hippie if you want, but no one will ever say that about General Wesley Clark. First in his class at West Point, the man was a soldier through and through. Naïve, and Four Star General, are mutually exclusive terms. Wes Clark understands the use of force, he accepts that a time can come when force is the only realistic option left. Wes Clark never shies away from force out of fear. No, he shies away from force, whenever possible, out of wisdom.

Wes Clark today is a lonely voice of reason in a rhetoric swamp of fear. While our Presdient sends war ships steaming toward Iran, Clark says peace is still possible, and urges us to escalate the number of diplomats in the region.

How do we recognize the real Peace candidate for 2008? He’s the one who is saying; Give Peace a Chance. Make that Wes Clark for President.

I was wondering about a ticket I hadn't considered before . . .





































Clark/Kucinich '08 ?

I saw him on C-SPAN

BUT... the media would slap it down because it is a populist ticket AND some cutesy politician would just still all their ideas and get away with it because he's the media's definition of "good looking."

:hi:

Wes shares the concerns that you and I have. To avoid war and save our Country from the enemy within, ignorance and greed. The path we have followed has been predicted by Clark and I have watched my greater fears unfold just as Wes has described them. I enjoy politics as sport and the human interest involved, but Wes has made it clear for some time that this is more serious and very real. He has not waited to see where the wind blew him or where the currents carried him. He has led the fight and set ego aside to work for the better of all. This is why I am dedicated to supporting his ability to get his message out. Thanks again, Tom, for spelling it out clearly.

It's almost as if diplomacy is something just short of being considered taboo that no one bothers considering anymore. Thank goodness for brave Democrats like Clark who would rather try settling our differences by talking instead of killing each other without even trying first.

Recommended.

and I like what I'm hearing.

be a good and interesting ticket!

to intimate that Clark is the "peace candiate" when Kucinich is running.

Unbelievable.

I like Dennis and much of his message. I also realize what is not possible. You have to have a plan to succeed, that has become obvious.

Ideally, all the Dems should run as peace candidates; I'm not about to support anybody who isn't one. But it's obvious that Kucinich won't be able to claim sole ownership of that title if Clark runs.

Clark wants peace just as much as Kucinich! What it's all about is how best to achieve a lasting peace for everyone!

Clark hasn't won the Gandhi Peace Award, Kucinich has. Kucinich has been committed to peace for many years and can be counted on to keep his promises. Clark may be a good man but he has no public service record and I don't think people want a retired general as president at this point in history.

After WW II, people supported Gen. Eisenhower, but after two wars that have turned into fiascos (three, if we count Afghanistan, which we undoubtedly should) and lost nearly 60,000 American lives, generals look like losing football coaches.

what I said. That sort of "insult and run" post doesn't contribute a thing to any discussion.

For one thing, Clark won his war, and without American casualties (I think there were NATO casualties, thought not many). So the losing football coach tag doesn't apply to Clark. My post intentionally played on the irony of having a General carrying the message that Wes Clark is carrying. It was meant to get people's attention and so in that way it used poetic license.

Of course Denis Kucinich is a Peace candidate, and a good one, and you can call him the real Peace candidate if you want. I have no problem with anyone making that claim. I pick Clark because I think Clark is the man who can actually get elected and deliver Peace. That is my honest opinion, I do factor in who I believe can actually make Peace happen, because making Peace happen involves getting that message heard in wider circles and then getting elected where one is in a position to actively promote it. And be able to do something like appoint someone like Dennis Kucinich as our Ambassador to the U.N. I admit that I am one of those who believe that Dennis has an important role to play in our national debate, but think he can't get elected President.

Dennis is talking about Peace all the time, but mostly those who hear him is an ever widening circle of Peace and Justice activists. Clark is literally talking about peaceful coexistence with Iran to FOX viewers on Bill O'Reilly's show. If we really want peace in this world, we need leaders who will stand up for it in front of any audiance, ones with the credibility needed to take that message home.

If I "skipped through several points" in my post, you've done the same in your posts. Here are my points again:


Clark hasn't won the Gandhi Peace Award, Kucinich has.

Kucinich has been committed to peace for many years.

Kucinich can be counted on to keep his promises. (Do some research about him to learn what I'm talking about.)

Clark may be a good man but he has no public service record.

I don't think people want a retired general as president at this point in history.

After WW II, people supported Gen. Eisenhower, but after two wars that have turned into fiascos (three, if we count Afghanistan, which we undoubtedly should) and lost nearly 60,000 American lives, generals look like losing football coaches.


You state that Clark won "his war" and no AMERICANS were killed, but I don't think people in the former Yugoslavia feel too good about Clark's "win." I have a friend who came from Yugoslavia so I know something about the effects of the war. Many YUGOSLAVIANS were killed and maimed and their country changed forever; there is no Yugoslavia anymore. Serbs and Croats who had been friends for many years stopped speaking to each other. So Clark may have been a winner in that war but a great many people lost their homes, their friends and loved ones, and even their lives.

It was primarily his hyper nationalist Serbian agenda that tore Yugoslavia apart, and the results can be laid at his doorstep. Look into the siege of Sarajevo, look into the slaughter at Srbrenica, look into the Rape camps. Most Peace activists value international laws and tribunals and care about War crimes. Milosevic is the one who was put on trial as an international war criminal, and it wasn't a U.S. Court. Millions of Albanian Kosovans consider Wes Clark to be a hero for saving them from genocide. Streets are named after him in Kosovo, his picture hangs in many homes there. Read Samantha Powers on genocide and Yugoslavia. I've included links to her in a post below.

I only raised Clark winning his war because you suggested that Americans won't want to listen to Generals after recent military fiascoes, but I support what NATO did in Yugoslavia, and I think that the overwhelming majority of Americans do also. Terrible mistakes are made in every war, which is a damn good reason to avoid them when possible, but sometimes it is not possible, and sometimes a love of the second half of the Progressive holy grail; Peace and Justice, demands that naked violent aggression be opposed, and sometimes that means opposing it with force. The Abraham Lincoln brigade of Americans who went off to Spain to oppose Franco's fascist power grab there were all progressive volunteers fighting for justice.

Milosevic has his defenders, sometimes they operate openly, and sometimes under cover. Everyone gets defended by someone, that's simply the way it is, but I'll take Wes Clark's side of this fight any day or night, along with the Clinton/Gore Administration. I wish they had listened to Clark about Rwanda, and I wish Bush had listened to Clark three years ago about Darfur when he first urged an intervention to save lives there.

I don't think you have any basis to know that the American People don't want a n ex-General, one who will have been retired for 8 years by the time Clark takes office, as President. There was a lot of evidence to suggest that a few years ago the American people would have looked favorably on a Colin Powell run for President, though he shot his credibility straight to hell over Iraq. Clark, however, did the opposite. He warned about Iraq and now he is warning about Iran. Clark is the coach who said don't make that trade and got over ruled by the General Manager who went ahead and pulled the trigger anyway on a lousy deal that ruined the team. Clark looks like the sane one here.

And I do like Kucinich, and I did not imply anything negative about Kucinich in any way in my OP. I wrote about this more below in another reply, but right now I think that the greatest threat to world peace is not how long how many U.S. troops remain in Iraq before inevitably they are coming home, I think the far graver greatest threat to Peace is rapidly building hostilities between the United States and Iran, and I do not believe there is another current or potential presidential candidate who has gone further out on a limb arguing for "give peace a chance" with Iran than Wesley Clark. The combination of those two conclusions underlies this blog, it is in no way an attack on or lack of appreciation for Dennis Kucinich's life work. I just think that Wes Clark is the man best positioned and able to stop the next war with Iran, and that is why he is my Peace candidate.

And Wes Clark and Dennis Kucinich have more in common than you might suspect. Next to Kucinich himself, Clark came closest to calling for a Department of Peace in 2003:

"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."
http://www.nhpr.org/node/5339

like Colin Powell, not knowing about his role in covering up the My Lai massacre. Now he's forever tarnished as the general who lied to the UN.

But forget Powell, we're talking about Clark. . .

In the past six years we've gone to war against Afghanistan and Iraq, and bombed Somalia last week. People are sick of war; only 26% are supporting * on Iraq now. That is why I do not think a majority of voters would vote for Clark, a career military man.

Eisenhower won because WW II was a war everyone was proud of, not realizing that, as always, the war profiteers made out like bandits (well, they are bandits!) People trusted the government and the military a lot more in the Fifties than they do now.

...for any other major institution in America. Sometimes we forget that we exist in our own bubble in places like Democratic Underground. Here is a study I came across that I reported on on my own blog. I called my entry "No Wonder Senators Never Get Elected President"
http://www.aleftturnforclark.com/2006/12/


This is taken from Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government's Center for Public Leadership Report:

"National Leadership Index 2006"
http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/leadership/nli/

"A year ago, in the first national study of confidence in leadership, two-thirds of people across the United States said that there is a leadership crisis in our country, and nearly three-quarters said that unless our leaders improve, the U.S. would decline as a nation. A year later, this second study finds, confidence in American leaders has deteriorated even further: now some 70% believe there is a leadership crisis in the United States today. The pages that follow chronicle an unhappy moment in our national life. Just look at the National Leadership Index for 2006, a ranking of the public’s confidence in the leadership of the 11 major sectors of society. Americans say they have more than a moderate amount of confidence in only two of the 11 sectors: the military and medicine. All other sectors of leadership fail to win even a moderate amount of confidence."

The Military is top ranked for "Overall Confidence in Leadership" in this survey. Local Government comes in at number six, the highest rating for government at any level. State Government ranks seventh, Congress ranks ninth, and the Executive Branch ranks tenth out of the eleven categories presented.

And who occupies the basement? The Press.

Something else interesting to ponder. Probably the single largest demographic group that Democrats are taking voters away from Republicans in is military families and veterans. Here is a report from the L.A. Times:


Weaning the military from the GOP
A less partisan military is good for democracy and allows a more frank debate on national security.
January 5, 2007


BURIED IN THE NEWS last week was one of the most potentially significant stories of recent years. The Military Times released its annual poll of active-duty service members, and the results showed something virtually unprecedented: a one-year decline of 10 percentage points in the number of military personnel identifying themselves as Republicans. In the 2004 poll, the percentage of military respondents who characterized themselves as Republicans stood at 60%. By the end of 2005, that had dropped to 56%. And by the end of 2006, the percentage of military Republicans plummeted to 46%.

The drop in Republican Party identification among active-duty personnel is a sharp reversal of a 30-year trend toward the "Republicanization" of the U.S. military, and it could mark a sea change in the nature of the military — and the nature of public debates about national security issues.

For most of U.S. history, issues of national security rarely divided Americans along sharp party lines: The old adage that "politics ends at the water's edge" generally held true. The military, while institutionally conservative with a small "c," was not closely identified with a particular political party. But somewhere between the end of the Vietnam War and the middle of the Clinton era, the U.S. military began to look like a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Republican Party."
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Los+Angeles+Times%22+%22military+voters%22&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1


This is a potentially devestating development for the National Republican Party, and I think Wes Clark is one of the prime movers in making this shift happen.

Are you by any chance talking about the Bosnian conflict? Because that was not "Clark's war". He actually helped broker the peace for that conflict as part of the US team in Dayton with Richard Holbrooke and others. Holbrooke's "To End a War" is a good book to read about the negotiations that resulted in the Dayton Peace Accords.

As for the Kosovo action, which I guess could be called "Clark's war", if any can, no doubt there were lives torn apart there and no doubt Clark agonizes over that fact, but there were many lives saved as well....

His role in that conflict resulted in a post like this on his blog:


BTW, I love Dennis too...He was my pick for 2004 before Gen Clark got in the race.

Peace.

that both Clark and Kucinich couldn't equally be those candidates.

Geesch.

who spoke out against the war as early as Kucinich.

the "School of the America's" or whatever they call it now? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

thanks for the laugh!!! :hi:

And that "School of the Americas" crap has been thoroughly debunked here so often, I won't bother. Support another candidate, fine, but not by maliciously ripping another one.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

exactly how many wars have you personally been involved in? how many times you have been wounded on a battlefield? how many lives you have saved? how many times have you been where he's been and experienced what he's experienced in his lifetime?...he is a peace candidate, by virtue of personal experience....I say, you could always volunteer to go to Iraq, if you need to experience what he has in order to comprehend, that this alone will make you NOT want to go there again...or send anyone else's loved ones either...
windbreeze

I'll let everyone decide how open he is about the cost of war and covering it up. I write more about this on my blog, www.aleftturnforclark.com in : The Pain That Chicken Hawks Don't
http://www.aleftturnforclark.com/2006/12/the_pain_that_chicken_hawks_do.html

Here is the heart of it though:


During the 2006 Congressional elections I was present one afternoon when General Wesley Clark spoke to a predominantly Veterans audience gathered at a VFW Post in New Jersey. He was talking about post traumatic stress, and the treatment many of our veterans who return from war need, but don’t receive. General Clark spoke of the mental stress he experienced himself for years in the aftermath of the combat wounds he suffered in Viet Nam, while acknowledging that his own case was a mild one. That struck home for me, but I found myself overwhelmingly moved when General Clark recalled an experience he had as N.A.T.O. Supreme Commander during the air war in Kosovo.

As I listened I remembered that I had heard this outline before, but this time, standing in front of a crowd of mostly Veterans, there was a little more detail, and a feeling of intimacy that had me riveted. General Clark started by saying this about when he commanded the air campaign against Serbia; “I believe every human life is precious, and I knew when I was doing the bombing in Serbia – I went to bed praying we wouldn’t kill innocent people.”

Clark recalled a specific accident of War, a mechanical malfunction that affected one bombing mission. He described it in detail, he has it all etched into his memory, exactly how the bomb didn’t operate as designed, how targeting failed, the means by which the bomb “broke”, all the where and whys, and exactly what happened as a result. A cluster bomb designed to explode at 200 feet above a military target instead exploded more than a thousand feet above a school yard, and innocent children died. Wes Clark told this crowd I sat in that somehow, by some means that he can’t explain to this day, a Serbian grandfather of one of the children killed managed to get a personal letter delivered to him. “I got a letter from a Serbian grandfather. He said ‘You killed my granddaughter and I will never forget you, and I will kill you for it.’ And I don’t know how I got that letter during a War, but I’ve thought about that a lot, and prayed for forgiveness a lot.”

ever personally trying to cover anything up...

Once again, I notice, you still haven't answered the question about how many miles you've walked in his shoes, that YOU have even begun to earn the right to criticize him...
wb


ps: you might want to think about how YOUR chosen candidate would view what you are doing, where Clark is concerned...you have her avatar on your posts...which makes me wonder if she would advocate what you are doing while representing her...

I won't make that assumption. Maybe yes, maybe no.

and I shouldn't have either...I have no idea what the person's agenda is...
wb

However NATO forces were cleared of accusations of War Crimes by the United Nations. And of course the war in Kosovo was Clinton/Gore's war. They were our civilian commanders at the time. I still think you are just having fun messing with minds here with your Hillary Clinton avatar, but the truth is she was in the White House during the Kosovo war, not Clark. In fact NATO's rules of engagement required the civilian government of every NATO member to sign off on the list of targets in that war. The person who was brought to trial for War crimes involved with Kosovo was Milosevic, not Clark or any other NATO leader. And if you want to start defending Milosevic, as do most (I didn't say all) of those who churn out anti-Clark material regarding Kosovo, by all means be my guest.

Some might be interested in reading how General Clark was over ruled in his efforts to use military tactics that would have minimized civilian deaths in Kosovo, while exposing our own troops to greater risk. You can read this well researched piece:

"Boots on the Ground" not High Altitude Bombing in Kosovo was favored by Clark!"
http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2006/11/wes_clark_wanted_boots_on_the.html#more

And for those who want a little background on what ethnic cleansing inside Kosovo was really all about, here is another excellent article from the same web site, that is exhaustively researched and linked:

Kosovo was "about" Genocide, not oil or anything else "nefarious"
http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2006/12/kosovo_was_about_genocide_not.html

a poster has insinuated that accusations regarding the generals actions in Kosovo are "freeper comments"

They come both from the left and the right, and sometimes from the right pretending to be the left.

questioning the general.

My comment above acknowledges there are some clean ones. And usually the most credible ones attack the entire war, rather than focus on Wes Clark, because Wes Clark did not declare war on Kosovo, NATO did, and the secretaries of defense from each member nation were deeply involved in all of the targetting decisions as I noted above. Wes Clark voluntarily testified in front of United Nations santioned international tribunals investigating the Kosovo conflict and NATO's role in it. He didn't have to.

Are you familiar with Samantha Power's work? Here is her profile from the KENNEDY SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT FACULTY listing at Harvard:

"Samantha Power is The Anna Lindh Professor of Practice of Global Leadership and Public Policy at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government. Her book, "A Problem from Hell": America and the Age of Genocide, was awarded the 2003 Pulitzer Prize for general non-fiction, the 2003 National Book Critics Circle Award for general non-fiction, and the Council on Foreign Relations' Arthur Ross Prize for the best book in U.S. foreign policy. Powers New Yorker article on the horrors in Darfur, Sudan won the 2005 National Magazine Award for best reporting. Power was the founding executive director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy (1998-2002). From 1993-1996, she covered the wars in the former Yugoslavia as a reporter for the U.S. News and World Report, The Boston Globe, and The Economist. Power is the editor, with Graham Allison, of Realizing Human Rights: Moving from Inspiration to Impact. A graduate of Yale University and Harvard Law School, she moved to the United States from Ireland at the age of nine. She spent 2005-06 working in the office of Senator Barack Obama and is currently writing a political biography of the UN's Sergio Vieira de Mello."
http://ksgfaculty.harvard.edu/Samantha_Power

Both of these reviews are taken from the Amazon.com web site...

http://www.amazon.com/Problem-Hell-America-Age-Genocide/dp/0060541644/sr=1-1/qid=1168656714/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-3477547-1227058?ie=UTF8&s=books

...regarding her work in "A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide". Only portions are quoted:

Amazon.com
...Debunking the notion that U.S. leaders were unaware of the horrors as they were occurring against Armenians, Jews, Cambodians, Iraqi Kurds, Rwandan Tutsis, and Bosnians during the past century, Power discusses how much was known and when, and argues that much human suffering could have been alleviated through a greater effort by the U.S. She does not claim that the U.S. alone could have prevented such horrors, but does make a convincing case that even a modest effort would have had significant impact. Based on declassified information, private papers, and interviews with more than 300 American policymakers, Power makes it clear that a lack of political will was the most significant factor for this failure to intervene. Some courageous U.S. leaders did work to combat and call attention to ethnic cleansing as it occurred, but the vast majority of politicians and diplomats ignored the issue, as did the American public, leading Power to note that "no U.S. president has ever suffered politically for his indifference to its occurrence. It is thus no coincidence that genocide rages on." ...

From Publishers Weekly:
Power, a former journalist for U.S. News and World Report and the Economist and now the executive director of Harvard's Carr Center for Human Rights, offers an uncompromising and disturbing examination of 20th-century acts of genocide and U.S responses to them. In clean, unadorned prose, Power revisits the Turkish genocide directed at Armenians in 1915-1916, the Holocaust, Cambodia's Khmer Rouge, Iraqi attacks on Kurdish populations, Rwanda, and Bosnian "ethnic cleansing," and in doing so, argues that U.S. intervention has been shamefully inadequate. The emotional force of Power's argument is carried by moving, sometimes almost unbearable stories of the victims and survivors of such brutality. Her analysis of U.S. politics what she casts as the State Department's unwritten rule that nonaction is better than action with a PR backlash; the Pentagon's unwillingness to see a moral imperative; an isolationist right; a suspicious left and a population unconcerned with distant nations aims to show how ingrained inertia is, even as she argues that the U.S. must reevaluate the principles it applies to foreign policy choices..."

Here is Samantha Powers talking about Wes Clark:

Samantha Power's comments on Wesley Clark at the December 17, 2003, press conference in Concord, New Hampshire after the General's testimony at the Hague .

"Good afternoon. It's a real honor for me to be here with General Clark, and with Edita Tahiri. My name is Samantha Power. I spent about seven years looking into American responses to genocide in the twentieth century, and discovered something that may not surprise you but that did surprise me, which was that until 1999 the United States had actually never intervened to prevent genocide in our nation's history. Successive American presidents had done an absolutely terrific job pledging never again, and remembering the holocaust, but ultimately when genocide confronted them, they weighed the costs and the benefits of intervention, and they decided that the risks of getting involved were actually far greater than the other non-costs from the standpoint of the American public, of staying uninvolved or being bystanders. That changed in the mid-1990s, and it changed in large measure because General Clark rose through the ranks of the American military.

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 it was Pentagon reluctance to intervene in Rwanda, and in Bosnia, that actually made it much, much easier for political leaders to turn away. When the estimates started coming out of the Pentagon that were much more constructive, and proactive, and creative, one of the many deterrents to intervention melted away. And so I think, again, in discussing briefly the General's testimony, it's important to remember why he was able to testify at the Hague, and he testified because he decided to own something that was politically very, very unfashionable at the time."


http://www.kiddingonthesquare.com/2004/01/index.html

for school of the americas.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0117-01.htm

Wes may not be the ONLY peace candidate we have in 2008, but to me he is certainly the most credible (meaning he has the experience on both sides of the 'peace' fence).

Thanks for the post Tom, another excellent piece.

Glad to hear your organization has filled its open position; unfortunately, we're still looking ...

i suspect that our job description may be a bit different than the one you posted ...

i guess for now, we'll just say "vive la difference!"

There are many different ways to work for Peace, but I am struck by how consistently it is that General Clark uses his main stream media appearances to literally make the point; Give Peace a chance. Especially concerning Iran. And a direct attack on Iran, I fear, would trigger off a decade or more of escalating violence.

i would rather support someone who brings the right message ... this candidate MAY lose as you have speculated ... "change agents", by definition, are swimming against the popular tide ... the problem is, though, the popular tide will drown us all ...

someone needs to show us a new way ... someone needs to "lead" ... to take no risks may be comfortable but it will never lead to the changes we so desperately need ... to sniff out the fat part of the bell curve is following, not leading ...

a better vision, imo, is to do all you can to shift where the fat part of the bell curve lies ... you may indeed fail ... you may indeed lose ... but perhaps on the way you will have taught a few more the right lesson; the right way to see the world ...

the US has been a warring nation for far too long ... it is time to put an end to that ... our military spending exceeds the budgets of the entire rest of the world combined!!! we wage war after war for corporate gain ... we are destroying our country in the process ...

a peace candidate has to start someplace ... maybe the military-industrial complex war and propaganda machine will make it impossible for a peace candidate to win ... but you know, not only do i think it's worth the risk, but i'm not sure a peace candidate couldn't win ... i think the American people see no future in fighting against the entire rest of the world ... i think they increasingly understand that peace does not mean cowardice; it means putting the American people ahead of corporate greed and it means having an American foreign policy that reflects our values ...

we as Americans once proudly saw ourselves as "the best and most moral" country ... we saw ourselves as a model for the rest of the world whether it was justified or not ... we saw ourselves as "the good guys" ... it took some time after 9/11 but i believe Americans have emerged from their long, dark slumber and are not very happy at America's image in today's world ... perhaps, just perhaps, a peace candidate will "ride the wave all the way into the beach" ...

I fully agree with you.

your opinion is highly valued ...

there are still a few of us head-in-the-clouds idealists who just won't let go ... almost seems like a dirty word these days ... too bad about that ...

He tried so hard to offer a better managed war instead of being a peace candidate. He inspired no one and most voters thought he was pandering. It didn't work.

In the general election, Kerry was the candidate most likely to get us peace the fastest and the most likely NOT to attack other countries. Kerry's NYU speech, billed as the major Iraq speech, made several things clear - Kerry would rapidly train Iraqis, involve the Iraqis in reconstruction (giving them a stake in the government), elections and DIPLOMACY. Kerry anticipated withdrawing some soldiers in 2005. (Bush said this was his plan too, after Kerry said it - but he lied.)

The war was an ongoing reality, Kerry did say in the NYU speech - that he would NOT have gone to war. Kerry's history was also not hawkish. Read the Pepperdine speech to see how his core values are reflected in what he considers a just war. Any sane antiwar person should have voted Kerry, not Bush. (there were very few 3rd party votes.)

At that point more than half the population still thought getting Saddam out was worth going to war. An even higher percent, independent of whether they thought the war should have happened, thought the US had to stay and win. Kerry NEEDED to carry some of these people or he would have lost warse than McGovern. More importantly, he sincerely believed what he was saying on how to stabalize things, deal with terrorism itself (everwhere, not just Iraq) and win back our moral leadership in the world.

Kerry wasn't offering anything significantly different to those who thought Bush lied and screwed up. Its no wonder that didn't work.

When you run as a challenger you have to give people a reason to vote against the incumbent. "I'm a little less offensive than Bush and have a slightly different plan for Iraq" was not a compelling message for swing voters. We shouldn't expect a similar message to work in 2008 either.

Perhaps national attitudes would have been different about the war if we had a national spokesman who challenged false assumptions more aggressively. The failure to do that is a continuing mistake of too many Democratic "leaders."

Let's be honest about that.

Peace.

I concede that in my post #31 above, and explain what I meant further.

Peace.

We need to start bringing our troops home NOW!

Kuchinich is calling to bring the troops home now, as is John Edwards. Clark is not, nor is Hillary.

What is his plan and how does he resolve the regional turmoil that follows? Is he prepared to send them back to defend allies and honor commitments and treaties. Has he figured where an alternative energy source be found? Or has the wind blowing us to war simply changed directions? Has he put more thought into getting us out than put to get us in?

And he can't say because he doesn't know.

He's only saying what is politically expedient, just like he always has.

That sucker VOTED to send them over there to begin with. He was the ONLY Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee who DIDN'T listen to Clark and voted with the Republicans to bring the IWR out of that committee.

Sure, he's calling for them to come home now, but he doesn't understand fuck-all how to do it. Logistically, guess what? It's can't be done "now." And, under the Geneva Conventions, we can't just pick up and leave the country, either.

Sorry, but that statement made me roll my eyes. John Edwards? Sheesch.

Anyway he was SOOOOO courageous and wise to say he was sorry and made a mistake when the support for the war plummeted to an all-time low.

Can someone please explain to me how this was courageous and wise? I'm so sick of the political spin - if we say something often enough people will come to accept it as truth (as Cuomo so astutely observed in the 04 primary).

What has happened to critical thinking in America?

that escalated the Vietnam war. People can have an honest change of opinion, you know.

Edwards' record that he constantly changes as it's politically expedient. I don't buy his particular "change of heart."

Last proposal I saw was proposing to bring 40,000 troops now and the rest later (later being unspecified). He does not say how he would do that, what mission these troops would have, or when they would return? Here are the excerpts of his speech today that shows that it is still the same and that he does not give a deadline. I know that a lot of it are words as Bush is the CiC and Edwards does not propose to cut funding for the war anymore than Bush or Clark, but you are the one who insists that Edwards is better.



Kucinich IS calling to bring the troops back NOW and says how to do it. Read his proposal, then read the two lines Edwards has said on the issue, and wonder if you should even make a comparison.

Been a while since I've been here. Good to know there are still people like you on this site. Hope everyone will take a few minutes to watch and rate this anti-war song. The song is written and sung by my sister and the video was done my brother. PEACE!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFlHLHMjy14

Even if the media continue to say he has no chance of winning. He actually VOTED against the IWR. Talk is cheap.

Talk is not cheap, talk is essential. Bush can start that war without going to congress first. There may never be a vote. We have to mobilize public opinion. Talk is precious.

especially about not making war on muslims. It shows an understanding of the issue that points the country in the right direction, beyond just getting out of Iraq. Also, I have a feeling Clark would take steps to solve Israel-Palestine, which imo is the key to peace in the ME. Neither Edwards nor Clinton show any inclination to taking on that task.