Posts

Spooks. Intelligence collectors. Agents and handlers. Interceptors and radar operators. Long range reconnaissance. First in and last out of any war zone, potential or actual. Out in front of friendly defenses. Sometimes under cover, without uniforms and therefore, without Geneva Convention protection.

But even when they don't wear uniforms, they serve our country and protect our freedoms. They do it for little pay, often no recognition at all, and sometimes at risk of making the ultimate sacrifice in the performance of their duty.

The first American casualty in the War on Terror was CIA operative Mike Spann. And over forty years before, the first American to die in Vietnam was Army Specialist James T. Davis a signal intercept operator working under cover for the National Security Agency.

So no one, NO ONE, can claim to support "the troops" and not give a damn about the men and women who collect the intelligence that lets the rest of the troops do their jobs.

But that's exactly what I heard from Republicans on the House Oversight Committee last week as they questioned witnesses concerning the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson.

Read more at Soldiering on for Wesley Clark

Those of us who follow the Christian tradition are currently in the middle of Lent: a season where we turn inward, reflect about our lives, sometimes take on or give up certain things. You can give up more than sweets or alcohol:  this year I “gave up” driving one day a week (among other things), which has been a very interesting experience.

Sacrifice seems to be a concept a lot of people talk about, but not very many want to do. We hear endless talk about sacrificing for the War on Terror: yet, when a true national emergency hit, our president urged us to go to the mall.  We are currently at war in Iraq, with tens of thousands of our young people wounded or killed, but unless you know (or are) one of these young people, it’s easy to ignore the entire thing and just focus on the latest example of American Idol.  We admire people who sacrifice, they are heroes, but they don’t tend to be emulated. 

Which brings me to General Wesley Clark and how he embodies a spirit of service and sacrifice.  Someone with his gifts and abilities could probably have done just about anything. He could have gone into business, or politics, yet he chose to serve his country in the armed force. After he retired from the service, again, he could have become a lobbyist for a defense contractor, sat on boards of directors and made enormous sums of money.  After his first presidential campaign, he could have, once again, retired from public life, written books, sat on more corporate boards, played with his grandchildren - in short, had a very nice life.

Read More at Faith & Reason

Steve Clemons is all a twitter at the thought of Chuck Hagel entering the presidential race. Since Steve’s forte is national security, I can understand his excitement.

Agree with him or not, you have to admit that Hagel’s has been the loudest, most consistent voice (except for Wes Clark) among possible contenders, on the debacle that is Iraq, and indeed, Bush’s whole foreign policy “vision”.

I think Clemons is right in as much as his entry could really shake up the race….

……..I’m must concerned about getting the Democratic contenders to shape up. I think with Hagel in the race — they will have little choice but to mimick his views on the Iraq War and foreign policy.

Wes Clark played this role on being the first significant political player to endorse direct negotiations with Iran.

Hagel will stir the pot in good ways. Americans need to get to know him to see if the other issues they care about mesh with the Senator’s views — but on foreign policy and national security and Iraq — I think he gets it right.

With Hagel in the mix, the current Dem contenders will have to face national security head on, instead of the usual sound bites and we all know how much they prefer to retreat to the safe cocoon of domestic politics.

Read more at A Time To Lead

Obama calls Iran threat to U.S., Israel | Chicago Tribune

Seeking to woo Jewish votes and contributions, Sen. Barack Obama told an audience in Chicago Friday that he considers Iran “one of the greatest threats to the United States, Israel and world peace” and pledged he would try to end that nation’s uranium enrichment program. <

> “My plan includes a robust regional diplomatic strategy that includes talking to Syria and Iran — something this administration has finally embraced,” he (Barack Obama) said. <

Your plan, Senator Obama? o’really?

Read more at Wes Clark, Protect Our Civil Liberties

- - - - -

If you have a blog or website, please go to StopIranWar for this blog ad to carry on your site. Let's stop a third war before it starts if we can.

I was fortunate enough to see Wes Clark interviewed by Amy Goodman at the 92nd St Y in NYC last night. He was, as usual, wonderful, knowledgeable and brutally honest.

He and his lovely wife Gert met with a small group of supporters before the event. Wes spoke to us and answered questions for about half an hour. He told us how much we all meant to him. He took questions, of course, about a potential ’08 run but said nothing committal, only that he’s trying to turn the conversation to a discussion of the issues and doesn’t know if it can be done. Running for President was too much about celebrity, he said.

Someone asked about his trip to Saudi Arabia and he said that there’s a lot of anger toward Americans, not just the Bush Administration as before but now toward Americans. He spoke of how he’d talked to people before the ‘04 election who said they did not hold all Americans accountable for what Bush was doing because we didn’t all elect him but things would be different if he put him back in office...and he won "an uncontested election", I think that’s the way he put it. Someone suggested he hadn’t won and Wes didn’t discount that but noted that, for whatever their reasons, the Democratic leadership chose not to contest the election at the time when it would have mattered....It was an interesting little exchange. Take from it what you will.

Read more at A Wes Clark Democrat

 - - - - -

To order stopIranWar buttons to pass out, go here.

He wants to do it for his own last chance to create some sort of legacy.. His oil buddies, including the vice-president, want him to attack Iran, to eliminate one more wildcard in the deck of world petroleum suppliers. His long-time family friends in the House of Saud, the people he owes for bailing him out of one failed business venture after another, want him to attack Iran to curb Iranian Sh'ia hegemony in the region. And mostly, his last bastion of support in the fundamentalist Church wants him to attack Iran, because they believe it will be good for Israel and is therefore what God wants him to do. Oh, and it doesn't hurt that Israeli Likudnik hard-liners, who tell the fundies what to believe about what's good for Israel, want him to bomb Iran so they won't have to.

So what is Bush doing to prepare for a new war? Well, he appointed a Navy four-star to run U.S. Central Command. There has NEVER before been an admiral in charge of CENTCOM. It's a ground-based theater, suited for the employment of Army and Marine Corps units. Except for the Persian Gulf, of course. A president whose focus was on Iraq or Afghanistan would want an Army or Marine Corps officer in charge.

But a president more interested in military operations in the Gulf?

Read more on Soldiering on for Wesley Clark

- - - - -

If you have a blog or website, please go to StopIranWar for this blog ad to carry on your site. Let's stop a third war before it starts if we can.

Concerns have been expressed (I know, I’ve seen them) that General Clark might have trouble finding talented political staff still available to work on his campaign for President, because Clark will be entering the race for the Democratic nomination several weeks or even months later than other Democratic candidates. This is a concern that never seems to come up regarding Al Gore, when people assert that he may still make a late entrance into the Presidential race; it is only raised about Wes Clark. And that is probably because in 2004, when Wes Clark entered the race late in September, he had to cobble together a campaign staff quickly from national political operatives who were not yet spoken for at the time, and that became problematic for him.

Fair enough as far as that goes, but a wrong lesson can be drawn from Clark’s 2004 campaign experience. Obviously entering a race in September is a different matter than entering a race in, let’s say February. The truth is there are many good potential campaign workers and managers still out there to hire to guide a Presidential run, though not all of them have previously established strong national reputations. While John Kerry got the pick of the litter of national Democratic campaign advisors when he became our nominee for President in 2004, there are some who now say he might have been better off with a runt.

Read more at A Left Turn FOR CLARK

-snip

I imagine he would have known before hiring the feminist Pandagon blogger for his campaign what it was she blogged about; he would take responsibility, even in the unlikely event he had not known what she blogged before she worked for him, for that staffing decision.

I can't imagine he would permit a Dem-bashing wing nut bigot like William Donohue to abuse his staff or dictate his campaign actions; nor would he credit the Catholic League with representing all Catholics or the Catholic Church; or fail to call a coordinated right wing attack, a coordinated right wing attack.

I imagine, as a man of faith himself and as a constant gentleman, Clark would not care for the style of Marcotte's criticism of Catholic doctrine; he would say so.

As a soldier, I don't imagine frank language hurts his sensibilities.

As a cultured man, he might recognize strong, but satirical writing when he sees it.

As a political philosopher, he might recognize that Marcotte meets an obligation, as a feminist political blogger, to criticize an institution that involves itself in the politics of reproductive rights. (All. The. Time.)

As a warrior, to my mind, he would respect that fight.

He would understand, I imagine, that faith and reason, (most Catholics make practical adjustment to dogma all the time in their personal lives), is not irreconcilable, and while words may hurt a little bit, they are not bullets to be avoided as if your life depends on it.

I imagine he would say that even a lapsed Catholic atheist lesbian feminist (horrors!) has the right to make a living and not be hounded from her job by someone who opposes her on her political views, personal life choices or spiritual path.

Read more at A Wes Clark Democrat

It’s been over 40 years since LBJ refused to choose between Guns and Butter, and we all came out losers because of it. Had he chosen only Guns, fewer Americans would have paid an economic price, and had he settled on Butter alone, its likely America would not have sacrificed at all. But LBJ couldn’t make that choice; instead he told America you can have this war and eat butter too. Thousands of Americans kept dying in Viet Nam and ultimately butter, along with all consumer goods and services, soared in price in an inflationary spiral until many Americans could barely afford to put margarine on their tables.

We are not exactly fighting a second Viet Nam War now, though Iraq is the closest thing to it for America since Saigon fell. Our military deployment in Iraq remains a fraction of the half a million Army of predominantly draftees that the United States once shipped off to war in South East Asia. Without a draft, most American families don’t have to worry themselves sick over whether their sons, and potentially now their daughters, will be shipped off to fight in a war they want no part of. With less troops fighting in Iraq than once fought in Viet Nam, it means there are fewer overall casualties also, which means less funerals for those of us at home to attend for the children of friends, neighbors and co-workers fallen in combat, far less than the bloodier days of the Viet Nam era. So much pain averted, for most of us.

Read more at A Left Turn FOR CLARK

I'm giving the General a great big salute. The man has balls the size of Mt. Rushmore, IMO!

The General walked into the DNC Winter Meeting as an undeclared candidate to Johnny Cash's "I Won't Back Down" and does the job he came to do against CW calculated odds!

Here's the set up;

Wes Clark was scheduled to speak in between two of what the media has consistently labeled as the greatest political orators of our current times; Barak Obama and John Edwards.

Sen. Barak Obama educated as an attorney, became a top Presidential contender based on, among other things, a single speech he gave at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. With his rich baritone voice, Barak offers an effective rhythm and cadence reminiscent of a preacher/scholar with an unconventional approach to the subject of politics. Barak is simply a natural.

John Edwards, billed as a politician who can talk owls out of a tree since his single speech the “Two Americas", was highly touted during the 2004 Primary campaign as a great speaker. On the strength of his one speech describing the state of poverty here in the United states, Edwards became a top 2004 primary contender and was later selected by popular demand as the Vice Presidential candidate by John Kerry, then the nominee.

Read more at RAPID FIRE - Silver Bullets