While his supporters sit on the edge of their seats pleading for an announcement of a second presidential primary run by General Clark, he will not be moved. He has said several times, when pressed, that partisan politics will have to take second chair to the more immediate issue of impending war with Iran. "Once a person becomes a candidate, then everything they say becomes viewed through a political lens. I don't want this viewed through a political lens. This should be viewed as a policy issue."
The Fares Center for Eastern Mediterranean Studies of Tufts University held a conference last week, "The War on Terrorism: Where Do We Stand?" where Seymour Hersh gave closing and chilling remarks.
Calling President Bush a "total radical," Hersh worried, "There's nothing more dangerous than a radical who doesn't have information, doesn't learn from information and doesn't learn from the past.... The fact of the matter is we have a government that will do what it wants to do for the next two years. The worst is yet to come. It's sort of like we're essentially powerless [and] just play it out."
I was reminded of General Clark's challenge in one of the 2004 primary debates to the candidates who had jobs in Congress: "Let's see you take apart that doctrine of preemption now. I don't think we can wait until November 2004 to change the administration on this threat. We're marching into another military campaign in the Middle East. We need to stop it."
It's three years later and Clark's early warning is the here and now.
Read more at A Wes Clark Democrat
No I'm not talking about the approaching Academy Awards Ceremony, and the golden Oscar I have to assume that Gore is favored to win for "An Inconvenient Truth" for best documentary. I'm talking about the gentle glow of praise and respect Al Gore is now enveloped in emanating from grassroots Democratic activists, and in particular the netroots. Most of us like Al Gore, we genuinely do. For one thing, we all know that he was robbed. Al Gore should be sitting in the White House now, not the Son of a Bush who currently resides there.
But it's more than that. Al Gore is at the top of his non-political
political game right now. He is far along on a high profile mission to
stop Global Warming and save the planet. How can you not love that? Al
Gore is providing important leadership on a critical issue. For now
Global Warming is Al Gore's signature issue and none of us are second
guessing him on it. We all applaud Al Gore for what he is doing.
I'm not saying that a deep commitment to stopping Global Warming is all that Al Gore has to bring to the political table. Gore is a serious and thoughtful man with real leadership experience. The thing is though, that as long as Al Gore hovers above the daily political fray with his eyes fixed on Earth's eco-sphere, he is safely out of the line of intramural Democratic fire.
From the few recent comments that Al Gore has made regarding the current situation in Iraq, his position seems to be very similar to that taken by Wes Clark for example. Unlike Al Gore though, Wes Clark has been highly identified with an Iraq position precisely because he has talked and written a great deal about it. Unlike fighting Global Warming, there is not near unanimity among Democrats about the best policy for dealing with America's occupation of Iraq right now. Anyone who stakes out a clear and highly visible position regarding Iraq is going to get dragged through the mud by someone. Clark certainly has, but not Al Gore.
-Read more at A Left Turn FOR CLARK
The new Iraq plan that George Bush unveiled this month can be boiled down to three words: "Stay the Course."
The President's proposed escalation of troops does nothing to change his failed strategy. Without the "carrots and sticks" that could be used in an all-out political and diplomatic effort throughout the region, the 21,500 American troops that President Bush wants to send into this cauldron of violence are unlikely to prove decisive, while risking the lives of U.S. forces as well as further alienation of the Iraqi population.
Sending more American troops now would not do anything to fix the core political problems in Iraq, as it is not so much insecurity that is driving the violence but rather the struggle for political dominance. But it is American soldiers and Marines who will suffer the consequences. That is why I am joining with the Democratic Congress, and over 70,000 other grassroots activists who have signed a petition expressing our vehement opposition to George Bush's escalation in Iraq.
The one and only way to ever get through to George Bush is to create such a massive groundswell of resistance to this plan, that he is forced to pay attention. You have already helped us to do so by sending a message to President Bush, but there is still more you can do to help us get through to him:
There is no magic bullet to fix Iraq, but there is a way to proceed, as I outlined in my USA Today OpEd published in November, much of which was picked up in the Iraq Study Group recommendations. We need a full court diplomatic press to force the Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish factions to resolve simmering disputes over issues such as the distribution of oil revenue, the infiltration of sectarian militias, and reconciliation with former Baath Party members.
Changing our approach in Iraq must go hand in hand with fixing a regional strategy that has been an abject failure. For three years, the Bush administration has hectored and threatened Iran and Syria, and unsurprisingly, they have both worked continuously to feed the fighting in Iraq. It's time for us to get serious about talking with our enemies. And it's time for us to redouble our efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that is at the root of so many problems in the Middle East.
To date, the Bush administration has shown no inclination to take these steps, which means that a troop surge will only cost more lives and time. This president needs to hear from every one in America that we will not stand for his escalation in Iraq.
We have to get the President to change the strategy -- and the only way to do that is for the American people to tell the President to stop his troop surge so that the Administration will bring forth a real, workable strategy.
President Bush's proposed troop escalation is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, with an iceberg fast approaching.
Sincerely,
Wes Clark
A few points being offered up around the web for why Wes Clark should not run for president in 2008: He can't win because Democrats won't vote for a military guy; he can't win because he has no experience in governing; he can’t win because he’s a genuine liberal Southern general; he can’t win because the election will be about domestic policy; he can’t win because he can’t handle the bumps of a presidential campaign; and, somehow or other, he's going to ruin any chance of becoming Secretary of State.
I wouldn’t use such a positive assertion that "Dems won't vote for a military guy", period. I think it much rather depends on what people (i.e., Democrats) perceive as "a bona fide guy". In fact, I see no electability issue whatsoever for the primaries if the proposition is "a bona fide and competent guy (who happens to have had a career in the military)".
Read more on A Wes Clark Democrat
First watch this Segment of Wes Clark on Charlie Rose dated September 23, 2002.
Watch here or here
As you clearly see and hear, General Clark was not for going into Iraq at the time, and felt that the U.N. should be totally involved, in addition to NATO....and that our priorities should have been getting Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda and working on strategies to fight a sensical war on terror utilizing our Allies as much as possible! In fact, the General clearly states towards the end of the Video, that a thorough Weapon Inspections program should be the goal, and it would most likely do the trick.
This video really tells the tale of the General's position on Iraq right prior to the IWR vote. He was definitely for the Levin Amendment to go the the UN and come back to congress for a vote....and since this was BEFORE the Resolutions existed, I'm sure that he was the one that provided the insight that led Sen. Levin to formulate the only Resolution that should have passed if congress would have been doing its job back in 2002.
Too bad that so many Senators and Representatives caved in and gave Pres. Bush a blank check instead!
If only we could turn back the hands of time, we could have avoided
the biggest strategic blunder known as Iraq, and if not, we could have,
at least, put Wesley Clark into the White House in 2004 as a minimum!
Read more on RAPID FIRE - Silver Bullets
