"Get moving:" Wes Clark talks about cleaning up the mess in Iraq

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

and says Democrats better start convincing Americans that they can keep our country safe.

Clark says that the success of any Democrat in 2008 will depend as much on the Democratic Party as on the candidate it runs. The party has "deep construction" to do before Americans will trust Democrats to keep them safe, Clark says, and the time to begin that work is now.

"It can't be done in the heat of a political campaign," Clark says, "and it's not about a candidate. It's really about a party, and I think it requires an array of voices over a sustained period of time whose views can be assessed and measured against events."

http://www.salon.com/news/lotp/2005/06/20/wes_clark/index.html

[efhmc]

1. I think he is right. I just do not know how we can do this with a media

that works squarely and consistently against us and the truths we present on a daily basis.

[Renew Deal]

3. I think it's about setting a vision

and sticking to it. People will notice that, no matter what the media says.

[Renew Deal]

2. Clark is dead on as usual.

Remember, this guy was the geo-political head of the Army in the mid 90's. He's extremely bright and focused. Hopefully the party listens.

[AndyTiedye]

4. Who Can Keep Us Safe From the REPUBLICANS?

[iconoclastic cat]

5. So he's more into the British model of political parties.

I've read that Blair's campaign focused on his party's record, not his own. It might be wrong; I don't know. That's just what I read.

[CJCRANE]

7. Blair's campaign

focussed mainly on the economy and tried to ignore most of the policies he personally was associated with (e.g. Iraq War, tuition fees etc). So in a sense, yes, many people voted for the Labour Party despite Blair not because of him.

[Mythsaje]

6. I've actually got a thread that addresses some of this...I think

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3899638&mesg_id=3899701

[CarolNYC]

8. This is a great interview...

As usual, the man makes a whole lot of sense...

[Larkspur]

9. Supporting illegal and immoral wars, such as 2003 Iraq, is not the way

for Democrats to show that they can keep America safe.

Supporting coups to overthrow legally elected foreign presidents, like Hugo Chavez, is not going to keep America safe.

I guess Gen. Clark is proud of New Dem Neo-con Al From's support for Prez. Looks like the DLC, via Clark, want to do for Dems what Bush & Cheney did for the Repukes -- pound the drums of fear, war, and terror to get Americans to vote for them.

[CJCRANE]

10. Clark didn't support the war:

"First, it's still true that the war in Iraq was a strategic blunder. Even had the intelligence been proven to be correct, it wouldn't have established a compelling necessity to go to war when we did. Second, the intelligence wasn't correct".

[CarolNYC]

12. Yeah, then there's that pesky Sept 26, 2002 testimony

in front of the HASC regarding the pending Iraq War. Richard Perle, also testifying that day, summarized Clark's testimony like this (after Clark had left the room, of course):

"I think General Clark simply doesn't want to see us use military force and he has thrown out as many reasons as he can develop to that but the bottom line is he just doesn't want to take action. He wants to wait."

But hey, don't let facts get in the way, right?

[CJCRANE]

11. Another Clark quote from the article:

"The Downing Street memo hasn't been given adequate recognition in the press. I think the truth about Iraq is this: It was an elective war; it was a war we didn't have to fight. But this administration chose to fight it."

[Bread and Circus]

13. Damn....haven't heard from you since the primaries....

and pow, you are all over Clark.

Funny thing is...I am tending to agree w/ you on the point that we can't keep supporting bullshit wars; that's not keeping America safe.

However, I don't think that's what Clark is saying.

Either way, I am a little more sketchy on Clark than I used to be.