Clark just wiped the floor with that FAUX "anchor" on Studio B

[Gloria]

He basically rejected the bullshit "question stems" that are twisted all sorts of ways and described the need for "US HYPOCRISY" to be examined in terms of our words versus our actions. He said Rumsfeld's bullshit about not getting our word out and that the "terrorists" are doing a better job at propaganda was basically ...bullshit. Clark said it's our ACTIONS, including what our diplomats do, that deliver 95% of our message, not newer ways to present our propaganda are not the answer.

Then the jerk asked about the cartoons and if they incite more violence (sic) and Clark said, Yes, BUT....you have to ask the question the right way...and ask why we don't respect/show more sensitivity other cultures.....(not exact quote, but along those lines.)

I felt like cheering! Clark was RIGHT ON THE MONEY!!

(And by the way, he looke smashing in that casual outfit, as a bonus....LOL)

[joanski0]

1. Oh, thank you, Gloria.

What a wonderful post. I want Clark for President soooooooooooooo badly. He is an intelligent and honest man. Our country could be so great!

[goclark]

2. goclark LOVES Wes Clark nt

[MoonRiver]

3. Clark is awesome!

He's doing so much good, uncompromisingly exposing truth in the MSM, it's incredible. I hope he runs again in '08, but regardless he'll always be my numero uno hero!
:loveya:

[capi888]

4. Indeed Awesome!!!

Clark is always right on the money!!! He has been right on every issue the present Administration has screwed up!!! Why oh Why don't they listen!!! Oh yeah, they want WORLD POWER THROUGH MILITARY STRENGTH. OMG, WE REALLY NEED THE GENERAL LEADING THIS COUNTRY BACK TO SANITY!!!

[mia]

5. Great news!

I wish I'd seen it.

[FrenchieCat]

7. Yes, you sure missed something! Hope that WesPAC recorded it

Cause it went right up against Rumsfeld's bullshit lies of propaganda that they are trying to use to swiftboat the Iraq War.

Rumsfeld = our Press should cooperate (like they don't?) and make sure that the word getting out via them helps our cause....while in the meantime, the world's press is helping AlQeada's cause by showing inciniary photos followed with damaging to the West Stories.

Clark = Rumsfeld is full of it. It's not about what we propagandize that matters, it's about what we actually do, right there on the ground. The Abru Grhea(sp?) prison torture scandal was known all over Iraq; it wasn't the reporting that made that a colosal mistake. Torture doesn't get you enough information to even compensate for the compromising of our values we are seen as losing everytime we do something like this. We need to tell the truth! Otherwise, whatever values we say we hold as Americans are not what we are seen as truly having.

Used the word Hypocrites = American Government

AND Yes, he did indeed look excellent in the Grey turtleneck and that blue Ski jacket......

excellent indeed! :headbang:

[Texas_Kat]

59. Yep, They got it

They said it should be up Monday before noon. Something about a very busy weekend.

[PurpleChez]

6. 3 Cheers for Clark! But regarding the Prophet cartoons...

I respect your statement that "we don't respect other cultures." Because we don't. However, I am fairly certain that if the issue were fundamentalist Christians rioting over a 'blasphemous' motion picture or modern art exhibit we would be condemning the protesters for their intolerance. I'm generally not on the side of fundamentalist Christians, but when they take offense to something like a cartoon they might write letters to the editor, contact their legislators, or organize PR campaigns; they usually do not start riots that result in the deaths of many people. My wife is involved in the academic study of religion, and through her I've known a number of students and professors in that field. They routinely engage in the study of the Bible (and many other texts) as an historical artifact or a work of literature, compare and contrast various portions, etc. This doesn't mean that they are not respectful of the text's exalted position in our society; that simply isn't the focus of their work. However, they cannot subject the Quran to the same type of study. It's not that there isn't a wealth of information to be had; rather, they understand that anyone who undertakes such study, however respectfully, risks being shot, stabbed, or mailbombed. I have a tremendous amount of respect for Islam -- not only as a faith, but also for its ability to harmonize with science and for the art and learning that has, at times, flourished under its aegis. I also respect the fact than many Muslims object to ANY depiction of the Prophet, and I personally feel that the offending cartoons, on the whole, were not particularly insightful, clever, or posessed of any other redeeming value. But I cannot empathize with rioters who have killed dozens in response to said cartoons.

I know this wasn't the main point of your post, but this has been on my mind for some time. Thanks!

[Tom Rinaldo]

9. Clark did say a little more

He said what we should stand for is two fold, oppose the violence of the protests, not the sentiment. Show respect for other cultures while standing up for our own value that violent protests are not the appropriate way to respond to getting offended.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

17. Also kindly realize

that not all Muslims are in unity about the study of the Qur'an, nor are all Muslims rioting or resorting to violence. As I have said before, I believe the cartoons were the "icing on the cake" as it were, of disrespect for Islam and for Muslims. Look at the Abu Graib photos! Look at how we have treated the country of Iraq, allowing its national historic and archealogical treasures to be looted and destroyed! Look at our idiot of a president who talks vaguely of crusades and allows a US general to talk of going over to Iraq to Christianize Muslims, as if they were pagans or something! Even here at DU I've read posts by people who assume that all Muslims are into violence, and put down as irrelavant any posts about peaceful protests, LTTE, etc. This is why I respond to posts about the cartoons, to try and shed some light on the controversy and to explain Islam a little bit to those who may not know that much about it.

[BigYawn]

20. Except that the silence of "peace loving" muslims is deafenning....eom

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

21. Oh really????

Have you been to the Muslim group right here on DU which has published some of the articles about the peaceful protests, or even read the ones that were posted on GD or in Editorials these past few days?

One reason you don't hear about the peaceful Muslims is that the MSM tends to not say a thing about them. This shouldn't surprise anyone here at DU-after all, the MSM has its own agenda, and it isn't to let all the facts come out, is it?

[BigYawn]

24. I bet if muslims were marching for peace by the thousands in the streets

as opposed to rioting in Pakistan, Libya, and other countries, it would make MSM take notice immediately.
Not only the MSM will take notice, entire non-muslim
population of the world would take notice. And since there
are perhaps TEN TIMES as many peaceful muslims compared
to the jihadists, huge peaceful marches should not be
hard to organize.

Those beheadings by muslim fanatics of innocent people
such as workers and journalists have caused a very bad
image of islam. Those actions must be condemned LOUDLY
by every peace loving muslim. If they do not organize
very large marches in opposition to violence, I am
afraid MSM will not take notice, and moderate muslims
will not be heard from.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

25. Please go read this thread

and the article attached to it. Perhaps it will give you more insight.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=359x218

[PurpleChez]

38. I am glad that there is such a group here at DU, just as there are many

progressive Christians who make their voices heard here. But in the world at large the "silence of peace-loving Muslims" does sometimes seem to be as deafening as the silence of Christian groups that refuse to openly oppose Robertson/Falwell/Dobson. In a perfect world, people of goodwill (Christian, Muslim, or otherwise) wouldn't have to answer for others who do evil in their name, but nonetheless I am consistently disappointed by the howling lack of people who are willing to step forward and make the simple statement that Those People Do Not Speak for Me.

[Toots]

60. Only in America

and that is quite deliberate..

[PurpleChez]

37. Hey, I ain't gonna disagree with anything you said. You're dead on.

It's just that after I heard the Nth person suggest that the riots should somehow "be expected" as a result of visually depicting Muhammad I started to ask "why?". If Islam is truly about peace (and I believe that it is), why do we "expect" -- and almost accept -- that this sort of violence will be done in its name? For a lot of people out there, the riots are going to "confirm" all of the negative stereotypes about Muslims that we have been arguing against since (at least) 9/11. A lot of folks will believe that "this isn't the true face of Islam" for only so long before they start thinking that maybe Ann Coulter was right. And that makes ME want to set fire to something.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

39. One of the reasons you don't hear of peaceful protests

or read articles by moderate Muslims is that, by and large, those kind of things are ignored by MSM. Think of all the "anti-liberal" propaganda there is about now. We here know it's bunk to think of liberals as traitors or terrorists-but then everyone here is liberal. Muslims are, by and large, a relative unknown group to many Americans.

Another thing to remember is that much of the violence is being orchestrated by certain fundamentalist elements with the express purpose of turning the West against Islam, because they want a war-just like certain fundy Christians are doing their best to bring about war to bring on their Rapture. The Muslim extremists are interested in silencing voices of moderation and reason; if Westerners who have been neutral or supportive of Muslims begin to spout the rw talking points about Muslims, they have helped the extremists.

[PurpleChez]

40. I agree wholeheartedly with everything you've said. But I still wonder

why so few groups of "moderate-to-liberal" Christians and Muslims (supposedly the majority in each group) ever come forward to reject the words and actions of the extremists? Why does the majority seem content to sit by and be stigmatized by its implicit endorsement of an out-of-control fringe? Has ANY Christian denomination ever formally repudiated the hate-mongering fringe TV preachers? My Black neighbor shouldn't have to answer for the actions of another Black man who happens to be accused of a crime, and "Good Muslims" shouldn't feel compelled to answer for "Bad Muslims." But I'm disappointed that organizations within all faiths are so reluctant to stand up and say "sorry, brother, but we can't support you anymore."

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

42. Perhaps I can help you on this one

My Sufi Order has explicitly stated that it will not make political statements or political stands (I know if it were a fundamentalist church, a lot of DUers would be standing up and cheering!), although it doesn't restrict individuals from making such statements, which is a good thing for me! I have talked with Turkish shaykhs who have come to this country, and they say their orders are the same way, for this reason; Turkey is a secular country that forbids any public display of religion (making Sufis conduct their ceremonies in secret), and even refuses to allow Muslim women to wear a headscarf at work or now even in the streets. If this is what is going on in a secular Muslim country, you can imagine what is going on in the other ones. A Sufi shaykh in Palestine who was inviting Jews to his house to sit and talk was threatened by Arafat and silenced; in Saudi Arabia it is against the law for Sufis to worship, and their shrines have been destroyed-and these are the incidents I know about. I am sure in countries like Syria, with their dictatoral governments condoning the riots, the Sufi voice is muted, or raised only at great peril.

My husband frequents a Muslim talk board that is similar to this one; Muslims and non-Muslims may participate. The Sufis there often argue with the Wahhabists about things, and it gets as heated as these cartoon threads do. I will paraphrase what one Sufi brother said: When Sufism was the main branch of Islam, we had an age of tolerance and peace. Since the Wahhabists have been in power, there has been strife. Can't wait to find out what the Wahhabists say in return.

[PurpleChez]

63. Thanks so much for your comments. Most of our Muslim friends

are Sufis, and we know that they are often as oppressed by other Muslims as Muslims on the whole are misunderstood by the rest of us. But they are warm and decent people who are a credit to their faith.

[niallmac]

44. When I read the 'yes but' comments about Islam

that seem to say "yes Christian fundies can get weird but not as weird as those Islamic fundies" I cannot get the Crusades out of my mind.
What short memories we have.

[Totally Committed]

49. Very astute, and...

sad, but true.

Great insight!

TC

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. I saw it. Clark ran down right the list of our professed values

and showed how the actions of the Bush Administration, the actual policies of the Bush Administration, contradict and sell them out. He said it isn't about image management. Clark ticked off Honesty and Respect for Human Rights among other American values, I can't remember all of them, but he pulled in the viewers each time, saying aren't these the things we believe in? Clark said our standing in the world, how our values in action are perceived, is our real message, not stage managed PR, and how we are regarded in the world is a far more powerful strategic asset than any small bits of information we maybe could obtain through some torture.

Clark was very direct there. He used Torture to describe the policies Bush implemented which directly resulted in Abu Ghraib, which he said has been a disaster for our nation. Clark said this isn't a problem of Public Relations, it is a problem of the message we sent through our actions. And I noticed Clark was clever enough to say that it didn't matter whether or not our media broadcast the abuses, the word was already out and spreading throughout Iraq before our media touched it. Clark preempted any argument that the U.S. media is to blame for showing the truth to the world.

This was as good as I've ever seen Clark on FOX. He took the discussion off of Rummy complaining that our side never gets our positive message out, to showing how the Bush Administration has actually changed what America stands for in the world. And of course he managed to weave in his message of respect for our men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, which he never fails to do, because he knows full well that the Right will always attempt to link criticism of this Administration with criticism of those serving in our Military.

This one is really worth watching if it gets posted in Video form.

[capi888]

12. You are so right Tom!

Actions are worth a thousand words. General Clark knows that the administration always blames someone or something else, for their inadequacy's! They just don't get it, or they don't want to admit failure in Iraq because of wrong decisions!!! Clark knows our soldiers are doing all they can honorably, to win this for the Iraqie people. Yes, one of his best video's. The image of a very serious Wes Clark in this appearence, tells me he is VERY concerned. Yep, he did look very dashing...

[Totally Committed]

10. God Bless the courageous truth-teller, for he shall get my vote...

There is no one better than Wes Clark. No one. Period.

TC

**** WAY OFF-TOPIC ****

A big P.S.: I was listening to The Best of Stephanie Miller today, and finally got to hear her entire interview with Wes from the other day. The interview was stellar, as per usual with Wes, but the bit she did leading up to her doing the interview (by phone) was so funny I couldn't stop laughing. Did any of you hear it? She was talking about having a huge crush on him, saying she wished she'd worn her new thong for the interview, and when the "phone" rang she played "Let it Please Be Him". I was laughing so hard by the time he got on the phone! He was trying not to laugh, and she was flirting with him at the beginning. And when it was over and he hung up, she went into this "Oh, I hope Gert wasn't listening... Gert will probably punch my lights out"... or schtick to that effect. I literally laughed my mascara off. Very, very funny. Oh... she said she wanted him to run for President. Looks like Steph has the hots for Wes. She even referred to him as her "new husband-to-be". She's right... Gert must be just loving this! ;)

[tulip]

11. GO Clark!

We need more Democrats like Clark appearing on Fox! It's time we take the battle to the enemy.

Love that Clark!

[Donna Zen]

13. clip is up

I never watch fox so I depend on others acts of random kindness.

Clark 2/18

[MoonRiver]

16. Thanks so much!

I bookmarked to watch after we get back from dinner.

[Coexist]

43. WOW - what a great clip - thank you for that

it is better live than blogged!

[snowbear]

51. Thanks for posting the link!

:hug:

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

14. Go General Clark!

He's a man with some sense, and he knows how to tell it like it is. Thanks for the report.

[high density]

15. Thanks for the update!

I'm always very interested to hear what Clark has to say.

[yellerpup]

18. I can't wait to vote for Wes Clark

How much safer America will be with a leader who can articulate our values and restore the trust we have lost in the rest of the world. I don't see him lying down while Rove tries to steal the presidency out of his hands. I believe he is the exemplification of a stand-up guy. Brilliant, principled, trustworthy. He's my pick.:thumbsup: :dem: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[sundancekid]

19. Best of Class Message for the following adage::

"All the while you speak,
your actions thunder over you so loudly,
I cannot hear a thing you're saying." (attributed to Henry Ford)


Today, Clark gave voice to my own deeply rooted indignation about the repukes' oilwellian notion of "propaganda before principles" -- thank you, Wes. I loved the fire in your belly!!!!


and another K&R

[Donna Zen]

22. Clark's California speech

Recently Clark gave a speech to California activists, the audio is now available at Political Dogfight. It is well worth the listen.

[capi888]

23. Thanks for Posting the California Speech here !!

Listened to it this morning and sent it to all in my e-mail list....loved it. WOWie....

[FrenchieCat]

26. Woah....Gloria.....

Someone else, who likes Warner and not Clark, just posted an OP in where he plucked a sentence out of that interview and is serving it up as strategically "innocent" flamebait!

Amazing! :wow:

[Donna Zen]

28. I saw that

So that is a Warner supporter<---someone who believes that the lies that sent us to Iraq are of no consequence.

No wonder they cherry picked the quote and are failing to reply to any opposing view.

[FrenchieCat]

29. Games being played....and it ain't even primary season yet.....

Maybe it had to do with Warner wanting to avoid even having to talk about Iraq at all.....and his supporters feeling that this was a brilliant move so that Warner can't he hurt politically.....cause I guess that's what is important; Warner's viability.

So here Clark does an interview, But since he's not as "calculated" as some folks we know, he's set up for the doghouse. Figures!

:eyes:

[ruggerson]

30. So, it's ok for you to "pluck" sentences from Warner's

speeches and devote threads to bashing him, but not ok to question Clark?

Fascinating.

(btw, I like Warner a lot, but have not decided who I am settled on for '08. Still a ways to go, and I'm hoping others (like Schweitzer) will throw their hats in the ring.)

[Donna Zen]

31. Never bash...

Although he, Warner, was very clear on several occasions that we need to move on and not rehash the past. I disagree, but hey, can't agree on everything.

Since Clark's interview spent 99.9% of his time pointing out the administrations failures including Rummy's latest pr scam, I would think that the sentence you chose was "cherry picking." If you notice, Clark follows those with "But...but..." emphatically. He returns to his point of the mistakes of bush.

[ruggerson]

33. So it's fine to start threads questioning Warner

but to start threads questioning Clark is verboten?

Send me the rule handbook. Mine must have gotten lost in the mail.

[Donna Zen]

34. I don't start threads

and iirc, I've never posted in any personality thread with the exception of Hillary. And even then, my posts are not personal but political. IOW, I've never posted in a Warner thread or any of the others. Disagree with a politicians positions would seem to be one of the purposes of DU. The thread being discussed here was taking one line out of context and making it into the focus of the discussion. That was your choice. If you would like to discuss the foreign policy or leadership credentials of various candidates that is another matter.

[ruggerson]

35. But I don't believe it was taken out of context

One either believes that we are "doing a lot of great things in Iraq" or one does not believe that.

I realize Clark was against the war initially, and I applaud him for that foresight. He has since shifted slightly and now thinks that we have to salvage the mess in the best possible way we can. Other politicians, who started out supporting the action, now believe that we should withdraw immediately.

Politicians evolve and their positions, hopefully, change and adapt to world events.

I agree more with Jack Murtha on the war than I do with Wesley Clark. I see no reason to stay there any longer and waste any more young American lives. I see no redeeming value to our invasion. It has done nothing but create enormous instability in the world and has engendered broad based hatred for the United States around the globe.

The sooner we get out the better.

[Donna Zen]

36. Murtha would stay...just on the borders

Clark has been to several conferences in the region by invitation of moderate Muslim leaders. They are very worried about the war spilling over the borders and the strengthening of Iran. As Clark has said many times, we must understand that this is a regional problem. So...if we can get the Sunnis involved in the government and the various ministries, then we can leave and not have to position bombers on Iraq's borders. Actually, considering why this is a problem in the region, this low-boiling civil war, I doubt that running bombing raids into Iraq is a very good solution. So while I agree with John Murtha that we need to leave, I'm not sold on his exit strategy.

When asked, Clark gives you his best opinion...and he says, then he prays. Now, he's a senior advisor to the highly respected ICG, not me. He's the one receiving first-hand accounts of the situation, and he's the one who has talked to moderate Iranian government officials. He's also considered the brilliant one...not me. I'm just watching and reading from a far. But I tend to listen to Clark even if I don't always agree. Why? Because in the summer of 2002, he called this war pretty much as it unfolded. He believes that this is the worst geopolitical strategic blunder that we have made. Trying for a C- over an F is his way of looking at it.

All of this btw, may soon be a mote point when Sadr throws us out and awards us an F. But...but...then things will really get ugly. The surrounding Sunni nations will have to go in to protect Sunnis or they'll have full-scale revolts on their hands. The tribes are not confined by lines on a map.

[Totally Committed]

45. I just saw your thread, and it WAS taken out of context...

because right after he said the sentence you plucked out of that 3-1/2 minute interview, this: "... but, but, but..." and went on to explain WHY what we were doing wan't so great, either.

If Wes had said "We are doing a lousy job in Iraq and the mena and women fighting there are doing a lousy job", I guarantee you that the republicans would have turned that into a powerful "Democrats are anti-America, Anti-troops" nessage, and that's all you would have heard on the this morning's talk shows. I guarantee it. So, you are either trmendously naive, or you are out to cynically settle your Warner scores on Wes's back. Which is it?

I am anti-Warner because (1) He is a DLC posterboy, (2) I don't think he can win, and (3) He's less charismatic than Michael Dukakis. It has nothing to do with Wes Clark, or being a Clark supporter at all. And, I don't start anti-Warner threads, and try to stay out of them as much as possible. There are even some Clarkies that are quite pro-Warner. As I have said before, we are not one monolithic group. I happen to be a real Leftie, but Wes has supporters from every part of the political spectrum. When that happens, not all who support him will support others equally across-the-board.

TC

[HootieMcBoob]

27. This is why Clark on Fox is a brilliant move n/t

[saltpoint]

32. FOX News interviewing General Clark... that's not a fair fight at all.

Wesley Clark is a bright, long-term thinker with the horizon always plainly in view.

FOX News is den of skunks with their heads up their hindends.

Clark's alignment with the Democratic Party is a persuasive variable in getting pro-Bush red voters to reconsider their president's wrong-headedness in the Middle East.

[FrenchieCat]

41. Amen!

[Totally Committed]

46. Clark's alignment with the Democratic Party is a persuasive variable

"in getting pro-Bush red voters to reconsider their president's wrong-headedness in the Middle East."

I've always thought so... Just try telling that to some people here, though. I hope it's a point that is more easily seen and understood as 2008 approaches.

TC

[saltpoint]

52. Hi, Totally Committed. I'm intent on trying to find and affirm whatever

I can in Democratic candidates, although I'm as human as the next person and I have my favorites.

I don't HATE Evan Bayh, for example, but his relatively conservative posturing does not inspire the same confidence as Russell Feingold. I'm not "against" Lieberman for sport; I just don't understand what he's doing in the Democratic Party. (Go Ned LaMont!)

And General Clark doesn't need me to whoop it up for him, especially on the DU boards. I find him a refreshing soul and a guy who cancels the objection red voters have to "liberal" Democrats. Clark doesn't really fit the profile; he carves out his own and is damned articulate in expressing it. He doesn't play footsie with the media either, unlike Lieberman and Bayh.

I'm a Bill Moyers Democrat. I realize he's not likely to run, but he would be my first choice if I ran the universe. :hi:

[Totally Committed]

55. A Bill Moyers Democrat!!!

Well, hi right back atcha! :hi:

I think I fall into that category, myself. I absolutely love Bill Moyers. What a soul!

TC

[saltpoint]

56. Alright!

:thumbsup:

:hi:

[Sparkly]

58. Count me in too, Crusoe

Moyers' series with Joseph Campbell was absolutely revelatory, to the point of life-changing. I'll admire him forever for that alone! :hi:

[saltpoint]

61. Hi, Sparkly. Yes! I love that series. Landmark stuff. / nt

[AX10]

47. KICK and recomended!

[TacticalPeek]

48. Clark's on BookTV/c-span2 now with David Rieff.

An interesting hour of conversation.

[Cocoa]

50. thanks!

interesting is an understatement.

Clark said something very powerful about war, he said once you start down the road of using force, it gets ugly. When you make that decision, then you have to use whatever force is necessary, and that inevitably becomes excessive force.

[Donna Zen]

54. Cocoa..I hope you check back here

Somewhere at his blog, someone posted his recent Q & A at the Council of Foreign Relations on 2/14. One of the questions was about "Quadrennial Defense Review and our force structure for the next five years?" He says:

That's the right framework in which you should address these problems.
So to have a Quadrennial Defense Review that says, okay, we're going to put some special forces here and we're going to be prepared to fight this long war against these terrorists, we're going to kill them everywhere we can find them, we're on the offensive, and then get ready because the next opponent's going to be China -- please, this is not serious strategic thought.

This is budget gamesmanship.
It's true the United States should have military capabilities, but it's not the military capabilities that drive the United States' foreign policy. I certainly hope not. And we shouldn't be in the process of naming potential adversaries and shaping their perceptions of their future threats and challenges in order to sustain our armed forces.

Just imagine! No more PNAC. And then there is my favorite part:

Are we going to face up to the reality that the United States is engaged in a global economy in which old ideas don't have the same currency or are we going to use the same old sloganeering and wait until the ship really does crash into the dock? So fundamental choices need to be made and that's what the stuff of politics is about and I'm not here to speak about partisan politics. I'm just here to try to say, I hope our country can deal with this agenda. There are no guarantees going forward. We've only succeeded in America because people -- courageous Americans -- have seen it, have led it, have committed their lives to it, have taken the country forward.

You know, we think about as God gave us this great land and it was our destiny. But I think God asked Americans to take the lead and when those people signed the Declaration of Independence, they signed it without knowing what their future was. There was no guarantees and when Madison and Hamilton wrote the Federalist Papers, there were no guarantees. And when Jefferson brought in the Louisiana Purchase, there were no guarantees. This country's been in times of strategic decisions again and again in its history and this is one of them.

Facing up to the reality of a global economy. I don't want to jinx the possibility of a Clark presidency by saying I doubt it will ever happen, because I don't see how we right this nation's course without a leader who understands this, and has a vision for the future that dumps the old slogans. There are many good people, and some not so good people planning on running, but not one of them has the experience, the skill, the leadership, or the vision of Wes Clark. Country before party.

[TacticalPeek]

57. Fantastic link! thanks.

That is some great Q&A.

The question is, what's the national strategy? Are we simply going to perpetuate a 19th-century balance-of-power system in which, you know, right now, okay, well, let's line up with India against China. Let's work a different level of encirclement. For what end? Can't we work together to create international institutions, rules of the road, rules of conduct in international behavior that have enough support and legitimacy throughout the world that every single nation will find it in their own interest, through their own political systems, to follow these rules of behavior? And can't nations then band together?

[Donna Zen]

62. A entirely different world vision

I'm always amazed that WKC gives these answers without being scripted. He absolutely understands and believes in what he is saying. We need to scrap the old thinking which makes us the bully looking for a fight, and thus, makes the world's reaction one of equal hostility. It is crazy-making.

What's more: it takes someone with gravitas to lead America in this direction. Only Nixon could go to China, it will take a general to go to the Pentagon.

Country before party. I'm there.

[Sparkly]

53. Short but sweet -- The General has become SO good at this!!!

I love how the talking hairdos can keep casting the bait -- even the same bait repeatedly in one interview -- and the General never bites, and finds ways to take each topic into what he wants to say.

Remember how he's said that the enemy learns from opponents, in fighting them (citing Iraq)? I think he's really honed his skills on Faux in the same way. He's gotten out of his West Point, follow-the-rules approach to debate, and has learned how the game is played in retail politics. Whenever possible, he still answers questions directly, and stops the second the bell rings; but when required, he can now also go over his time to draw a conclusion, take the response in another direction, and bring in elements of surprise -- all without ever pandering, backtracking, getting wishy-washy, AND without becoming inappropriately emotional, hostile, or careless with his words, AND most of all, without ever being dishonest or inconsistent.

In my opinion, if he decides to go for it in 2008, he is SO ready for the debates!!!