"(Clark) is the only public figure I have heard to even tiptoe in this direction in public..."

[CarolNYC]

I liked the reactions to Gen Clark's talk at Stanford last month related in this article in The Stanford Review...
http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XXXVIII/Issue_7/News/news2.shtml

Tyler Kirtley ‘07, Chair of Stanford in Government: “I thought he gave a great, insightful talk that exceeded our already high expectations for the event.”

Sagar Doshi ’09: “General Clark is a phenomenal speaker. He has a tremendous comprehension of the issues. There’s a tendency on these topics to give answers in terms of general ideals and he had the ability to hit them on a concrete level. I hadn’t heard about General Clark before, but now I’m really glad I came.”

Professor David Kennedy of the Department of History: “The single most striking thing to me is the candor with which General Clark discussed how Al Qaeda is not an existential threat to the United States of America, as the Soviet Union was. He is the only public figure I have heard to even tiptoe in this direction in public....There are so many public officials who know this but can’t say it because it’s so dangerous to challenge the existing orthodoxy. I really admired that and I hope he says more about that in every venue he can.”

And I liked these answers from the Review's exclusive interview with Clark....

The Stanford Review: “What was it like bridging the divide between military and political service?”

General Wesley Clark: “It’s not as great a divide as people first suspect. In high military positions, you have to earn the respect of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and families that you lead. The difference is the mechanics of electioneering. There is surprisingly little difference between the ideals. People have the idea that the military wants to use force. Nobody wants to use force less than the people in uniform. They know what it means. It’s always unpleasant. Things don’t always work out, and usually unintended consequences follow. Most of military leadership is not about war, but about building institutions to perform.”
..........

"No torture or ‘rough measures’ of interrogation. It’s un-American, it’s counterproductive, and it’s morally reprehensible."

And then there was this question and answer....

SR: “Are you endorsing anyone for the ’08 race, or are you planning on running again?”

GWC: “I haven’t said I won’t run. I’m still hoping to find a way.”

So, Clarkies hoping to see an '08 run, don't give up quite yet....

[AwareOne]

1. Edwards/Clark, a can't lose ticket

[Hissyspit]

4. Gore/Clark? n/t

[colorado_ufo]

42. I've been screaming Gore/Clark for some time now!

[Coexist]

49. Gore/Clark... sigh...

or Clark/Gore.

[Canuckistanian]

60. Gore/Clark

Gore has the momentum, despite the fact that he hasn't even declared. But he'll be a juggernaut.

And Clark, I've heard, is the Oppo Researcher's nightmare - he simply has no skeletons in his closet. Plus, he has that candid speaking style that will wow the audiences.

Together, unstoppable. Period.

[sakabatou]

69. That would be a great ticket!

[Labors of Hercules]

90. ooooooooo.... *shivers*

[The Count]

40. yeah, cuz you need an IWR sponsor on top of a true blue anti-war-warrior!

Well thought! :eyes:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

51. Clark himself said he would have voted for the holy ***IWR***

He also said that people should get past who did, or didn't, who would or wouldn't have, voted for the IWR and focus on what they plan to do regarding Iraq today and in the future.

Clarkies seem to be the most obsessed with the ***IWR***. That is ironic, given the fact that Clark himself warned against the obsession.

[jenmarie]

52. You're misrepresenting Clark

If you are interested in what he actually said, and what he actually supported, please read this:

The Iraq War Resolution - Did Clark support "a" resolution or "the" resolution?

In an article written in October of 2002 which was widely highlighted during the 2004 campaign to "prove" that Wes Clark was for "the" Iraq War Resolution, please take NOTE at what Clark actually said and what the choices were at the time that he stated that he would support "a" resolution....--He did not state that he would support "the" blank check resolution, and considering that amendments were being passed on the final language of the Resolution right up to the time that it was voted on....this leads me to believe that the press played gotcha with Clark one year later.

Read the whole article written in 2002 (as posted in this post), and understand that the context said more about Clark's true feeling on what was happening in America as we were debating the facts. Alongside the fact that when one makes the substitution of "THE" for "A", what the story told is "a" very different story than Clark simply supporting "the" resolution.

Much more, please read to get the full story.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

74. Clark's words speak for themselves

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0919-01.htm

==On both the question of the initial authorization and the latest request for financing, General Clark said he was conflicted. He offered the case on both sides of the argument, as he appeared to struggle to stake out positions on issues that have bedeviled four members of Congress who supported the war and are now seeking the Democratic presidential nomination.

General Clark said that he would have advised members of Congress to support the authorization of war but that he thought it should have had a provision requiring President Bush to return to Congress before actually invading. Democrats sought that provision without success.

"At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question," General Clark said.==

[BootinUp]

91. Is this the airplane interview when Clark

reporters put words in his mouth and wouldn't let him correct the record?

Clark was inexperienced when that interview happened and in trying to give a nuanced answer the reporters wanted to turn it into a sound bite and what we got was a load of bull shit. Thanks for continuing to spread it around.

[jenmarie]

58. Would you happen

to have a link to when Clark said people should get past who did, who didn't, etc.? Would really appreciate it, as this is the first I've heard it. Thanks!

Edited to add: Because I feel fairly certain you won't read the link I posted above, maybe a simpler answer is better.

Kennedy, Wellstone and Levin all referenced Clark's testimony before HASC in 2002 as part of the reason they voted NO on the IWR.

Kennedy:
...

KENNEDY: Well, I'm on the Armed Services Committee and I was inclined to support the administration when we started the hearings in the Armed Services Committee. And, it was enormously interesting to me that those that had been -- that were in the armed forces that had served in combat were universally opposed to going.

I mean we had Wes Clark testify in opposition to going to war at that time. You had General Zinni. You had General (INAUDIBLE). You had General Nash. You had the series of different military officials, a number of whom had been involved in the Gulf I War, others involved in Kosovo and had distinguished records in Vietnam, battle-hardened combat military figures. And, virtually all of them said no, this is not going to work and they virtually identified...

KING: And that's what moved you?

KENNEDY: And that really was -- influenced me to the greatest degree.
...

Wellstone:

...
But as General Wes Clark, former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe has recently noted, a premature go-it-alone invasion of Iraq "would super-charge recruiting for Al Qaida."

...

Levin:

General Clark, the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, who testified at the same hearing, echoed the views of General Shalikashvili and added "we need to be certain we really are working through the United Nations in an effort to strengthen the institution in this process and not simply checking a block."

Those two former senior commanders were concerned, of course, not only with the diplomatic and political aspects of working through the United Nations, but also with the practical impact that not going through the United Nations would have on the actual conduct of a war.

...

Clark told Al Franken that he had spoken to several Senators prior to the IWR vote, urging them not to give bush a blank check:

Al Franken: Now I know you’re a Four-Star General, and, and so the guys at the Pentagon would say, “Sir, they’re planning (laughs) to invade Iraq. But how did, how did the Senators on the Intelligence Committee not hear that?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, a lot of them did, because I told a lot of them.

Al Franken: Uh huh. And, and, and did, did they believe you. I mean non-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: They may have believed me, but you know, there’s a lot of different shades of truth in Washington. And it’s, I mean, I told people about the five-year plan, and people would say, ‘Well you know, yeah, there may be somebody who wrote that, but maybe they won’t do that.’

Al Franken: Right, right, right.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: ‘You know, we’ve got politics to worry about. Can we afford to be on the wrong side of President Bush on this.

Al Franken: Mm hm.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: He’s going to turn the American people against us. Look what happened in 1990.’

Al Franken: Okay, but that’s not, that’s. I understand why. Yeah, anybody who voted against the first Gulf War was, was, was not considered to be on the ticket.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Exactly.

Al Franken: For example.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Exactly.

Al Franken: And so that’s, that can- But that’s not leadership. Is it?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well you know, when you’re in politics, especially if you’re a lifelong politician, you have to make sure you’re also representing the people who follow you. So, there’s a combination of leading and following that’s involved in that. Even the President is, to some extent, a representative of the American people. He’s certainly not the king. He doesn’t dictate. I know he said he’s the decider, but-

Al Franken: (laughs) Yeah.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: But (laughs) in fact, he is supposed to be the Chief Executive Officer representing the American people.

Al Franken: Yeah, I, I, I know, I know, but I’m saying that these Senators- there is a certain point - and boy, at the point when you’re voting to go to war or not - and they didn’t- You know, in fairness I guess, they were told they were voting for peace. They, they were told they were voting so that, that we could go to the UN and, and make the convincing argument to the UN that we would be willing to go into Iraq unilaterally. Therefore, we would have the, the leverage to get the inspectors in.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, you know, I went to several Senators, including I think a couple who later ran for office, and, for the Presidency. I said, “Don’t believe him.” (laughs) “He’s made up his mind to go to war. Don’t give him a blank check.”

Al Franken: Mm Hm.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: But they gave him a blank check. I said it on CNN, “You can’t give him a blank check.” And I said it in the testimony that you have to make sure that there’s a resolution. It’s got to be a broad resolution so we can go to the United Nations, but it doesn’t and shouldn’t be a blank check.

[NCarolinawoman]

68. I thought that was Mark Warner of Virginia who said it doesn't matter how we got into this war.

He received a bit of flack after he declared his candidacy because a lot of people, myself included, believe in accountability........ We need to study the mistakes of the past so we don't repeat them. It really DOES matter how we got into this mess!

General Clark has always spoken about "accountability".

[jenmarie]

70. Of course it matters.

But, I wouldn't doubt the claim that Clark said that though, because he has always said, people will stand up for Democrats when Democrats stand for each other -- or something like that. He is always very polite when speaking of other Dems.

But it does matter enough that those who made the "mistake" of giving bush his blank check, do not deserve a promotion to the highest office in the land. That did not show leadership, but political posturing.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

77. General Clark has always spoken about "accountability".

Except when the heat was on him for his contradictory statements on the IWR. ;)

[draft_mario_cuomo]

75. It was in one of the 2003 debates

Clark was under fire for entering the race as an anti-war candidate, then saying he would have voted for the war, and the next day saying he would not have. He was being mocked--I think by Holy Joe or Dean--for his inconsistency on Iraq. He said what was both convenient for him and rational.

[earthlover]

59. Clark opposed the IWR that passed...

Edwards and Lieberman were among the co-sponsors of the IWR. Hillary voted for it. What is often ignored is that there were other resolutions that were floated around. Anti-war senators like Paul Wellstone voted for the Levin Amendment, which was the same day as the Lieberman IWR that was passed. This resolution would have said go back to the UN. If unsuccessful at the UN, then go back to Congress. Then another Congressional vote would be required to authorize force against Iraq.

Yes, it was possible, and some Senators did vote YES for both resolutions. That would have at least shown some reluctance to give Bush a blank check for war.

It is hard for me to understand why Dems could vote NO on the Levin Amendment even more than to vote yes on the IWR.

Yet Edwards and Hillary did just that.

Clark was in favor, like other courageous anti-war Dems such as Wellstone, of the Levin Amendment and opposed to the IWR sponsored by Lieberman and Edwards.

Here is a previous Dem Underground link that explains this issue in more detail:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3140690

Clark was for the Levin Amendment. Clark was opposed to the IWR as passed by Congress. Clark spoke to Congress in opposition to the IWR. He was cited by Sentators who voted against the IWR as a reason why they voted no. He wrote op-eds against the war.

So what is this bXXXXXXt about Clark being for the IRW?

Hillary voted for the IWR, but did not read all the briefings. Edwards co-sponsored the IWR even though he was privvy to the briefings that showed that the "justifications" for the war were bogus.

I think we need to pay more attention to the Levin amendment. Voting for the IWR has been made the subject for excuses. Most center on the idea that they weren't really giving Bush a blank check for war. The question remains, however, why did they vote NO on the amendment that would have removed the blank check, which would have required another Congressional vote for war? What was the rush? Voting no on the Levin Amendment to me was even more damning than voting yes on the IWR.

Again, Clark was on the right side of both votes....Edwards and Hillary on the wrong side of both.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

76. See above. Clark was all over the place on the IWR nt

[BootinUp]

80. Just curious...did you ever read what Mario Cuomo said about Clark?

"Wes Clark is a man of whom you can ask a question, and he will look you directly in the eye, and give you the most truthful and complete answer you can imagine. You will know the absolute truth of the statement as well as the thought process behind the answer. You will have no doubt as to the intellect of the speaker and meaning of the answer to this question....So you can see, as a politician, he has a lot to learn."

[Tom Rinaldo]

81. There's a more recent Cuomo quote about Clark, Jim

Mario Cuomo was one of the reviewers of Wes Clark's new book: "A Time To Lead", due to be published on September 4th. Preliminary reviews are already up at Amazon.com. Here's what Mario Cuomo has to say now about Wes Clark:

"General Clark has produced a clear and compelling description of what we need to do to defeat terrorism, rebuild our economy and restore our global leadership role. In so doing, this war hero, successful diplomat and brilliant Rhodes Scholar demonstrates exactly the kind of skills, experience and leadership we need to show us the way."--Mario Cuomo, former Governor of New York

http://www.amazon.com/Time-Lead-Duty-Honor-Country/dp/product-description/1403984743

[BootinUp]

82. Thanks for the info!

:)

[CarolNYC]

86. draft mario's

seen that quote. He even likes Clark. He just jumps ugly on the General as payback because some Clark supporters dare to criticize Edwards or something like that...At least that's what he told me. :shrug:

[CarolNYC]

85. No, he really wasn't...

but I understand why you'd want people to think that he was.

Still, I agree with him that the whole IWR vote is not so cut and dried. Some people are more culpable than others, I would think...such as those on the Intelligence Committee who couldn't even be bothered to read all of the intelligence that was made available to them before voting, who voted down the Levin and Durbin Amendments, who decided to co-sponsor the Lieberman Amendment...

[sybil]

73. I can *almost* get past who did and who didn't

authorize the IWR.

...just so long as those who *did* do *not* presume to the presidency.

FYI, Clark advised against the invasion before both house's ASC's and *never* would have supported the blank-check IWR without the Levin amendment. With all due respect, stop mis-representing General Clark's positions.

[xkenx]

79. Good grief, you spent a lot of time on a thread last week lying about Clark--give it up!

[sandnsea]

2. It'd be nice if someone would run

I'm really getting tired of the pablum that has passed for a campaign so far. When Edwards stands up and says 40% of America is at, or just marginally above, the poverty line, then he can say he's talking honestly about the two Americas. So far, this is as close as we've got to real talk. That and Obama's "quiet riot". But on foreign policy, health care, Iraq, education, global trade, not so much. It'd be nice if Clark or Gore or Kerry or Feingold would get in.

[Rydz777]

3. Clark is smart, articulate, and realistic. I don't see him getting

the Presidential nomination. But he would make a great Vice President (with Gore, for example) or even an outstanding Secretary of Defense.

[jenmarie]

5. Haven't given up hope.

Haven't even been tempted to give up hope. Clark has always answered to the call to serve, to defend and protect our constitution. Now more than ever, we need him to step up once again, and I believe he will.

Thanks for posting this Carol. Have you seen this YouTube? A heartbreaker -- but beautiful.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAtcz4CaMos

[Captain Hilts]

7. Me either. Run, Wesley, run!!!!! nt

[colorado_ufo]

43. I wish to heaven Clark would be elected Prez,

but people want a "brand name." Therefore, the next best thing: Gore/Clark. Best of all worlds? Clark/Edwards with Gore as Secretary of the Interior.

[Dread Pirate KR Read]

6. why do current candidates need a VP for legitimacy?

Aside from Biden,... every DEM hopeful LACKS foreign policy experience!

Why should Americans expect leadership in the absence of ESSENTIAL experience?

The security in Iraq and throughout the ME will deteriorate in the next 2-10 years+, it's time for proven and REAL LEADERSHIP!

Wes Clark must run for POTUS in '08 for the sake of our country!

[phillysuse]

14. You did forget Richardson

Ambassador to the UN, negotiator with North Korea, diplomatic trouble shooter.

[Dread Pirate KR Read]

15. True,.. but he has some personal issues/matters

regarding that he must confront now, not for DEMS to address later as the primaries begin. I WON't address those concerns here, but Clark will NOT have to deal with these issues.

[colorado_ufo]

44. Richardson for Secretary of State.

[bonito]

8. Waiting for Clark

I am :patriot:

[illinoisprogressive]

9. he seems to be very smart. I don't know much about him but, he seems cool.

[Dread Pirate KR Read]

13. not seems, Clark IS Smart!,... a "Rhodes Scholar"

... and he graduated first in class at West Point.

Gov. Mario Cuomo (NY-D)

"Wes Clark is a man of whom you can ask a question, and he will look you directly in the eye, and give you the most truthful and complete answer you can imagine. You will know the absolute truth of the statement as well as the thought process behind the answer. You will have no doubt as to the intellect of the speaker and meaning of the answer to this question....So you can see, as a politician, he has a lot to learn."

[colorado_ufo]

46. Led the West Point debate team!

[colorado_ufo]

45. Read his speeches and be blown away.

Graduated NUMBER ONE in his class at WEST POINT!

[bleever]

10. I like the general, for his intellect and honesty, and his record

of accomplishment.

He is a rare example of a statesman coming out of a military background.

[JDPriestly]

11. I want him to run!

Edwards/Clark or Clark/Edwards -- great combination.

Clark is the only candidate or potential candidate on either side qualified to speak of "war."

[ellisonz]

19. Gore was in Vietnam longer than Clark.

[FrenchieCat]

21. Yes, but Clark was leading a platoon under fire as Captain.....

and was shot 4 times.....and nearly died.

Al Gore, not so much.

[ellisonz]

22. He still "knows" war. Just saying...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/gorevietnam.asp

[FrenchieCat]

24. Didn't realize that is what you were saying......

Sounded like you were saying that Gore was somehow more "experienced" than General Clark on the issues of war...because as a Reporter he spent a longer span of time in Vietnam than Clark did as a Captain being shot at daily. :shrug:

[ellisonz]

25. Sorry for the confusion...

I was responding to a post in which it was claimed "Clark is the only candidate or potential candidate on either side qualified to speak of "war." That's just not true even if military service in a combat zone is standard.

I don't mean to diminish Clark's service, but Gore did come under fire and furthermore received no special treatment beyond that accorded to a man of his intellect. Gore *is* qualified to speak of "war" based on both his experience and based on his reading. I'm just not that impressed by the man. :shrug:

[Donna Zen]

28. I agree

Gore did serve and did come under fire. It was your post comparing time served in a combat zone that confused me. Since Clark left by stretcher, it seemed a rather dull point.

As far as getting us of Iraq, I don't know how much Gore knows about policy and planning. I cannot speak to the meaning of the original poster but if the intent was to weigh public perception or even actual knowledge, then I agree with the poster's statement. Just as I would grant the hat tip to Gore on the environment and economics goes to Clark. When a letter of endorsement for the bill the bush vetoed was needed by the Dems in the Senate, it was Clark's name they wanted not Gore's. And when it came time to testify about the environment, of course the person to call was Gore. Simple.

Now I don't know who doesn't impress you. I am impressed by both Gore and Clark. These are people who tell the truth. I am not impressed to a varying degree by the current field of candidates although I suspect that the gatekeepers would like to shut the door.

[Labors of Hercules]

92. So, in a nutshell, we need a Gore/Clark ticket. n/t

[Toots]

31. The issues of war are far more involved that just one or two battles

Gore was a journalist and traveled throughout the country. He talked with the people that were effected by "war". That gives one far more of an integral knowledge about "war" than fighting one battle where you get yourself shot to pieces.

[Tom Rinaldo]

35. Gore's credibility is a not a matter of dispute

You will find that the strong majority of Clark supporters consider Al Gore to be well qualified to speak to issues of war and peace, and we honor his service to America in the military. We hold Clark's voice in the matter to be slightly more authoritative, but that of course is a matter of opinion on which anyone is free to differ. Gore served in the military during a time of war, unlike the current President and Vice President (and no I don't consider being trained to fly a fighter jet while in the reserves in Texas, but failing to show up for your flight certification physical, as serving in the military).

I see no reason for your slap at Clark, which upon reading it was really rather ugly.

[Donna Zen]

36. One or two?

As a journalist Gore did travel and talk to people. So far we are in agreement; however, are you saying that Wes Clark has never talked to people who were effected by war? Curious. I've never been a soldier in a war zone, but I'm willing to bet that they do indeed talk to the civilian population. Again, that's not taking anything away from Gore's time in Nam, but I would also not diminish the role played by any of the others. Try reading Night Draws Near to understand the people to people role played by our ordinary soldiers.

As for your statement about Clark's getting himself shot to pieces. I wonder if you also agreed with the Swiftboaters who claimed that Kerry only went to Nam so he could run for president 30-some odd years later? Walking point in the jungles of Vietnam at that time wasn't a safe thing to do. People do not choose to get shot, and if one is ambushed in the jungle, avoiding that fate may be impossible.

I wonder if you would say this to a wounded soldier? Something like: "you got yourself a head injury cause you just got yourself IEDed."

[Toots]

71. I really was not even talking about Clark, only the point about being in battle

made one more learned about war. I would agree that General Clark is an expert in "warfare", much more-so than Al Gore. I was only arguing the example given. That because a person had been in a battle and was shot up that would make them more of an expert than someone that had not. I have absolutely nothing against General Clark, except maybe that he made a choice to dedicate his life to a way of life that is dedicated to killing and destruction. He is smart and articulate and more often than not a person that has been through major battles and wars is loath to do so again or place others in the same situation. That is a major plus. I don't think he could ever generate enough support to even win a Primary let alone a general election but if he did win I would gladly vote for him and I believe he would make an excellent Secretary of Defense. I don't think Gore will win either although I would also vote for him if he did decide to run. I really can't think of anyone running as a Democratic candidate for President that I would not support. I don't agree 100% with any of them on every issue but what we currently have is totally unacceptable.

[Donna Zen]

72. Not about Clark

I guess I misread what you wrote when you blamed Clark as in "got himself shot up." I just thought it was curious to think or write that someone would deliberately get themselves shot up.

I do think that while it's not a guarentee, as a general rule people who have seen war are the most likely to try to avoid it. You may think that all the military is trained to kill people, but I think that they are individuals who have much broader ideas and ideals than just killing people.

About the election: I have no clue what will happen. I hope that we don't have to choose between a Dem. corporate war-monger and a repub. I don't see that changing what needs to be changed.

[ellisonz]

83. Bravo.

:yourock:

[Donna Zen]

23. You're right

Clark should have stayed although part of his hand and leg were missing. Or one could say that Clark was in rehab longer than most people. And then there was his stint in Bosnia under fire.

No one should compare their service....it was different, just as it is for all soldiers.

[ellisonz]

26. That's so so so not what I said.

I simply stated a fact that disproved the assertion that "Clark is the only candidate or potential candidate on either side qualified to speak of 'war.'" Take it up with the above poster! And with that, enjoy the echo chamber.

[snowbear]

12. That sentence he always repeats... he actually ADDED to it Carol !!

He must have said on the Ed Schultz show as well as other interviews "I haven't said I won't run" or "I haven't said I'm not running" a million times..

But this interview last night was a FIRST that I've seen..

He actually adds to that...

..."I'm still hoping to find a way"



((( )))

[Dinger]

32. Yes, That Was More Than A Hint

I took it to mean that he is already in the pre-announcement phase. He's going to run, believe that:) :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:

[TacticalPeek]

16. "Why not the best?"

:patriot:

[Donna Zen]

17. Hold this thought:

From the interview:

"And finally, we need a real investigation into how the authority of the United States could be so badly abused.”

On every liberal board, people have continually called from impeachment. I think that they are correct; I think it is our civic duty to protect our country. However, a call for impeachment means little without having made the case through investigation. It is the cart before the horse.

This evening I ran across what I think is a very important piece of writing from Mark Danner. Actually, it is the text of a speech that he gave recently at Berkeley. He, like General Clark, wants a full investigation. Here's a snip:

I know it will brand me forever a member of the reality-based community if I suggest that the one invaluable service the new Democratic Congress can provide all Americans is a clear accounting of how we came to find ourselves in this present time of war: an authorized version, as it were, which is, I know, the most pathetically retrograde of ideas.

This would require that people like Mr. Wolfowitz, Mr. Rumsfeld, and many others be called before a select, bipartisan committee of Congress to tell us what, in their view, really happened. I squirm with embarrassment putting forward such a pathetically unsophisticated notion, but failing at least the minimally authorized version that Congress could provide, we will find ourselves forever striving -- by chasing down byways like the revelation of the identity of Valerie Plame, or the question of whether or not George Tenet bolstered his slam dunk exclamation in the Oval Office with an accompanying Michael Jordan-like leap -- to understand how precisely decisions were made between September 11, 2001 and the invasion of Iraq eighteen months later.

Don't worry, though, Rhetoric graduates: such a proposal has about it the dusty feel of past decades; it is as "reality-based" as can be and we are unlikely to see it in our time.

The Age of Rhetoric

Chris Hedges writes in War is the Force That Gives Us Meaning that people and countries caught up in war develop myths of war. Until those myths are dispelled the necessary healing cannot take place. General Clark has read Hedges' book of that I'm sure. We must demand this investigation takes place.

Danner doesn't hold out much hope; neither do I. There are too many people on both sides of the aisle to let this conversation find voice. But Wes Clark if given the authority would make sure that this investigation took place; and just as important, he knows why it must take place. Wes Clark makes it easy to support him.

[CarolNYC]

33. Yep...

I remember seeing him talk, before the '06 elections, how one of the reasons we needed a Dem Congress was so that we could have some real investigations into all of the abuses of power that have happened under this Administration. I wish there were more out there clamoring for such and I'm glad to see the Clark is still putting it out there, that it is something that needs to happen.

[Cameron27]

78. I remember this speech very well Carol,

and I haven't heard anyone calling for this kind of transparency and accountability:

"I know it will brand me forever a member of the reality-based community if I suggest that the one invaluable service the new Democratic Congress can provide all Americans is a clear accounting of how we came to find ourselves in this present time of war...

...to understand how precisely decisions were made between September 11, 2001 and the invasion of Iraq eighteen months later.

IMO, no one is as uniquely qualified to be President than this man. I'm still hoping.

[calteacherguy]

18. I was at Stanford when he gave the talk.

It was the first time that I had listened to Clark in person, and I got to shake his hand. I wish there was a full transcript of the event available...I guess I should have taken my tape recorder.

Regarding the "existential threat," at one point Clark said that even a nuclear bomb in the hands of Bin Laden would not be the existential threat that the Soviet Union was. The neocons are trying to make out like this is a threat of a magnitude unparalled in our nation's or the world's history, but it's a lie. He stressed how the terrorist threat we now face is not any greater, and in fact not as great and more easily managed, then many threats we have faced before. There are only a few thousand "hard-core," intrangible terrorists, but a billion or more potential recruits. We have to win that billion over by the power of our ideas and moral legitimacy in the world, and that's the challenge of the next President and America in the 21st Century. Although he didn't say "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself," I felt that was implicit in what he was saying. He explained how terrorism and national security are the immediate concerns, and will be the primary issue of 08', but certainly not the 21st Century. "We will solve the terrorist and national security problem," he said. There will be bigger issues for humankind, and he discussed those in depth.

The only other comment I would make (without having an transcript so as to be sure not to misquote Clark) is that when he went up the aisle shaking hands with folks, there was a real kind of intensity in his eyes and body language...he really wants to connect with people. I got the feeling he intensely wanted to get to know everyone there (he made a joke about how "you are all invited to the reception afterwards...oh, what they aren't all invited?") It's hard to explain to someone unless you were there, but the guy is extremely passionate about what he believes in on an emotional as well as intellectual level. I've never seen that kind of intensity in any public figure.

I got the sense that Clark really WANTED something, and if he connected with enough people he thought he'd be able to get it.

Still hoping a transcript (and audio) becomes available at some point.

[Donna Zen]

20. Your story reminded me

Once when Clark was on Maher's show, Maher started blathering about how maybe bush was right about spreading democracy in the Gulf Region. Clark of course disagreed, but it didn't stop there. A friend of mine was at the dinner following the program. She said that the General was not going to let Maher continue on with this silly notion. The conversation, which went on for some time, was a lesson in passion when the General has a point to make. Oh, and Gert was sitting at a table letting some neocon have her informed two cents.

Yes, Wes Clark is really worried about our country, and is honor bound to do something.

I'm glad you got to see him in action....General Electric.

[UndauntedD]

27. I was there too,

they projected the talk up on the big screen. That's the only reason I didn't record it - I figured they would record and release that and I could watch again the next day :-) I forget the name of the political club that put the talk on... but I would talk to them...

[CarolNYC]

34. Thanks for the observations, calteacher

I, too, wish there was a full transcript or video or audio file or something. Sounds like a good speech.

I am also glad to hear him speak of the "existential threat". As Professor Kennedy said, "There are so many public officials who know this but can’t say it because it’s so dangerous to challenge the existing orthodoxy." I do wish others would at least take steps toward this position.

Funny, because didn't someone here accuse Clark of continuing the "politics of fear" because he said that the '08 election would be about national security? He was, apparently, doing exactly the opposite.

[The Count]

41. Thanks for this!

......", there was a real kind of intensity in his eyes and body language...he really wants to connect with people. I got the feeling he intensely wanted to get to know everyone there (he made a joke about how "you are all invited to the reception afterwards...oh, what they aren't all invited?") It's hard to explain to someone unless you were there, but the guy is extremely passionate about what he believes in on an emotional as well as intellectual level. I've never seen that kind of intensity in any public figure.

I got the sense that Clark really WANTED something, and if he connected with enough people he thought he'd be able to get it."

That explains the intensity of his supporters.

[MindMatter]

66. Other people's kids

"Regarding the 'existential threat,' at one point Clark said that even a nuclear bomb in the hands of Bin Laden would not be the existential threat that the Soviet Union was. The neocons are trying to make out like this is a threat of a magnitude unparalled in our nation's or the world's history, but it's a lie."

I agree completely. Despite the very real possibility of large-scale nukylar war with the Soviets, the average American maintained a mental model of two conventional armies butting heads halfway around the planet. And that was mainly in the era of the all-volunteer military, which is to say other people's kids taking all the risks.

For most conservatives 9-11 was the first time they took ANY of the threats seriously. They simply didn't give a shit if big trouble was brewing as long as their politicians could convince them that spending another $ 400 billion (of deficit spending) by the Pentagon would make sure that we wouldn't have to bear any consequences.

[xkenx]

88. You have discovered the passionate Clark not usually seen on brief TV interviews.

Not since Bobby Kennedy have I been so inspired by a public figure as I have been inspired by Wes Clark.

[BikeWriter]

29. I listened to the entire thing. Clark is brilliant!

[salin]

30. Unless it has changed, the Stanford Review is very conservative...

this is a very nice write up. :thumbsup: to General Clark.

[Enrique]

37. it's an exaggeration to say he's the only one

Kerry's famous "nuisance" quote from the 2004 campaign for example.

[MH1]

54. Yes - Kerry has said many times that it is primarily a law enforcement issue.

Hell, he even published a book about it in 1997.

[jenmarie]

57. Not trying

to engage in tit for tat -- just practicing my reponse skills for when Clark is the Dem nominee. ;)

Decisive Force

by Wes Clark
September 15, 2001

...

For the US, the weapons of this war should be information, law enforcement and, rarely, active military force. The coalition that will form around the US and its Nato allies should agree on its intent, but not trumpet its plans. No vast military deployments should be anticipated. But urgent measures should be taken behind the scenes because the populations and economic structures of western nations will be at risk.

And the American public will have to grasp a new approach to warfare. Our objective should be neither revenge nor retaliation, though we will achieve both. Rather, we must systematically target and destroy the complex network of international terrorism. The aim should be to attack not buildings but people who have masterminded, coordinated, supported and executed these and other attacks. I can hear warnings to us to narrow our objectives because the task is so difficult, warnings there may be failures and actions that can never be acknowledged. But now all must accept at face value the terrorists' unwavering hostility to the US and all that it stands for. There is no room for half-measures in our response.

Our methods should rely first on domestic and international law, and the support and active participation of our friends and allies. Evidence must be collected, networks uncovered and a faceless threat given identity. In some cases, astute police work will win the day, here and abroad. In others, international collaboration may be necessary. Special military forces may be called on to operate in states that are uncooperative or unable to control their own territory. In exceptional cases, targets will be developed that may be handled by conventional military strikes.

More.

http://mediaprima.com/clark04/Decisive_Force.html

[MH1]

62. Well, he's right of course.

And we certainly could do worse for a nominee.

:)

[Tom Rinaldo]

63. Clark is expanding on it though, and by doing so hitting against the heart of GOP strategy

Clark is directly attacking the politics of fear, and reminding Americans that we as a people have lived through far greater threats than Islamic extremism during the life time of most Americans alive today. He puts the current threat in a historical context, looking both backward and forwards from where we are at now. So not only does Clark describe the actual extent of the current Islamic extremeist threat and our capacity to deal with it accurately, not only does he remind us of our past accomplishments while under far graver threats, but Clark warns us instead of what the real threats are facing us now as a people moving into the 21st century. They are economic, they are environmental, and they are a test of our ability to reaffirm our core values as a people and as a nation and hold true to our ideals.

Clark puts the likes of Dick Cheney to utter shame.

[blm]

89. Kerry said it well in his speech on this, "They have nothing to offer but fear itself."

This has been a recurring theme from both men for the last few years. Not that the corpmedia wants it widely known.

[CarolNYC]

84. Yes, Kerry has said many times....

that it is primarily a law enforcement issue and that is laudable. But I think Enrique and the Professor in the article are actually speaking of something different. The distinction is not so much in how to fight terrorism but what kind of a threat to view it as....

I believe this, from a 2004 NY Times piece, is what Enrique is talking about:

But when you listen carefully to what Bush and Kerry say, it becomes clear that the differences between them are more profound than the matter of who can be more effective in achieving the same ends. Bush casts the war on terror as a vast struggle that is likely to go on indefinitely, or at least as long as radical Islam commands fealty in regions of the world. In a rare moment of either candor or carelessness, or perhaps both, Bush told Matt Lauer on the ''Today'' show in August that he didn't think the United States could actually triumph in the war on terror in the foreseeable future. ''I don't think you can win it,'' he said -- a statement that he and his aides tried to disown but that had the ring of sincerity to it. He and other members of his administration have said that Americans should expect to be attacked again, and that the constant shadow of danger that hangs over major cities like New York and Washington is the cost of freedom. In his rhetoric, Bush suggests that terrorism for this generation of Americans is and should be an overwhelming and frightening reality.

When I asked Kerry what it would take for Americans to feel safe again, he displayed a much less apocalyptic worldview. ''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance,'' Kerry said. ''As a former law-enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.''

This analogy struck me as remarkable, if only because it seemed to throw down a big orange marker between Kerry's philosophy and the president's. Kerry, a former prosecutor, was suggesting that the war, if one could call it that, was, if not winnable, then at least controllable. If mobsters could be chased into the back rooms of seedy clubs, then so, too, could terrorists be sent scurrying for their lives into remote caves where they wouldn't harm us. Bush had continually cast himself as the optimist in the race, asserting that he alone saw the liberating potential of American might, and yet his dark vision of unending war suddenly seemed far less hopeful than Kerry's notion that all of this horror -- planes flying into buildings, anxiety about suicide bombers and chemicals in the subway -- could somehow be made to recede until it was barely in our thoughts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/10/magazine/10KERRY.html?ei=5090&en=6d6a8954d476e1f2&ex=1255233600&partner=rss&pagewanted=print&position=

Bravo to Kerry for daring to voice, as did Clark at this talk, that the terror threat was not something we should have to live in fear of for the rest of our lives. And, of course, he was (wrongly) ridiculed for it. We need others who are courageous enough to make this point. The terror threat is real but it is managable. Of course, there are those who don't want anyone to feel that way. Easier to control the masses if they live in fear.

It's a great piece, BTW, about Kerry's very sane ideas on the whole terrorism thing. It's easy to see why Kerry and Clark were able to work so closely in the 2004 campaign. They share a lot of the same views on foreign policy/national security.

[faithnotgreed]

38. this anti-war green party member would GLADLY vote for clark

over any of the other "front runners" currently running

he is far preferable to me
it is odd to think about but as a high ranking military man he is also anti- war
not to mention his support for equality of all colors and shapes incl gay rights and many other ways he shows his real humanity

from what i have read and heard he is so genuine and smart and caring that i cannot help but want him in this race
we would all be the better for it if he were somehow leading this country

[CarolNYC]

39. Agreed

I'm not a Green Party member but have always considered myself strongly anti-war. It was a real surprise to me to find myself vigorously supporting a lifelong military man the last time around. I'd have absolutely no qualms doing it again this time around. In fact, I'm really hoping he finds a way to run.

[colorado_ufo]

47. Wes Clark is, simply, the strongest leader I know.

But he is also gifted with intelligence, humanity, and honor. He would transform this country to the best of what it was and the best of what it could be.

[Donna Zen]

48. That would be his goal

We've grown so used to politicians pursuing their own aims, that the idea of someone putting the good of the country first almost doesn't compute. But you are correct: the only thing he wants is to heal our country and put it on the correct path.

[elleng]

50. Right, Donna Zen.

General Clark himself has noted that 'putting the good of the country first almost doesn't compute.'

He stated at SAIS speech, paraphrasing, that his reluctance to announce is related to fact that once he does announce, his past and future words are construed by media as 'self-interest'-related, and he can't have that. So because media says it, public adopts that misconstruction, and he's sunk.

What an awful position for him to be forced into, when the thing he wants to do MOST is good for the country.

[CarolNYC]

53. How true...

You can see it here on DU, a politician who puts the good of the country above their own political fortunes seems totally incomprehensible to some. Sad really, what that says about the state of politics.

[Divine Discontent]

56. that sounds right! :)

for all the people who haven't listened to him give his speech about Bush pushing for WWIII with those of the Islamic faith, go to:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_iG-IBG7h4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6A0dG9mtno



www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<-- check it out, top '08 stuff

[Wesin04]

55. If Wes Clark can 'find a way',

He'll run at the top of the ticket. He will not be there to prop up another candidate who doesn't have the strength of the knowledge and experience and vision that Clark can bring to the table. Seems that supporters of all the candidates end up pairing Clark with their guy or gal, but the obvious answer is that Wes stands on his own and is too valuable a leader to fall in line behind anyone else.

I'm hoping he finds his way, too. We need him to take the helm and right this ship of state. I'll gladly crew for him!:patriot:

[sellitman]

64. Wes & Gore would make a terrific team.

Because of wide spread media attention Gore would probably be at the top of the ticket. He is a known entity with many more Americans than any Dem running. That's not a slight at Wes, just facts. Either way we win.

Landslide

[Tom Rinaldo]

65. Even if Clark ran and Gore didn't, I suspect they would still be a team

Gore could find no greater ally in an American President (other than himself of course) for the fight against global warming than Wes Clark. Clark is a true believer in that threat, and Clark personally well understands the science behind it, and the imperitive to act against it now. Clark calls Global Warming a major threat to our security as a nation, which gives Global Warming Red Alert status in his book, and Clark is a strong believer in International cooperation and treaty obligations.

These men share many beliefs in common, either one of them would make a great President.

[jenmarie]

67. I've a feeling

neither of them would settle for VP - can't blame them either.

[Pierzin]

61. STOP THE INSANITY AND HYSTERIA ALREADY!!!!!

OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG thank you thank thank you thank you

At last there is SOMEONE willing to confront the hysteria currently being perpetuated against the American public by the Right Wing obfuscators and fear mongers.
And lest we forget, we must tell EVERYONE far and wide about the truth, for if I had not seen it here, I would not have known. We need to tell anyone with enough power, with enough money, with enough balls to start a media machine to counter the lies and deception that is currently broadcast as news.
News is almost dead in the USA. Many shows that pass for news are info-tainment, and the Iraq War/occupation is a clear example of that.

I thank God every day for people like Al Gore and Wes Clark and Ron Paul, Keith Olbermann, Amy Goodman, Thom Hartmann, Randi Rhodes, and a small handful of others that challenge the liars at Fox and MSNBC and CNN, CBS, ABC, and of course, NBC. For the latter mentioned networks journalistic integrity is compromised as being part of the power structure.

A Gore/Clark ticket would breath some sense into the hysteria and pop the balloon of fanaticism that has swept this nation.

Peace to you CarolNYC, and peace to DU!

[Allyoop]

87. Gore/Clark

I admire (President) Al Gore and would not hesitate to vote for him. However, his performance against George Bush was as miserable as Kerry's was. They both let themselves be led by Washington DLC "experts" in their campaigns.

I don't think Wes Clark could be led to parse words so that he offends nobody. Only if Americans are ready to hear the unadorned truth could he lead the pack! "We" seem to prefer "movie stars" who say what we want to hear and Wes speaks his mind and what he believes is true - not what he's been told is what people want to hear.

I fear for our future unless Americans grow up and vote for reality, not fantasy. If this miserable mis-administration of Bush's isn't enough to make us grow up and listen for honesty, not political correctness and what the handlers advise I don't think we ever will.

It's heart-wrenching to know these two good men who only want to save this nation will be slammed with all kinds of political misrepresentation (slander) if and when they announce.

[Labors of Hercules]

93. The same thing that makes them targets, makes them the most capable to fight the machine. n/t

[MasonJar]

94. I am confident that Gore will not run for Vice President again, but I

am hoping that Clark might. I am sure, based on his own experience as the Vice, Al Gore would give Wes a lot to do. If Al won't run, I hope Clark will, but it is getting late for him to enter. He would, therefore, make a great Vice for anyone, not just Gore.