I am not sure Gen. Clark is aware of "state defense forces," official state militias which are side-by-side with the National Guard in about half the states, and which trace their histories to similiar "state guard" units formed when the National Guard was overseas in WWI and WWII. These units are commanded by their governors and adjutants general and possess all the authority necessary to act in emergencies, but they are under-appreciated, under-funded and under-utilized. Most members are retired or honorably discharged veterans with a wealth of experience. In most states their missions are in homeland security. With proper attention and publicity these units can serve the function Gen. Clark describes. Give this some support! Signed: BRUCE H. McINTYRE, Colonel, Michigan Volunteer Defense Force (an agency of the Michigan Dept. of Military & Veterans Affairs). (248-683-3063)

yes, objective analysis clearly points to the fact that "al qaeda", (or international terrorism with islamic roots) is best characterized by intrinsically decentralized groups. "al qaeda" is indeed a spectre, not easily identifiable because it is not a single entity, its cells are not organizational, rather they are broadly emergent and integrated within organs of society at large.

Wes is also right, looking east, the solution is through the cause: suporting cultural-consciousness regarding the error in radically-violent interpretations of Islam. however, looking west, the solution likewise involves the cause. the current administration's policy gave unusual growth-impetus to the scattered-spectre of al queda, while at the same time massively undermining what would have been an organic moderate uprising in Islam after 911. where Islamic communities began to coalesce around religious-interpretations of Islam and leaders denounced violence, our ham-handed and violent policies in the iraq and elsewhere left muslim moderates weakened. further, the USA's use of isreal as a strategic agitant within the middle eastern region is now passe (to put it mildly) and must cease immediately through a just palistenian peace accord.

lastly, the usa must step up to its role as world leader, playground bully DIDNT WORK (DUH). a vastly increased USA secret police mechanism is as starkly against the organic emergence of moderate islam as was the iraq war. no mention of the collapse of civilization such a move engenders. will our leaders ever get it, or will the game ever and only be allowed to be played ugly-and-stupid-style?

Is Gen. Clark running for President or not? I hope he will, but how can I know? What's up?

Dear General Clark:

It seems hypocritical to demand other countries to NOT expand their nuclear capabilities when WE have those capabilities, and especially
so when WE are the only country in the history of mankind to have unleashed the Atomic bomb on another country. How, in the face of that fact, do WE now demand that no other country develop those capabilities when they see US as the ones who engineered the ultimate
destruction of MANKIND. Given that WE are the only Nation to drop that bomb, how are we to expect them to "TRUST" us not to do so again?

This is a thought that has troubled me since junior high school. I love my country, and I am a very die-hard democrat. What is going on in this country is SO troubling, and SO frightening, yet I tend to think from the other point of view, as well. What are your thoughts on this?? The WORLD, AT LARGE, HAS NO REASON TO TRUST US, OR OUR MOTIVES. The fact is, and no refuting it...We are the ONLY supposedly
"civilised" country to unleash the bomb on another country, and no one
in this world has forgotten Hiroshima or Nagisaki...to this DAY. Not
even me. And I wasn't even born yet.

How do we ask, no, DEMAND...other countries to NOT develop the same capabilites that we have stored in silos all over America?? Aren't we suppose to lead by example? Yet we have a President who lied to America, and the rest of the world, about supposed Weapons of Mass Distruction....Clinton lied about getting a blow job in the Oval office, and was Impeached...Why hasn't George Bush been Impeached for
lying to us about something so devasatingly MORE important??? Why is this man still in office, and every day sinking us deeper into debt, and commiting more and more of our young men to die in a country that
never threatened us directly? And WHERE, OH WHERE is Osama Bin Laden?

THESE are the questions that we want answered. THESE are the problems
that need to be solved. We need to turn up the heat in Washington!!
Why is this hillbilly running our country into the ground? Why are we letting it happen? It used to be that when 51% of a population was dissatisfied, there was a revolution. Unfortunately, the American
public is so apathetic, so "whatever" that we will all be dust before
this administration is unearthed as the dinosaur it IS!

Agree with much of what is stated in this article.

But, seems to me that a major part of the solution to countering terrorism is to look carefully at the issues that spawn the al-qaedas, etc.

For example, the immediate resolution of the Israli-Palestinian issue with the U.S. Government taking the initiative and supporting and forcing the United Nations to EQUITABLY resolve the conflict. A starting point would be the suspension of ALL U.S. aid to Israel. And a termination of the policy that Israel is to be supported at all costs by the U.S. member of the U.N. Security Council

One element of leadership is being resolute, which needs to be differentiated from being pigheaded or stubborn. Instead of repeatedly using a hammer (his preferred tool) to drive in a screw, which the stubborn Bush administration does by offering more of the same in Iraq, the effective leader, who has resolved to drive in the screw, will assess the tools at his disposal, try the tool most likely to work, assess his success, and then either stick with that tool or try another one. Flexibility, resolve, and intelligence are needed to be a successful leader. The Bush administration has none of these.

I worked for General Clark in the '04 primary after reading an article about him Esquire before he anounced and after meeting his son who campaigned here on behalf his father. General Clark was instrumental in implementing a new leadership model for the all volunteer army that encourage decision making at the platoon level rather than a top down approach. It worked, as any organization uses such a system already knows. The Bush administration uses the DIM leadership model (Deception, Intimidation, Manipulation). While the DIM model may bolster the fragile egos at the top, this model is counterproductive (as evidenced by the administration current implosion from a number of fronts).

General Clark has also succeeded in an arena that Bush may not have, his own children. Having met the General's son, the General must be extremely proud of him. He is bright, articulate, well-spoken, confident, and pleasant - pretty much everything you would want your children to grow up to be. So the General either parented well, married well, or both.

What makes for good leadership? 1) Do your homework. Know the facts. Amandsen, the discover of the South Pole once said, I want to make my own mistakes, not the same ones someone else already has. 2) Try something, assess your results, try something else. Be flexible and and adaptable. 3) Celibrate your collaborations - newer better ideas grow in this environment. 4) Followership and leadership go hand in hand. 5) You don't need a committee meeting to decide whether to decide to turn out the lights. 6) Let your stars shine. Give the people working for you the ability use their talents in achieving the common goal - their novel ideas and inspiration will surprise you. If too restricted, these ideas will never emerge. These are just a few examples.

Now it is easy to see why the world loved Clinton, whose administration showed many of these traits, and hated Bush (even before 9/11), because he displays none of these traits. Wesley Clark has shown himself to be a great leader throughout his career, regardless of the setting. I will work for you in '08 if the opportunity arises.

Marquette, Michigan

Dear General Clark,
With the rapidly growing of China's economy, most Chinese become more and more ambitious and want to control the whole world because these Chinese think that China has 1.3 billion population which is the opportunity for China to control the whole world to realize communism. According to the information from China State Security Ministry, China is using all China's resources to develop China's military force and China's economy and to organize and train terrorists. According to the information, China's first enemy is the United States and China will use every method to defeat the United States. Right now, China is using North Korea and Iran to consume Americans' energy, is exporting a lot of cheap things to hurt American economy and is guiding Bin Laden to use terrorism attacks to tax Americans and Europeans.
Sincerely yours
Huaichun Jiang

"National intelligence efforts, special police activities and local community policing efforts, which focus on identifying and targeting terrorist individuals and organizations, are required."

Right on again, Sir!

Why does fight always mean military? Why don't they get it that we're only as strong as our weakest link? Military is not the main answer, better intelligence and a solid network is.

Thank you for speaking up.

- Clark '04 loyalist from Chicago.

since we don't have a coherent one now. Just keep talking sense. I will be there for you in '08, even more dedicated than I was in '04. True leadership >*> present "policy".

www.messengerpuppet.com

General Clark:

First, I think you have some good ideas, but I feel they stick too close to the administration's current "plan" if it can be called that.

I think it's fair to point out that the current administration's 'plan' for O.I.L. (Operation Iraqi Liberation) has *never* been effective in eliminating terrorism. Even if Al-Qaeda has become a new animal (which doesn't seem to be justified by the facts) the Bush administration is the first group of people to ignore.

They have taken a country that had *no known terrorists* and created an environment that upsets people so much, that they're willing to become suicide bombers, when all they wanted to do before was run their businesses. Any time you kill civilians and journalists and other innocents as indescriminately as the current occupying army has, you're going to create terrorists where none existed. Any time you go to war to find nonexistant WMD, and then change the purpose of the war to removing Saddam, and then change the purpose of the war to installing a democratic government (which, by the way would elect religious radicals who would call down the wrath of allah on America if they were truly democratic, because that's what the majority feel in Iraq), and then change the purpose of the war to policing the Iraqi people and training their police force (after disbanding their army, and refusing to train their police force elsewhere, so they're under fire throughout their training) You lose any credibility you might have had riding on the Moral Highground coattails of the president with the most successful foreign policy and world opinion in recent history, William Jefferson Clinton.

The recent attacks in the UK are unfortunate, but are equal on the terror scale to what we have done to the Iraqi people every week since Mr. Bush (The only "President" in American history to not be elected... twice) started this war on a lie. I am upset that despite the political views of the British people, Tony Blair has insisted on lap-dogging for Bush, thus making London a logical attack point for Al-Qaeda... but again, I feel it's important to recognize that the only thing making London more of a tragedy than any town in Iraq, is that its inhabitants are white. So let's take a moment and recognize the RAMPANT RACISM running our foreign policy today and remove the people propagating that world view (and lying about everything from the reasons for war to what was said to reporters about CIA agents serving undercover--driven by their patriotism to live their lives in peril of being discovered [or outed] each day, who may have unforunately been married to an ambassador who foolishly excercised his right to free speech against the war.. clearly he didn't get the memo in 2001 that the bill of rights was suspended until further notice) from power.

Step one: "Cut and run"... unpopular though it is, everyday we continue our occupation of Iraq is another day of "terrorist" recruitment. The Iraqi people are in a lousy situation, we've destroyed everything from their water sources to their statues of Saddam, but we cause more damage and death everyday we stay there. It is clear now that there is no reason to be there beyond the quagmire we've created. I'm open to the possibility of helping fund the rebuilding process, but Haliburton can't keep the contracts, because everytime they try to work over there, they become targets. We Are Not Wanted there... bottom line.

Step two: Impeach everyone who intentionally deceived the american public and ran us into hundreds of billions of dollars of debt to avenge 9/11 on a country that had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT, from W all the way down to DeLay and Frist... and hell, throw in Tony Blair while we're at it. Saddam Hussein was democratically elected... which is more than can be said of George W Bush. Oh, and impeach Jeb Bush for the widespread fraud he orchestrated in Fla in 2000 and 2004, and Impeach Kathrine Harris, wherever she is, and impeach Bill O'Reily and Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh for lying under the vestige of information distributors on the public airwaves (okay, we could just sue them), and impeach the supreme court justices who halted justice in Fla in 2000 declaring Bush the victor when over 170,000 votes had never been counted, and impeach every news anchor and newspaper writer in the nation who has not investigated anything the administration has done since the beginning of King George II's reign... we knew everything about Paula Jones, but the media wouldn't tell us anything about the Downing Street Memo hearings... claiming that it was old news that the president had lied about why we went to war... which, by the way is an IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

Step Three: reinstitute the Bill Of Rights... I know it's an old list of archaic rules, but it's worked well for a long time, let's keep it. Although "original intent" os the second amendment would NOT allow citizens to keep firearms unless they served in a militia in a time of war... I guess we can let that go, and gun-owners' children can continue to kill their classmates in schools across the nation, as long as the NRA is willing to hold rallies in the cities right after the shootings occur.

Man! I get awfully long-winded when I talk about what I believe in.

Sorry, I love this country too much to let go of it.

Yours for America,

Casey Kimble

and struggle to understand why... how... Bush got this country to be so terrified of its own shadow.

9/11 was a horrible day - a frightening day, but is in not way a means to begin acting in manners un-American, such as depriving our citizens of their rights and failing to set an exemplary example in human rights.

One of the best parts of Americana is our ability to melt cultures into the pot and we should, as the General explains, use this hard-earned ability to connect with our brother and sister Muslims.

Terrorism is not the cancer, but the symptom of the cancer of international plight and human suffering. We need to eradicate the causes of terrorism: hunger, powerlessness, the lack of education and the inability to care for one's family because of the greed of others; rather than attempt to kill terrorists, who only grow back as snakes on the Medusa's head.

If we reach out to moderate Muslims in all sects, then the terrorists will lessen their hold on our primal fears becasue we simply won't fear something we know.

Thank you, General, for attempting to shine a light on what needs to be done. Unfortuately, I don't see the war-profiteering faction of the Bush Administration reaching out to anyone except oil barons and corporate tycoons looking to develop a war-ravaged country - which, ironically, will create more "have nots" and, as a result, more terrorism.

Lara Turner
Tennessee

Dear General Clark:

Your prescription for ending terrorism inside the US would end, at most, one-percent of world terrorism.

With regard to your ideas for increased security measures, Israel has successfully implemented most of them. Israel’s security provides adequate protection to its people, even though there are a dozen or so sucide bombings per year. And Israel has accomplished all this while it persists in expanding its settlements in the West Bank and depriving Palestinians of, not only most of their land, but also nearly all of their water.

The negative side to Israel’s drastic security measures is that it has become a country where few people want to live: most of the world’s Jews would prefer to live here in the US rather in their Jewish Homeland.

In order to understand how to eliminate most of the world’s terrorism we need first to look at who is doing most of it, and then at the causes.

MAJOR PRACTITIONERS OF TERRORISM

Historically most terrorism inside the US was directed at our indigenous population. Indian removal involved not only genocide and other ethnic cleansing, but also massive terrorism spanning centuries. Other than this, most domestic terrorism was inflicted on the Negro population. Following centuries of terrorism employed to control the slaves, after the slaves were emancipated terrorism was widely employed to keep the Blacks poor and submissive.

Elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere our Marines, including troops under Major General Smedley Butler, employed heavy terrorism to promote US hegemony and economic exploitation. General Butler also worked in China and other regions.

Contrary to popular belief, our Operation Phoenix accounted for only a small fraction of our terrorism during the Vietnam War. We caused the deaths of three million people in Southeast Asia. We used napalm and white phosphorous and bombed civilians all over the place. After the war we even continued to support Pol Pot’s terrorism against his own people.

In the Middle East we promoted the Iraqi invasion of Iran, and we supported Iraq’s use of poison gas. We kept supporting Saddam Hussein even while he was gassing the Kurds. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, after receiving an apparent green light from Ambassador April Glasbie, we clobbered the Iraqis, killing 100,000 or so of them while they fled. Ten thousand of them were slaughtered after the cease fire “ending” hostilities, such as in General Barry McCaffrey’s infamous “turkey shoot”. After this, with our manipulation of UN sanctions so as to prevent importation of water-purification and sewage purification equipment—after destroying such equipment with our targeted bombing—as well as importation of critical medical supplies and equipment, we caused the death of half a million Iraqi children, according to the UN estimate.

What we see if we open our eyes is that, since WWII most world terrorism has been done either by us or by others we supported. (Of course, prior to the end of WWII terrorism in Africa, such as by King Leopold’s men, or in Russia during Stalin’s forced farm collectivization and later during the Great Terror, or in Asia by Japan, accounted for a major portion of world terrorism.) It follows that the most effective way for us to reduce terrorism would be to stop practicing it: to renounce use of terrorism as an instrument of foreign policy. This would eliminate most of the world’s terrorism.

PURPOSES OF TERROSIM

We have already seen some of the purposes of terrorism, such as against the American Indian and Black populations and European terrorism in Africa: it was for plunder or subjugation. In Russia it was also for population control. By Japan in the Rape of Nanking, as earlier by the Vikings and Gengis Kahn, it was to break a people’s spirit so they would not resist aggression and subjugation. Within the last twenty years another motivation for terrorism arose: Islamic terrorism as an instrument against military aggression employing hi-tech weaponry. This type of terrorism was not practiced by American Indians or Africans because they lacked the capability. Only in hi-tech western nations are the populations vulnerable to things like suicide bombing: the bigger our airplanes, the faster our trains, the greater our underground metro systems, the taller our buildings, the more available Internet communication has become, the more vulnerable we westerners have become. Yet the problem does not affect the Scandinavians or Chinese. Why? Because Muslims don’t have grievances against those people.

The grievances of Muslims against us stem from our rapacious greed for oil and Israel’s determination to drive out and keep out the Palestinians from what the Israeli’s believe to be land granted to them by their God.

ELIMINATING MOST TERROSIM

There will always be terrorism--police terrorism, bully terrorism, race terrorism, psychopathic terrorism, etc. But we can and should end our own practice of terrorism such as for plundering somebody else’s oil or establishing or maintaining exploitive hegemony.

You justifiably say that“we must defeat the ideology of terrorism, depriving angry young people of their ability to justify their hateful actions in the name of Allah.” (Actually many or most Islamic terrorists are fighting as soldiers to defend their people from us, using the only weapons at their disposal in the face of our high-tech weapons where we can count on a hundred-to-one combat kill-ratio advantage.)

But what’s good for the goose is also good for the gander: we must end our own readiness to employ massive terrorism in furtherance of our foreign policy goals. And this alone will remove the major Islamic grievances against us. This alone will make us as free of terrorism as, say, Sweden. Not completely free of terrorism—that’s impossible—but nearly free of it.

General Clark, I admire you for your heroism under danger and your great service to our nation. I was an early supporter of your presidential bid, even when I was aware of your lack of understanding on Israel/Palestine. You probably don’t remember my earlier open letter to you titled, “A LETTER TO THE GENERAL: Don’t Let Them Romney You, General” (October 2, 2003), on your apparent naivete over the Palestine issue. Once again I appeal to you to do your homework before you propose solutions.

With great respect and appreciation,

John Kimber, USN 1942-46, johnkimber@sbcglobal.net, http://the911debate.blogspot.com

General Clark:
I have been a member of WesPAC since the onset.I have partcipated in every venture you have undertaken through these e-mails. I an truly concerned about the division of our country since this administration took office.
I support your plan for America regarding civil defense and withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. Many of these Americans are from our home state. I have met you on several occasions. I was not involved in your campaign for president because of prior commitments.
I sincerely hope that you will consider running for president in 2008. I realize this is a big undertaking but we need a man like you with a voice of reason.
This country is very divided with Republicans against Democrats. I see it every day.
I believe a person of your experience both military and a reasonable approach to the problems we have, that you could make this country
a nation indivisible with liberty and justice for every American.
I also believe you could be very effective in repairing the damage to our foreign relations.
I have 35 years of political experience which I will offer to you in the event you make the decision to enter the race for the presidency in 2008.
I sincerely want to thank you for your service to our country.

Sincerely,
B.J.Quast
Little Rock, AR

Very disappointed that WesPAC does not denounce the U.S. and British wrong against Iraq.

By all means fight terrorism but not under the immoral war against a sovereign nation that was not a clear and present imminent threat to its neighbors or to any other nation.

As long as we continue the wrong against Iraq, Al-Qaeda will continue to change and grow by leaps and bounds, and will spread to western nations all across the globe, including the United States.

We must be of clear conscience when we invade and occupy a nation.

Will Kolbert

Leave it up to Wes Clark to perceive the solutions that are needed to deal with a growing world problem with terrorism.

We have not only wasted our money and our soldiers' lives in Iraq, we have exposed how vulnerable we are. General Clark is right, as is Richard Clark, in saying that we need to protect ourselves AT HOME FIRST. It is not selfish to do that, without getting into the fact that Saddam was fine when he was *our* tyrant. As Richard Clark says, the Sunnis and Shias have been fighting each other for 1,000 years - there is nothing we can do to change that. Iraq is full of intelligent, educated, capable individuals who can sort out their problems on their own. Perhaps it will result in a civil war and eventual restructuring of the artificial state - so what? There is chaos there now and there will be chaos when we leave until the Muslims find solutions to their own issues, or not. What WE need to do is to protect OURSELVES - physically, financially, economically. Richard Clark pointed out on Al Franken's show today that we know bin Laden wanted to take down the Brooklyn Bridge and sent someone to check out the possibilities. That person reported back to forget about it - the Brooklyn Bridge was too well protected. That's what we need to happen for thousands of potential targets nationwide, and the Bush administration has totally shortchanged that effort in its ridiculous chest-thumping mishaps in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have failed, it's time to admit it, and we need to move on.

M. Shank
Minnesota

There is no hope of making progress along the lines General Clark advocates as long as the US is in Iraq. The US strategy of building an Iraqi army to prop up a US client regime will not work in five years, twelve years, or ever. This is not a strategy that can be made to work by fine tuning.
The conventional wisdom, that immediate US withdrawl from Iraq would lead to civil war and chaos misses the point. It is precisely the US presence that is causing chaos and leading to a civil war.
The invasion of Iraq was the worst strategic blunder in American military history. Withdraw now and address the Isreali Palestinian problem and you will see an improvement in our security.

Dear Sir

I continue to be a staunch, if somewhat "removed from reality" supporter of your Presidencial candidacy .. This due to the fact that I am in South America (Caracas, Venezuela) and not quite as up-to-date as I would prefer to be.

Sir, as a South African citizen, now living in self imposed exile, I find the similarities in the terror attacks suffered by USA, Europe and others, to the terror attacks that we suffered in South Africa during the so-called "apartheid regime" very striking indeed. My unschooled opinion makes me believe that "terror" - used in the context of being practiced by terrorists (sic) - all over the world has been elevated to unprecedented levels. The ease and effect of the attacks are astounding and far-reaching, to the degree that the future of "civilization" as we would like to live it, is threatened on a daily basis.

In writing this comment, I agree wholeheartedly with your very learned and insightful article and plead to make just one addition, namely that the solution should be equal to the threat. I say this thinking that there are hundreds (if not thousands) of able bodied South Africans and others, whom would see it as an honor to be "used"(In the positive sense) in this regard.

The threat MUST be removed at source. The refractory stances or inability, as demonstrated by the current govt. of the USA, to prevent or even deter the attacks should be seen as paramount and a referendum would certainly show that whilst the America people do not want further military involvement that threaten the lives of so many of their own, they would certainly accept the deployment of effective and conclusive military elements of non-USA origin to fight this threat to world stability and the very right to a peaceful existence.

I fully realize the apparent contradiction in my comment but haste to add that I am not suggesting "mercenary" actions. I am however suggesting using QUALIFIED people, with the neccesary experience and equipment. I for one would consider myself qualified, willing and most definitely motivated to be used in this sense.

Thanking you for your voice of reason and knowing that the 2008 elections will see a true leader at the head of the USA govt.

Sincerely

Vincent Churchill
Caracas, Venezuela

Hummm- seems like 1988 was under the Great Ronald Reagen's Watch.

Dear General Clarke,

Can you tell me when in the last 30 years the US has not been the main country working and implementing the "culture of hate"? How can you possibly remove the culture of hate in other counties when it originates in the behaviour of whites in America, the religious fundamentalists in America, and the corporate sponsored politicians in America, Republican and Democrat. The US has had a policy against many -ism's and the present -ism that suits the American people is Islamism!!

(Madeline Albright is one of the architects of U.S. foreign policy against Iraq. In an interview with Leslie Stahl of CBS on May 11, 1996, U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright was asked whether the over half a million children killed by the sanctions were "worth it." Her response was: "It’s a hard choice, but I think, we, think, it’s worth it." It brought about a catastrophic economic situation in that country, resulting in the deaths of an estimated 1.5 million Iraqi children, women and men.)

Follow the Christian motto of taking out the mote in the eyes of America before trying to take out the motes in other countries eyes and you may reach a solution to any problem in the world. Not otherwise.

As a progressive Muslim, I would agree with most of General Clark's anti-terrorism recommendations. However, it is clear that when Americans and others speak about the "Muslim community" they see it as one monolithic group of people. Surely, the first lesson of Iraq for the US was that there were many different interest groups jostling for power including "secular" Shiahs and the Baathists, who are secular Sunnis! Did the words of Ayatollah Sistani ring true for all Iraqis, including the Sunnis or the Kurds? The way the media reports characterize the Kurds in Iraq, one would think that they are not part of the Shiah/Sunni divide.

The same principle applies in Palestine. Which one Muslim leader has been able to influence the suicide-bombers or self-styled martyrs in Palestine? Terrorists are not Muslims just because they belong to a particular ethnic community or because they were born into a particular denomination of Islam.

They are politically motivated extremists who use the language of Islam to propagate their political ambitions. It is important to make this distinction.

There was nothing that the leaders of Christendom could have said to stop Hitler and the Nazis. There is nothing that the Roman Catholic Church could have said to influence the IRA. These are mythic, absurd notions.

There is nothing that the King of Jordan, the King of Morocco or the Saudi King, the President of Indonesia or the Prime Minister of Malaysia could say to influence these extremists. There is nothing that any moderate Islamic cleric either in Iran or the rest of thr world could say that could halt this kind of terror because such terrorists are not within the circle of influence of moderate and progressive Muslims. They are as powerless to stop "Islamic" terrorism as the US government is powerless to stop the insurgency.

So, let's talk plainly here. Instead of pouring $ 200 billion to fight a war that was based on fiction and that is proving to be the best recruiting ground for the terrorists, let's focus our attention on taking out al-Qaeda. We have lost three years in a wild goose chase and escalated tensions in the Muslim world. Let's get a grip on this so called war on terrorism and focus our attention on al-Qaeda and its off-spring.

We cannot fight the evil minds with bombs . That is like "putting a stick" in an ant hill, you kill what ever the stick hits , but the others get away and build more ant hills .
God help us to see the people need to find hope in this life!!!!

See http://esca1.com/esca/

One of the reasons I became involved in ESCA was the General's talk about giving back to the community.

Joe Hamelin W7COM
Edmonds, WA

General Clark,

I supported you for President in 2004 and would hope that you would run again in 2008. Our country needs a man such as yourself in the White House.

Once again, I read your article and you have the strongest voice of not just reason, but of logic as well.

Good job, Sir, and hopefully you'll run for President again in 2008 and once again, as little as it may be, you'll have my support and vote.

Thank you, Sir.

I feel that it is time for the U.S Troops to come home spend time with thier loved ones at home , its really a waste of time being in Iraq. I feel that the U.S troops should not have gone to Iraq in the first place , in which the U.S underestimated that Saddam had weapons of Mass destruction , which is nowhere to be found at all..

The second i feel the U.N should have finished its inspections in Iraq , i feel that its time for all the U.S Troops to head back home ..

If Saddam was still in charge there would no Al-Queda in Iraq , he (Saddam Huessein) had all the terrorist under controll , though everyone agrees that he was mad man , but that was he business to take care off ..