Gen. Clark on Daily Kos 2007-02-12
Submitted by Stan4Clark on February 12, 2007 - 4:59pm.
Current Events | Iran | Iraq | Middle East | Wesley Clark
The operative questions and answers:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gabr1el: Quick Question for you, Wes
While I agree with the general sentiment of your positing, it has to be acknowledged that the US would be approaching Iran from a position of weakness--certainly compared to where we were a few years ago.
What's to prevent the Iranians from running the table in any negotiations? And more importantly, what could/should the US do to maximize the strength of our diplomatic position?
CLARK: In entering discussions with Iran, we shouldn't be bargaining...we should be trying to establish a new way of looking at the region.. we should be discussing problems, trying to create agreement on principles, and looking for next steps to widen the dialog.
Bargaining never works well in diplomacy...it's about relationships...
As for weakness now, well, yes and no. It is certainly true that our Army and Marines can't fix Iraq, please understand that our major leverage has always been organizational and economic. We strongly influence all the organizations which affect Iran - everything from WTO and G-8 down to and including OPEC...so we actually have plenty of leverage....we jsut need to commence an "unconditional" dialog.
Adam B: Short question: do you consider Iran to be an enemy of the United States?
CLARK: I wouldn't want to be branding people as enemies too soon. That was one of Bush's many mistakes. Iran is a nation we have many disagreements with...and that's why we should be discussing, not sabre rattling.
PissedPatriot: Iran
Iran borders the straights and the gulf with mountainess territory. Little more is needed than a few men with shoulder fired or easily transportable anti ship weapons to bring the whole gulf oil transportation system to halt.
There is NO way that america could secure that water way. Oil would skyrocket and our economy would suffer terribly.
Secondly, our borders are still wide open. I shudder what a team of 24 or more special forces from a country like Iran could do if unleashed here. Look what two yahoo idiots did in DC, with a shotgun and a crappy car. Imagine special forces hitting our malls, parades, sporting events etc. They could destroy our way of life.
Hell a 40 man team could easily take over Indian piont power station and cause incredible destruction to NY and the world economy as a recent documentary by Kennedy showed.
I think military men sometimes are to focussed on the battlefield not to see, that the batlefield is no longer just the frontlines. Asymetrical warfare no longer exist. We are a VERY VERY vunerable nation.
Generals gathered in their masses Just like witches at black masses.. Evil minds that plot destruction Sorcerers of deaths construction..........
CLARK: Everyone is vulnerable, and not just us...That's why we need to talk. But perhaps I am not as quick as some to say that nothing can be done. Sometimes the use of force is necessary, and sometimes it can work. It's just that i see no reason to resort to that or the threats yet....We have to try to see this from their side, too. They wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of what we could do, either. So that's why I believe there is plenty of "leverage" for us to commence discussions.
NorthWESterly: Thank you for coming here today. Two things that are of concern to me.
- The American people do not understand the complete catastrophic ramifications of attacking Iran....and will be led blindly by the adm and media.
- That many others are not going to believe Iran is a true threat. That this adm is calling wolf so to speak and not take the Iran threat seriously....
Kind of a Catch 22, but these two things need to be explained to the American people and you're the only one who can do it.
CLARK: I do believe that the Administration is laying a lot of groundwork to convince people that Iran is a threat...And once the Administration starts talking about how close the Iranians are to completing their nuclear capacity, it will be difficult even for Democrats in Congress to stand up to them. That's why right now is the time that Congress must speak about the strategy!
What If: What if Congressional leaders used their power to prevent the President from attacking Iran without a formal declaration of war (which would require Congressional approval)?
Iran does not present an imminent danger to our homeland, although it does present a very real danger to our forces in Iraq. Naturally, if Iran launched any major attack against our forces there, the President would be right to defend against such an attack - although not necessarily through a counter-attack into Iranian territory without Congressional approval. But, there should be a full scale Congressional debate before any "pre-emptive" escalation of this conflict into another country. IF Congressional leaders care at all about the separation of powers, shouldn't they proceed in a bipartisan group to the White House and draw the line in the sand? Either Bush agrees to propose a declaration of war, or they open up impeachment proceedings the moment he launches an air strike on Iran. If you can share any of your thinking on these lines, please do. If what you are working on must be held in confidence, and you can't respond to this, that's OK. I thank you for all you are doing. CLARK: Congressional leaders should absolutely be pressing the White House to defend its strategy of not speaking with and isolating Iran. The strategy has been totally counterproductive. I would like to see a series of Resolutions expressing the displeasure of the Congress with the strategy...followed by hearings, and a lot of behind the scenes pressure on the Administration.
It would seem the U.S. forces in Iraq are merely fighting a battle for the Saudis--who support the Sunnis, and thus arguably the threads of al Qaeda in Iraq as well. The Shia cleric al Sistani has much support in Iran as well as in Iraq, and his brand of Shi'ism is gaining favor, according to Nasr, and may supplant the more radical Khomeini/Islamic Revolution remnants in Iran. The Shias act as a counterweight to the Sunnis and al Qaeda....Our forces in Iraq seem to be principally holding back the Shia....
Why not take up the Saudis on their "threat" to intervene should we withdraw.....
CLARK: Read his book and I recommend it...but before we take up anybody on their threat, i would like us to engage in an unconditional dialog in the region....we don't have much time left to do this...before other decisions will be forced on us...
MrGrandeFromage: I am reading "American Fascists : The Christian Right and the War on America" by Chris Hedges. My question is; What role do you think the dominionists are playing in the build up to war with Iran? Is the fulfillment of biblical prophecy a major motivating factor for the Bush administrations war aims in the Middle East?
CLARK: I haven't read the book. But there is a general clamor out there in some quarters that would support climactic action in the region...I don't believe the policy-makers are influenced by that - but it may impact some of the Congressional support.
NotGeorgeWill: Regime change policy; risk of confrontation
- What do you believe the costs and benefits of the Bush administration's policy of regime change vis a vis Iran and Syria are?
It seems that this policy undermines our aims in both creating a stable Iraq, and working with Iran on the nuclear issue (i.e. it gives Iran a legitimate justification for seeking nuclear arms).
I can't think of any benefits of the policy beyond scoring some political points domestically. Perhaps I'm over looking something here.
I would be curious to hear what your thoughts are.
- Aside from the Office of the Vice President, I don't get the sense that there is overwhelming enthusiasm for a military confrontation with Iran inside the Bush administration (e.g. SecDef Gates seems like more of a realist; Secretary of State Rice seems to realize the risks of a military confrontation; even the Secretary of Treasury Hank Paulson seems to be pushing for the use of "soft levers"--economic pressures--over military options).
What do you think the likelihood is of a military confrontation with Iran?
Thanks for your post and insights.
CLARK: You're right - the military doesn't want another conflict to handle. On the other hand, they have to do as they're told, and there is no doubt in my mind that the Iranians have sought and gained influence inside Iraq and that they have used that influence to our disadvantage. My sense that the conflict is coming stems from my reading of the President and Vice-President. Go back and look at their language. They have stated flatly that Iran cannot have nuclear capabilities. So, if diplomacy and UN sanctions don't work, the President will have to choose between leaving office with the Iranians getting a nuclear capability or not...I would hope the Iranians understand how serious the President is about stopping them...I think he's very serious...and unfortunately, he's going about it all wrong.
NotImportant: General, whats the best point of leverage in your opinion, sir?
CLARK: Find a way to use the powers of the purse, confirmation, and investigation - and apply it directly to the President and Vice-President.
CaptainAhab: Sniper sights and IED triggers
General, you seem to accept the latest admin. spin that Iran is actively killing US soldiers. If you do, please tell us why you do. They're playing the same PR game they played in 2002; I don't believe a thing any Bush lackey says, especially when it comes through MSM, as the allegations about Iranian involvement have. Why do you believe them, sir?
CLARK: I don't doubt that they're providing assistance to the militias and maybe even, indirectly, to Shia insurgents. It's simply the way things are done. And the sniper rifles and IED devices would be the exact items that would likely be supplied - they are small, hard to trace, and directly assist the Iraqi factions to inflict casualties. Plus I hear things from people whose opinions I trust.
Heathlander: Thanks for your thoughts, General, BUT...
Obviously, what you've written here tonight is very encouraging, and your opposition to a war in Iran should be saluted. However, I wish you would talk about morality and legality as opposed to just strategy - an attack on Iran would be an act of aggression, defined at Nuremberg as the "supreme international crime". As to the morality - well, suffice to say I don't think there is any moral code worth its salt that would approve of a completely unnecessary strike, with potentially devastating consequences, on an essentially defenceless victim.
By only talking about strategy, you seem to imply that if bombing Iran was conducive to U.S. interests in the Middle East, then it would be OK. This then allows those who are for an attack on Iran (the Bush administration among them) to re-focus the debate on whether or not bombing Iran would be successful, whether it would develop into a regional war, what the likely Iranian response would be, how far would it set back the Iranian nuclear programme, etc. etc. etc. In reality, all of this is completely irrelevent to, or at the very least less important than, the fact that an attack on Iran would be illegal and immoral. That, it seems to me, should be the focus of discussion, which is why I'm disappointed that it didn't merit any attention in your diary.
Furthermore, you write:
"And, finally, if every effort should fail, before we take military action, don't we at least want the moral, legal and political "high ground" of knowing we did everything possible to avert it?"
What does that mean? - "if every effort should fail" at what? At trying to stop Iran from getting nukes? You seem to be implying, if not stating outright, that the U.S. does have a right to use military force to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, of the kind Israel and the U.S. itself has, if diplomacy fails at achieving this objective.
This seems a very strange view to me - the law, again, is clear. The use of force is illegal except when authorised by the UNSC or in response to an imminent attack. Obviously, even if Iran were to get nuclear weapons, that would not qualify as an "imminent attack" - if that were so, Iran would have been entitled to bomb Tel Aviv and Washington years ago.
So I guess my main criticism of your diary is that you seem to be opposing a war with Iran because you feel that it remains possible to avert Iran's nuclear programme without the use of force. That's all well and good - brilliant, even, considering the record of your colleagues - but what I'm looking for is a recognition that even if there is no way other than military force to stop Iran from getting nukes, we still have no right to use military force.
Thanks again for diary.
Clark: I didn't discuss the legality and morality because these factors are worthy of whole articles themselves. But, briefly, the legality of a strike could be arranged...either from the UN or from the US Congress, or both...whether it would be moral would have to be discussed at the time in light of the threats and counter-threats....SO I've been suggesting that the direction we are headed isn't WISE...it's foolish. To me, this is the place to start.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
If not now, WHO? If not now, WHEN?
BE THE CHANGE you wish to see in the world.
“If you put me on third base, I'll bring you home.” - Wes Clark
here: http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/11034
Next time I'll likely just put it in a comment, but I'm still learning my way around.
I should have included the original diary with a link.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/12/122254/478
As the President fights for public support of his troop surge in Iraq, he is also ratcheting up the pressure on Iran. A second aircraft carrier battle group (with Newsweek reporting a third group likely to follow), Patriot missiles to protect our allies, arresting Iranian personnel in Iraq, releasing additional information about Iranian involvement, appointing a Navy Admiral to command forces in the region, even seeking diplomatic support from Sunni Arab friends in the region - Yes, the Iranians are interfering inside Iraq and seeking nuclear capabilities. Yet the President's recent actions give the US little additional leverage to engage and dissuade Iran, and, more than likely, simply accelerate a dangerous slide into war. The United States can do better than this. <!-- polls come after this -->
Since 9/11 the Iranians have tried on several occasions to open a dialogue with the United States. They, of course, had their own interests at heart, not ours. Yet, from dialogue some common interests might have emerged. The Bush Administration would have none of it, and branded Iran a member of the Axis of Evil. During that period, with most of the world on our side, we had enormous diplomatic, economic and military leverage over Iran. Now, deeply committed militarily in Iraq, more isolated diplomatically, increasingly indebted to some of Iran's crude oil customers, only modestly successful in gaining UN sanctions against Iran, the Administration has refused to change our approach, and has instead chosen to augment the least effective element of US power in the region - air and naval. We are already totally dominant in air and naval power over Iran. Even with Iran's new Russian antiaircraft equipment, no one should doubt that US forces could penetrate these defenses and strike with precision with minimal losses. Iran's naval countermeasures in the Gulf can be largely preempted. The Iranians no doubt recognize this. But the Iranians perceive American weaknesses on the ground, with an American Army too small to invade and occupy Iran, and too engaged inside Iraq even to threaten it. They see our soldiers through sniper sights, and from behind the triggers of improvised explosive devices, while they see themselves as a nation that gained considerable strength from a war with Iraq that cost a million casualties, took eight years, and involved withstanding missile strikes on cities and the use of chemical weapons. They no doubt believe that, whatever the current alignments of Sunni states, a US strike against Iran would bring outpourings of sympathy, public support, and waves of impassioned volunteers from throughout the Islamic world. They would see themselves as the heroic martyrs uniting Islam. The Iranians may believe this reaction would enforce on the United States a rapid, humiliating withdrawal from the Persian Gulf, leaving them military savaged but strategically victorious. In this they might very likely be proven wrong. US power is far more sustainable in the region than Iran would like to believe, and the military humiliation Iran would suffer at the outset could well deter any outside assistance. The US does have a military option. But this is a struggle that will be costly for all involved, will further isolate the region, and whose ultimate outcome is likely to be decided by future incumbencies. Leaders on both sides should recognize that war is the most unpredictable of human endeavors, and that unanticipated consequences almost always follow. I believe some in the Administration have seen this confrontation as inevitable - or have sought it - since late 2001. At that time a Pentagon general held up to me a Defense memorandum which he described as a five year road map to the conflict. But surely we have learned by now that, particularly in this region, force and the threats of force should be the last, last, last resort. Military power aside, the US has enormous economic leverage over the Iranians through our influence on world financial institutions, international commerce and capital flows. While the latest actions against Iran's banking system show the sharp stick of US power, the potential carrots are enormous, too. Islamic pride cannot be purchased, but neither can a proud nation ignore a more hopeful vision of its future. The American troop surge is not likely to impact Iran's on-the-ground influence in Iraq. Their presence serves the interests of some in Iraq; and they are deeply embedded and widely active. Only their perception of new interests and opportunities is likely to do this. They would need to see their situation through a different lens. It is asking a lot. But, cannot the world's most powerful nation deign speak to the resentful and scheming regional power that is Iran? Can we not speak of the interests of others, work to establish a sustained dialogue, and seek to benefit the people of Iran and the region? Could not such a dialogue, properly conducted, begin a process that could, over time, help realign hardened attitudes and polarizing views within the region? And isn't it easier to undertake such a dialogue now, before more die, and more martyrs are created to feed extremist passions? And, finally, if every effort should fail, before we take military action, don't we at least want the moral, legal and political "high ground" of knowing we did everything possible to avert it? Whatever the pace of Iran's nuclear efforts, in the give and take of the Administrations rhetoric and accusations and Iran's under-the-table actions in Iraq, we are approaching the last moments to head off looming conflict. Surely, it is past time to ask our elected officials in the White House and Congress to exercise leadership: recognize the real strategic challenge we face, and start to work now to avoid an escalation and widening of conflict in the Mideast. Thank you for reading my thoughts on Iran. This is a critical issue for our nation, and I look forward to discussing it further with you in the comments below. Wes Clark
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
If not now, WHO? If not now, WHEN?
BE THE CHANGE you wish to see in the world.
Pasted into word. Anybody want a PDF copy?
Let get an adult in the White House
Someone once asked me if I had learned anything from going to war so many times.
My reply:
Yes, I learned how to cry.
Joe Galloway
image hosting account (image shack etc.)
see this link
http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/DailyKos_FAQ#Putting_the_image_on_the_web
Someone once asked me if I had learned anything from going to war so many times. My reply: Yes, I learned how to cry.
Joe Galloway
I'll post it later, have to go to work.
Someone once asked me if I had learned anything from going to war so many times.
My reply:
Yes, I learned how to cry.
Joe Galloway
Cogito, Lee, jaydfwtx, cdalygo, Chris Bowers, thirdparty, Cory, Bob Johnson, Kimberley, clio, wozzle, RichM, bink, selise, anna, Jett, Alumbrados, paradox, Hunter, MichaelPH, Donna Z, Frank, DeminNewJ, Marek, zentiger, tbird12861, jillian, pb, Tom Rinaldo, mikepridmore,
goldstone, miriam, LAS, ROGNM, WendellGee, Bill in Portland Maine, freelixir, Mogolori, sny, decon, AKTup, BOHICA, taylormattd, kathygo, tundraman, jotter, lowkell, skyesNYC, vivacia, ferg, Rayne, redqueen, alyosha, teacherken, teenagedallasdeaniac, Politburo, cwkraus4clark, crosslark, natasha, Stan81747, leftcoast, Barbara, Trendar, Subterranean, Hornito, areucrazy, mariawells, timber, jdavidson2, mickT, lrhoke, texamer, mcjoan, Needles, Ramar, Pandora, philgoblue, GregP, NV1962, machopicasso, kellogg, whataboutbob, melvynny, colorado thistle, mimi, janinsanfran, PeterHug, pelican, ArkansasJoseph, dday, docdls, superfly, tommurphy, DDinIND, ParaHammer, scrutinizer, Hummingbird, Shockwave, byteb, JulieIde, Dave B, Ellen Dana Nagler, m maddog, Wintermute, cotterperson, SanJoseLady, tomcat, DCDemocrat, VIJP, OLinda, ablington, mainely49, eeff, moira977, Pompatus, polecat, azale, buckswope, HootieMcBoob, reggiesmom, Sandy on Signal, Plutonium Page, Bexley Lane, freelunch, acuppajo, Voodoo, velvetdays, dash888, ilona, Meandering Fox, RFK Lives, amitxjoshi, Walt starr, PanzerMensch, twistandshout, mataliandy, HL Mungo, cgilbert01, marge, Jerome a Paris, Thelesis, bostonjay, PeterSD, hubcap, zeitshabba, Predator Saint, RunnerAlan, dnamj, Vitarai, daaawi, Eternal Hope, shermanesq, RubDMC, jennylou, DJ Adequate, Microangelo, km4, monkeybiz, tyler93023, FleetAdmiralJ, GregNYC, bronte17, dianem, 88kathy, foxfire burns, macdust, SamSinister, Doc Allen, nyceve, Diggla, understandinglife, ixos, susakinovember, ScantronPresident, Welshman, djMikulec, grrtigger, Loquatrix, nudger, b2witte, SusanHu, roboton, highacidity, VflBor, Pithy Cherub, IndigoBlues2, Minerva, mxwing, Dont Just Stand There, cosmic debris, retrograde, Porfiry, tmmike, luna, boilerman10, hekebolos, KS McCann, vmibran, AaronS, Aquarius40, Deb in England, chechecule, etherapy, taonow, peraspera, L0kI, LondonYank, bincbom, House, Miss Blue, BruinKid, luddite, not lois, Nechton, chrisfreel, Shaniriver, thingamabob, matt2525, ctsteve, rioduran, Gonzophile, diana04, David Boyle, arkdem, Southern Bell, antirove, Alna Dem, OrangeCtDem, bejammin075, Alohaleezy, aitchdee, nio, LawStudent, Larry in KC, InquisitiveRaven, Oke, kredwyn, BarbinMD, nancelot, sockpuppet, NewDirection, TexDem, mihan, heartofblue, QuinnLaBelle, jlynne, betsyinelvistown, Eddie in ME, pat bunny, bogdanmi, Tracker, MKS, Gruvkitty, jayatRI, leevank, Republic Not Empire, brainwave, etorrey, JDPITALIA, Perry Oikos, roseeriter, TXsharon, Nina, TX Expat, hoolia, exiledfromTN, baxxor, smash, zachwalker, Caldonia, Bulldawg, niteskolar, Black Maned Pensator, GN1927, Penny Century, mrgrandefromage, edie, Clarkster, lizah, witulski, joliberal, Neighbor2, AbsurdEyes, sean paul, chillindame, onemadson, rlharry, FLDemJax, Eddie Haskell, sommervr, lcrp, Blackstar, Gator Keyfitz, 313to212, 4jkb4ia, Democratic Hawk, inclusiveheart, bobcat, TheJohnny, jinny, monkee, Sembtex, eleanora, side pocket, Curt Matlock, mattes, sfbrentb, lhuynh, WisVoter, Sopiane, Lefty Mama, Nelsons, KayCeSF, ArkySue, capi888, Dormaphaea, Becky58, hfjai, jen, Marianne Benz, Steven D, motCT, jcrit, xyz, DarkSyde, patginsd, westcott, rebirtha, kd texan, eve, ckilyanek, ZootSuitGringo, Renaldo Migaldi, malcontent, snowbird42, Sybil Liberty, mpolley, howardpark, Nightsky, bibble, Marc in KS, JudyNJ, dburro, thereisnospoon, Timroff, Limelite, oortdust, lam2b2g, BillORightsMan, sawgrass727, Gowrie Gal, Jersey Joe, Tirge Caps, 2d, sxwarren, KathyBee, julifolo, rapala, MichDeb, Skennet Boch, davidincleveland, Massman, chumley, ms in la, historys mysteries, Bluesee, pattyp, Treg, jrooth, Alexander G Rubio, PDiddie, keila, cheeto, Gabriele Droz, Lenawee Liberal, Alegre, blueyedace2, LarisaW, LisaZ, subtropolis, jobertoke, SherwoodB, newfie, klamothe, ek hornbeck, Pandemoniac, ignorant bystander, OpherGopher, Dickie, sc kitty, PBen, Paul Goodman, Geronimo, Militarytracy, offred, Ari Mistral, Hotspur18, clammyc, station wagon, citizenx, ChemBob, juliesie, snacksandpop,
Brooke In Seattle, david78209, dj angst, ejsmom, trinityfly, Lepanto, Gary Norton, ratzo, Reg NYC, boofdah, NeuvoLiberal, jsmith2, Bill White, zombie, cfk, Morrigan, doberg, truebeliever, nailmaker, jorndorff, UP Democrat, perky mcjuggs, aaraujo, Gordon20024, paul minot, The Nazz, annefrank, Little Lulu, Skid, nwsound, Prison4Bushco, blue jersey mom, SheriffBart, illyia, babatunde, Rex Freedom, rolandzebub, onanyes, jtg, granal, exmearden, AnotherMassachusettsLiberal, Ozzie, Sharon Jumper, Arctor, bayside, inforet, The Raven, witchamakallit, neroden, sodalis, deepsouthdoug, Tex Kosmaniac Dem Lady, quiet in NC, jilikins, Cory Bantic, sandmancan, northWESterly, vibinc, bookwoman, mexdem, phriendlyjaime, phillbox, Spathiphyllum, hcc in VA, tigerdog, mightymouse, jay23, simplicio, Paper Cup, atalanta, drag0n, Jim P, SoulCatcher, Cletus from Canuckistan, Strawberrybitch, MadGeorgiaDem, makeitstop, ThaliaR, WuChier, elliott, Appalachian Annie, zot23, dannyinla, trashablanca, snazzzybird, Thundergod, BalanceSeeker, Nightprowlkitty, Do Tell, Compound F, bee tzu, kraant, tarheelblue, Debbie in ME, Keone Michaels, highfive, rcbowman, vigilant meerkat, sherlyle, RogueStage, testvet6778, BlueInARedState, venatrix, Ellicatt, Yellow Canary, rcald, martyc35, kestrel9000, Gopher Bob, J Chang, kenners, theadmiral, compbear, Loonesta, theyrereal, deha, fromer, rhetoricus, Magnifico, Angie Tran, aphra behn, PlanetTreasures, gabr1el, cabomte, Sassy725, blueoasis, mlwelch, dawsman, Blue Wind, SherriG, CAL11 voter, zigeunerweisen, TalkieToaster, MJ via Chicago, OhioCav, global citizen, wild hair, StrayCat, zorba, arkdemocrat, da5idfox, curmudgiana, Skeptical Spectacle, UEtech, N0MAN1968, everhopeful, imabluemerkin, hypersphere01, Iranaqamuk, pilgrim4progress, anomic, Sagebrush Bob, NearlyNormal, taters, CTLiberal, Rusty1776, bleeding heart, Preston S, gabriella, ER Doc, soccergrandmom, van basten, Billy Oxygen, Hogarth, ChapiNation386, LiberalFreak, IL clb, Tigerlil, Persiflage, Roatti, doingbusinessas, Dianna, Peter Laesch, Jbeaudill, djm4america, chgobob, Shullat, pissedpatriot, shelbyjean, DanC, JMora, kurious, bstotts, Snarcalita, kidneystones, markizi, Friend of the court, coolsub, mr science, Temmoku, lev36, MikeyMouse, Quicklund, Nulwee, BlueTide, Joelarama, DBunn, McSnatherson, homefree, AmericanRiverCanyon, maryleelee, FoundingFatherDAR, Michael Schiavo, The Other Steve, Sidof79, dpinzow, kokoro, anotherdemocrat, donnamarie, Cronesense, jessical, pradeep, sccs, bldr, mbaer, Cat Whisperer, oscarsmom, deadmessengers, blue armadillo, dmh44, Mindfuless, Kathie McCrimmon, moodyinsavannah, LSophia, Love in 2024, offgrid, audi100quattro, Calvin Revolt USA, Chas56, aravir, Outrider, edsbrooklyn, FishOutofWater, Catrina, Mary Mike, Busted Flat in Baton Rouge, Inventor, HeartlandLiberal, flumptytail, operculum, Jimdotz, BehereBenow, shruticounseling, jetdog, fnpople2008, DWG, Tenn Wisc Dem, londubh, jasmint53, txlosthorn, Lil Jon, lil piggie, Sean in Motion, adamsfallen, Strabo, todd in salt lake, Kyle the Mainer, SimplyLeft, dolphin777, jayden, epppie, 1plain1peanut, Carib and Ting, gmac51, BlueInKansas, bskretny, mauro7inf, jolicalcat, Oreo, TheCorkBoard, what if, The Angry Rakkasan, hsvscg, mdcoder, The Officious Intermeddler, Rumarhazzit, urgello, dgone36, ImpeachKingBushII, Durs, Snakes on a White House, Quanta, MichiganGirl, hurdger, willb48, B12love, Empower Ink, LAMaestra, xscinx, purple tiger, TheGardener, Light Emitting Pickle, skymutt, rogerdaddy, Amor Y Risa, Clarksphyl, SaneSoutherner, gfv6800, ShaShaMae, ArmyWife, Tally, pollwatch, demokitty, The Hunter Gracchus GU Dems, feingoldforVP, cardeity48, Delta Terp, NotGeorgeWill, I, brklyngrl, Edgar08, blackrock, bluemosaic, jjgtrs, Owl, demblue75, Bruce Wilson, jrojas, TiredMidwesterner, Satyanand, YestoWes, KTatActBlue, Lucius Vorenus, Cat Servant
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark will be the national security candidate.
Is one of the names listed in there.
I assume it's him and not someone using his name. I wouldn't think Kos would allow a fake registration of a name like that.
You'd be taking them to the Better Business Bureau if you bought a washing machine the way we went into the war in Iraq. Wes Clark, CNN Aug 17 2003
Nice recap!! -- The KOS diary is huge to try and find everything Wes says -- but I read it anyways!! AWESOME!!
Clark is DA MAN
Clark2008
Someone once asked me if I had learned anything from going to war so many times.
My reply:
Yes, I learned how to cry.
Joe Galloway
on DeadMessengers.com - with links to his article and the commentary (and here, of course).
Let's see if we can continue to increase the number of those who read his diary, by also showing how many believe we're headed to war with Iran if we don't help General clark stop that.
Please send emails, make phone calls, show up in person, camp out on the doorsteps of, your Congresspersons. Demand they demonstrate the backbone we're hoping they've got by pressuring President Bush and his administration to TALK with Iran first...directly.
While I'm not sure General Clark would be happy at my next suggestion...
How about adding to those emails, calls, and personal visits, the idea that General Clark head up a diplomatic team to Iran??
Gen. Clark has specifically articulated more sound foreign policy in this one post alone than I have heard from Obama, Edwards, and Hillary combined so far in 2006 and 2007!
Jotter posts every morning and all the stats will be there.
http://www.dailykos.com/search?offset=0&old_count=30&string=jotter&type=diary_by&sortby=relevance&search=Search&count=30&wayback=1440&wayfront=0
If this link doesn't work, search on Jotter for the past few hours. Or wait for me to catch it; I'm working at my desk this morning and will be watching for it.
from "High Impact Diary's - jotter's Dkos analysis - in the comments to my CCN diary: "That went well." There's a part of my brain that looks for patterns. Or makes them up. Can't really help it.
for putting this together. I've been thinking about some of the things Wes said since yesterday and just need to muse a little.
The House is beginning the debate on Iraq today...right now....it will be interesting to see if the Dems discuss strategy for the whole region. Or only the "surge" and withdrawl dates. Wes said the time is now for the Congress to talk about Iran, that we don't have much time. Will the Dems do it? Will they explain to the American people what they need to hear? I dunno...but will be listening. I have a feeling we just can't wait weeks and weeks to start discussing Iran.
The discussion about leverage was interesting. Many have talked about using impeachment as leverage. I never thought that would work...not enuff time...or votes in the Senate. Or, the media particularly likes to try to get the Dems in a box with cutting off the funding for the "war". But General Wes has other interesting options. What do chimp/cheney want that the Dems can take away. There must be a myriad of things. This is great thinking by our scary smart General. Will have me thinking about what the Dems can use and maybe even tossing a few ideas to my congress critters. They'll have to get some repubs in the Senate to go along, tho.
Regarding the discussion about Iran's weapons involvement in Iraq. Now with the latest news about this being an exageration, so to speak, what do we think Wes meant by his answer here? Fighters on the ground are getting these things, but the government is not involved? That's what I think...but it could be hard to convince some who won't want to see it that way. Some clarification on this might be helpful....or what do some of you think?
And also, one more thing I picked up last night. Senator Dodd and Senator Menendez will introduce a bill today to make torture against the law and restore habeus corpus. This is wonderful news. Wes was so disgusted with the bill passed last fall, as were many of us. Let's hope they can pass this bill and restore at least some of our country's dignity.
Anyway....just some musings this AM.
Bill (from RI)
That' s the only reason why this pitiful "President" and his GOP supporters are concerned about Congressional budget cuts for war. Congress should focus on this point, particularly. It undercuts his real "mission" to escalate our military, as cover for his failings as a leader and as a President, who simply seeks to pass the buck.
Commit to America's future,
I'm so glad to see WKC weighing in on this vital topic. Sure hope his ideas are getting circulation among the powers that be.
The General gets it right.
Competence--What a concept!