The Donkey In The Room: Wes Clark 2008
Submitted by Tom Rinaldo on November 19, 2006 - 10:54am.
Democratic politics | Fighting Dems | Wesley Clark
Tradition says an elephant in the room doesn’t get talked about, but tradition’s just another word for conventional wisdom, and CW until a few months ago said the U.S. Senate would stay under Republican control and George Allen was running for President. The elephant in the room can wait, let’s focus on an underreported donkey; General Wesley Clark.
Political pundits seem determined to talk right past Clark until he rears up and kicks them in the teeth. The beltway crowd is more tightly scripted than a corporate radio play list: “We’re about to play some back to back Spice Girl Hillary hits, but first here’s an Oldie but Goodie from Joe Biden, and don’t dare touch that dial , we’ll have some of that hot new Obama sound coming up for you shortly also!” Poor John Edwards isn’t the freshest face on the block anymore.
That beltway only recognizes early momentum when they manufacture it themselves, so it shouldn’t surprise anyone that they fail to recognize Wes Clark; after all they didn’t “manufacture” him. Clark’s sheer talent and ability always wins him some friends in high places, but the tail wind pushing Clark on essentially comes from the roots. At least that was true for most of two years since the 2004 Presidential Elections, but that now is changing, and that too is underreported. Wes Clark scrambles media signals. They can’t really get a handle on General Clark because he doesn’t fit neatly into the holes they already have pegged for Democratic Presidential candidates. It’s amusing to watch them fumble pegging Clark when they do try; until I remember that “talking heads” still speak for real power in America. Then it stops being funny.
There’s a lot to be said about the fallacy of political pundits and conventional wisdom about Wes Clark, too much in fact. So I’ll narrow my focus to an almost startling disconnect that the pundits themselves make in those rare instances when they find themselves compelled to comment on Clark’s possible presidential candidacy. They just can’t make up their minds where Wes Clark’s strongest support comes from. They are down right schizophrenic about it. Actually it’s worse than that even, because they are also in denial about their illness. The blocks Clark draws support from are not that hard to assemble into a complete picture. It’s not like one of those marathon jig saw puzzles that take over the dining room table while you try to sort it out. Basically, Wes Clark appeals to liberal Americans, Wes Clark appeals to moderate Americans, and Wes Clark appeals to conservative Americans. That about covers it, and the thing is, the pundits already know it. They know all of it, but somehow they just can’t hold those pieces of information together in their heads, not all at the same time.
I believe the last time Chris Cillizza from the Washington Post’s “The Fix” column actually mentioned Wes Clark as a Presidential contender was way back in December 2005, when he wrote: “Clark replaces Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold as the wildcard in the field, thanks to the fervor and energy for him among some in the party's liberal base, particularly Internet activists” Chris also said this then about Clark “On paper, Clark's resume is unmatched if defense and foreign policy issues are still dominating the national landscape in three years time. “ That is increasingly looking like a safe bet Chris.
More recently, on October 12th, Chuck Todd in the National Journal wrote a few words about Wes Clark’s potential 2008 chances: “He's tried to become the surrogate/endorser/fundraiser-in-chief for military vet candidates. We're not sure it's worked.” Well I beg to differ with Chuck, but with hindsight now available after the mid term elections, he may differ also. Todd wrote that before General Clark’s featured role in “Because of Iraq”, VoteVets powerful national 2006 campaign ad. And of course Wes Clark was the first National Democrat to strongly back Jim Webb in Virginia, back when Webb was considered a long shot to even win the Democratic Primary. Plus Clark worked hard for Democratic Vets Joe Sestak, and Patrick Murphy, and Chris Carney in Pennsylvania, who all took seats away from Republican incumbents in the House of Representatives. Even when Democratic Vets supported by Clark lost, like Tammy Duckworth in Illinois, or Eric Massa in Western New York, the races were tight, and the Democratic Party came out of them all stronger than they have been in years.
So I want to get back to that “startling disconnect” I mention above. Don’t any of these pundits wonder what is right (as opposed to wrong) with this picture? The same beltway pundits who are so eager to consign the netroots to a separate, but unequal, political basement waiting room, for being too leftist for the mainstream Democratic Party, are well aware of Wes Clark’s support from that activist constituency. They are also well aware of Wes Clark’s support for and from America’s military Veterans, a constituency typically thought to be significantly more conservative and less Democratic as a group than most. These pundits watched Wes Clark welcomed by Ned Lamont’s campaign for the United States Senate on one day, and welcomed by Harold Ford’s campaign for the United States Senate on the next day, but none of them can add two plus two together?
Meanwhile tired conventional wisdom continues to be spun. Anna Quindlen, in the October 30th issue of Newsweek, makes the case for Hillary Clinton in 2008 while conceding: “the biggest problem Senator Clinton may have is with the liberal wing of the Democratic Party”. According to Quindlen, that’s because, among other idealistic liberal litmus tests for winning their support, Hillary flunks on Iraq. When describing what Democratic Liberals yearn for in 2008 Quindlen has this to say: “Right now that means a candidate who did not vote for the Iraq war.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15362334/site/newsweek
I can think of a Democratic General who not only didn’t vote for the Iraq war, he warned Congress against it before Congress ever voted. That could be one of the reasons why Wesley Clark consistently wins far greater respect and support at universally regarded as liberal Democratic activist sites like Daily Kos and Democratic Underground than does Hillary Clinton. While on one hand Quindlen frets about Hillary Clinton’s tepid support from liberals, she argues for her electability by pointing out: “She only has to take the states that John Kerry took, and then one more”. Funny, weren’t they saying the same thing about John Kerry in 2004? He only has to take the same states that Al Gore took, and then one more? Rounding down, that’s closer to a 15 state strategy than a 50 state strategy (Kerry actually took 19 Sates and the District of Columbia) and to my mind it’s a tacit acknowledgment that Hillary Clinton’s hoped for path to victory is to hold onto her own base, despite tepid support from liberal activists, while trying to pick off a couple of the Republican States that Democrats have failed to win in over a decade. That strategy of course opens the door for Republicans, under McCain, to take almost all of their own States for granted while they sail off to go raiding in bluer waters.
Maybe Hillary can pull it off, maybe, if you like to gamble, but I don’t like the odds. Call me odd I know, but somehow the idea of running a candidate who didn’t vote for the Iraq War, who motivates a strong element of the Democratic activist base, and who appeals to veterans and military voters, has a certain compelling logic to it. John Kerry defined himself as a Vietnam Veteran, some are likely to say, and look where it got him. True, but John Kerry was defined by his opponent as an elite, rich, liberal Massachusetts former war protester, which kind of watered down Kerry’s appeal to that relevant constituency in conservative states. Consider these comments from the November 11th Arkansas Times:
“Now that the 2006 elections are over, Gen. Wesley Clark is turning his attention toward deciding to run for president. Sources tell the Arkansas Times that Clark has said he will make his decision within the next two months.
Clark’s spokesman, Erick Mullen, said, “That’s true, but we don’t have a timeline for when a decision will be made just yet.”
Mullen added, “All options are on the table. Gen. Clark was the [Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s] number-one requested surrogate, especially in red states and swing states during this cycle.”
http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.aspx?ArticleID=6112230d-32a5-4169-9fd8-004c3b4a70dc
One might think that political pundits would at least be interested in talking about the prospects of a potential Democratic Presidential Candidate who opposed the War in Iraq AND has strong National Security credentials; who has substantial liberal activist support AND is requested by Democrats to campaign in the most conservative districts in the nation. One would think so, but first you have to find such a Presidential candidate, which is pretty damn hard to do if you refuse to look at the Donkey in the room.
Wesley Clark for President 2008.
They hawked it, literally. They were complicit, through their "coverage" of "Madman Saddam" and the "mushroom cloud smoking gun", of enabling Bush's invasion. It is not in either their corporate or professional interests to call attention to the fact that there were those, like General Clark, who so clearly warned against that War. It is in their interests to muddy the water and make it seem as if no one could have been expected to make the right calls back then.
You are right about our need to educate others about Wes Clark. It is easy to forget that a lot of people, including a good number of current activists, only tuned in to Presidential politics after Wes left the Primaries. They don't have the same experiences with him going back that many of us do.
Hi Tom,
They hawked it, literally. They were complicit, through their "coverage" of "Madman Saddam" and the "mushroom cloud smoking gun", of enabling Bush's invasion. It is not in either their corporate or professional interests to call attention to the fact that there were those, like General Clark, who so clearly warned against that War. It is in their interests to muddy the water and make it seem as if no one could have been expected to make the right calls back then.
Precisely. War -- not so much the Iraq War as war itself -- has been sold to the American people, daily and relentlessly, and the MSM have been full partners in that sales pitch. If it hadn't been Iraq, it'd have been some other war.
After 9/11, there was a clear "mandate" to steer the U.S. into a long-term war. It was apparent in the spate of WW2 movies, and in the advent of a Military History Channel along with a Military Channel along with a Pentagon Channel ... all of which function as propaganda organs for the Military Industrial Complex of which Ike warned us years ago.
America's national religion is not Christianity. America's national religion is War. It's taken as an article of faith that we can't cut military spending without being "weak," despite the fact that we already spend more on our military than the rest of the world does combined. It's taken as an article of faith that "our brave World War II veterans" were "the Greatest Generation" and "saved the world for Democracy." Hell, we can't have an NFL football game without a military color guard and a flyover of fighter jets ... lest we "forget" our "men and women defending our freedom in Iraq."
The MSM are full partners in this Religion of War. Most of the MSM outlets are owned by or allied with ... defense contractors.
And no, they have absolutely NOTHING to gain by pointing out that there was plenty of information available -- by any ordinary reading of history and current events -- to know that the War in Iraq would turn into a disaster. To highlight the Wes Clarks of the world, the people who were warning of this catastrophe from the outset, would be to admit that the MSM "reported" with its eyes and ears closed, parroting the lines of the neocons and the MSM's defense contractor owners and sponsors, doing everything they could to fuel the Religion of War and the sacrament of that religion ... the invasion of Iraq.
Don't look for any real anti-war candidate (as Wes is, IMO) to get anything resembling a fair shake from the MSM. It will not happen. To do so would require the MSM to own up to its own central role in propagating the Religion of War.
And that will not happen in our lifetimes.
Crissie
GENERAL ELECTRIC
CEO: Jeffrey R. Immelt
Military contracts 2005: $2.2 billion
Defense-related contributions in the 2004 election cycle: $220,950*
GE churns out plastics, aircraft engines and nuclear reactors and media spin through NBC, CNBC, Telemundo, and MSNBC
The world’s largest company by market share, General Electric’s revenues in 2003 totaled $134.2 billion. GE was run until 2001 by Jack Welch. GE makes aircraft engines and nuclear reactors, and keeps criticism at bay with its ownership of media giants NBC, CNBC, Telemundo, Bravo, and, in partnership with Microsoft, msnbc.com. GE’s recent partnership with Vivendi added Universal Studios, USA, Trio and Sci-fi cable channels to its $43 billion media empire.
General Electric is one of the world’s top three producers of jet engines, supplying Boeing, Lockheed Martin and other military aircraft makers for the powering of airplanes and helicopters.
GE has designed 91 nuclear power plants in 11 countries, yet its nuclear reactors around the world have a fatal flaw. In the event of a nuclear meltdown, there is a 90 percent chance that radiation from GE-designed reactors would be discharged directly into the atmosphere. While the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission is aware of the problem, it continues to license GE nuclear reactors.
GE’s history with nuclear power is an ugly one. In the 1940s-1960s the company ran experiments on humans with radiation, including irradiating the reproductive organs of prison inmates in Walla Walla, Washington, without warning them of the risk of cancer. Other tests were run on the elderly and hospital patients. General Electric intentionally released large amounts of radiation into the air from the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Richland, in order to see the distance it would travel. These atrocities were revealed in hearings in 1986 held by Representative Edward Markey of Massachusetts. The company has also been accused of knowingly poisoning its workers at the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory in Schenectady, New York with radiation and asbestos.
According to a survey by the Center for Public Integrity, from 1990-2002, 30 of the US government’s top contractors were found guilty of fraud in 400 cases, leading to settlements and fines amounting to at least $3.4 billion. General Electric paid $982.9 million for 63 cases in this period.
GE spent more than $31 million in 2001 and 2002 lobbying lawmakers; in 2000 it spent $16 million. Reigning CEO Jack Welch had enormous influence and was consistently ranked CEO of the Year by the slavish business press; he was major Republican donor as well.
*and yet... they still allow Keith Olbermann on the air! Which is nothing short of amazing.
Thank you, msla, for consistently being willing to pull back the curtains of power this way. :)
Crissie
I doubt this was the first good chance you got to use it, and if I'm wrong about that, then I'm sure it won't be the last.
If Dwight Eisenhower was a candidate in 2008 he would be labeled as the most radical leftist who ever lived. For those who may have never read it his 1961 speech on the military industrial complex and elite of society is as applicable today as it was nearly 50 years ago.
If any of you have never read his speech it gives great insight into the powers that be.
Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961
Hi rob,
Eisenhower actually "stole" from the Pentagon by using monies budgeted for defense to build the interstate highway system and schools and such.
NOTE: I put "stole" in quotes because he was doing the right thing; he believed that America's roads and schools and PEOPLE were as vital to her national security as her tanks and missiles and bombs.
The defense contractors and Congress were furious with Ike for "redirecting" defense dollars into infrastructure, education, and other projects. And it was their fury with him -- and his with them -- that gave rise to the famous Farewell Address that you cited.
Crissie
*and yet... they still allow Keith Olbermann on the air! Which is nothing short of amazing.
Overwhelming numbers, overwhelming public support. That's the only reason they keep him on. The only way to win this fight with MSM (short of legislative reigning in of the monopolies, which I now hope for) is to have enough people yelling loud enough that we're heard. It takes ungodly numbers. It takes a LOT of us.
“If you put me on third base, I'll bring you home.” - Wes Clark
1. The HASC testimony prior to Iraq war must be spread far and wide, thru every media channel, including MSM
KEITH OLBERMANN WOULD RUN IT
2. WES' speech at 04 convention should be replayed far & wide. THAT was an amazing speech, showing Wes' service, commitment, intelligence, compassion & energy---need I say more??? (btw, that speech brought tears to my eyes.)
Bill (from RI)
multiple times, as did many of us. Tom is right, our donkey is going to have to rear up and kick like hell this time out.
"Some of us are still eating hotdogs......and that's an astonishing thing." -- Wes Clark
If he decides to make another run for the White House, He's definitely going to have to get in somebody's face.
Is that speech available on youtube? If not, does anyone know how to put it up there? I'm thinking that youtube will replace the clark videos site we used last time around.
Yes, the DNC speech was amazing, but remember that it was in praise of John Kerry. I'm not sure we should reprise it. I'd prefer the "REAL State of the Union Address" and the Texas State Democratic Party Convention speech.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
BE THE CHANGE you wish to see in the world.
If not us, WHO? If not now, WHEN?
http://www.uwmpost.com/article/ff8081810ef800ee010f02493e7f0005
I've written to address his misconceptions:
Dear Chris Walker,
Thank you for the mention of General Wesley Clark as a 'potential dark horse' presidential candidate in 2008, in your November 2006 edition. As a long-time supporter of General Clark, I am always pleased when his name is mentioned in the media.
You state your hesitation about General Clark, however, because you state that he has 'never held governmental office' and his positions on issues aren't known, and you suggest that this fact might hinder him due to his 'lack of experience.' I would like to cite several factors which might help you and others properly to evaluate General Clark's viability as a Presidential candidate and as a President.
It is correct to suggest that General Clark lacks the experience of an elected public official but it is not correct to state that he lacks the experience of a government office holder.
From 1997, General Clark headed the U.S. European Command, responsible for over 100,000 U.S. troops, their families, health care, education, social services, and all related infrastructure, and all American military activities in 89 countries and territories of Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. He simultaneously held the separate NATO position of Supreme Allied Commander (SACEUR), which granted him Head of State status and overall command of NATO military forces in Europe and leadership of approximately 60,000 troops from 37 NATO and other nations in Bosnia-Herzegovina. General Clark does, in fact, have the experience necessary to govern anywhere.
General Clark is not a politician, he is a diplomat, with the skills necessary for success in both domestic and international forums, and he has made use of those skills in many places. General Clark has received numerous accolades, and if you are interested in learning more about him, please join me and many others at securingamerica.com. You may, of course, write to me about any issues you would like to address.
Thank you again for mentioning General Clark.
testimony?
"Some of us are still eating hotdogs......and that's an astonishing thing." -- Wes Clark
I waited on kos initially because I hope it can make the front page with enough R's, so I wanted to see if enough of us would be around during the time window when it goes up.
The ASP testimony link is a great idea. It could simply be inserted right after the line:
"he warned Congress against it before Congress ever voted."
Do you have a link handy Sybil? If not I can dig around SA and find it. I don't want to insert his testimony into the OP however because I think it would divert the flow. It can make great follow up posts to do so however.
Meanwhile I am doing a trial run of this blog as a Democratic Underground thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2977736
Clark HASC testimony Sept. 2002
(get it now, before Hunter scrubs the archives)
Hard choice Tom, I would think tomorrow actually.
"Some of us are still eating hotdogs......and that's an astonishing thing." -- Wes Clark
saying Wes's testimony convinced him to vote "No" on IWR. Perhaps that quote from Teddy Kennedy saying the same thing on Larry King.
As far as the HASC testimony--one of the most telling quotes for those who don't want to read the whole thing, is Richard Perle saying at the end, "Well, I guess he (Wes)doesn't want to go to war." (I can't remember this eactly).
Sybil or anybody, can you tell me how to do a recommend at Kos. I know how to press recommend when I see it, but I don't always see it.
Here is the text of Paul Wellstone's Senate floor speech regarding the IRW...
The quote about Wes from that speech is:
We have succeeded in destroying some Al Qaida forces, but many of its operatives have scattered, their will to kill Americans still strong. The United States has relied heavily on alliances with nearly 100 countries in a coalition against terror for critical intelligence to protect Americans from possible future attacks. Acting with the support of allies, including hopefully Arab and Muslim allies, would limit possible damage to that coalition and our anti-terrorism efforts. 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."
Here's the text of Ted Kennedy's speech before the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies regarding the Iraq War in Sept 2002, in which he references Wes' testimony a few times.
Here are the passages about Gen Clark:
A largely unilateral American war that is widely perceived in the Muslim world as untimely or unjust could worsen not lessen the threat of terrorism. War with Iraq before a genuine attempt at inspection and disarmament, or without genuine international support -- could swell the ranks of Al Qaeda sympathizers and trigger an escalation in terrorist acts. As General Clark told the Senate Armed Services Committee, it would "super-charge recruiting for Al Qaeda."
General Hoar advised the Committee on September 23 that America's first and primary effort should be to defeat Al Qaeda. In a September 10th article, General Clark wrote: "Unilateral U.S. action today would disrupt the war against Al Qaeda." We ignore such wisdom and advice from many of the best of our military at our own peril.
....................
General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander Europe, testified before the Armed Services Committee on September 23 that Iran has had closer ties to terrorism than Iraq. Iran has a nuclear weapons development program, and it already has a missile that can reach Israel.
........
In our September 23 hearing, General Clark told the Committee that we would need a large military force and a plan for urban warfare. General Hoar said that our military would have to be prepared to fight block by block in Baghdad, and that we could lose a battalion of soldiers a day in casualties. Urban fighting would, he said, look like the last brutal 15 minutes of the movie "Saving Private Ryan."
Here's the transcript of the Larry King show where Ted Kennedy had this to say:
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. And the second point that influenced me was in the time that we were having the briefings and these were classified. They've been declassified now. Secretary Rumsfeld came up and said "There are weapons of mass destruction north, south, east and west of Baghdad." This was his testimony in the Armed Services Committee.
And at that time Senator Levin, who is an enormously gifted, talented member of the Armed Services Committee said, "Well, we're now providing this information to the inspectors aren't we?" This is just before the war. "Oh, yes, we're providing that." "But are they finding anything?" "No."
Because the answer was because they're moving things, because when we tell the team they're all infiltrated by Saddam's people and they're leaking that so that's the reason we're not finding anything.
They started giving all the places where we said there were places and they still couldn't find any. And at the end of now, history will show we never gave any information to the inspection team at all.
But I kept saying, "Well, if they're not finding any of the weapons of mass destruction, where is the imminent threat to the United States security?" It didn't make sense.
There were probably eight Senators on the Friday before the Thursday we voted on it. It got up to 23. I think if that had gone on another -- we had waited another ten days, I think you may have had a different story.
What a great research team we have cooking at this site! We all know exactly what type tid bits we need by now.
I blogged the Wellstone quote just for the record before I saw your post here.
Great stuff on Kennedy here too. Thanks, you're the best.
"Some of us are still eating hotdogs......and that's an astonishing thing." -- Wes Clark
I think it's good that it has its own blog too...
Here's another good tidbit...and I have to thank DonnaZ for calling this one to my attention....
From a Buzzflash interview with Gene Lyons concerning Wes' running for the nomination....
BUZZFLASH: You look at his background -- Rhodes scholar, decorated war hero, Supreme Commander of NATO. It gives him a unique position to criticize Bush on terrorism and the decision to invade and continue to occupy Iraq. It seems that his status allows him to make those criticisms without looking as political as the other candidates -- that Clark's basing his criticism on professional experience.
LYONS: I think that it's hard to depoliticize a candidacy. But I think one of his reasons for running is his very obvious personal ambition, and I think that's something he needs to be careful with. He's clearly a very ambitious person. He clearly thinks that he is among the best qualified people to be President of the United States in his generation. I happen to think he's probably right. But nevertheless, people don't always react well to that quality in people.
I do think his concerns are honest. I think his criticisms of Bush are exactly what he believes. One reason that I think that is I have had an opportunity to talk to him in a sort of a semi-private way.
Going all the way back to the summer of 2002, I got a sense of how strong his feelings about Iraq were. Long before it was clear that the administration was really going to sell a war on Iraq, when it was just a kind of a Republican talking point, early in the summer of 2002, Wesley Clark was very strongly opposed to it. He thought it was definitely the wrong move. He conveyed that we'd be opening a Pandora's box that we might never get closed again. And he expressed that feeling to me, in a sort of quasi-public way. It was a Fourth of July party and a lot of journalists were there, and there were people listening to a small group of us talk. There wasn't an audience, there were just several people around. There was no criticism I could make that he didn't sort of see me and raise me in poker terms. Probably because he knew a lot more about it than I did. And his experience is vast, and his concerns were deep.
He was right, too. How long ago was it that you were hearing all this sweeping rhetoric from the Project for a New American Century; that we were going to essentially conquer the south of Asia, contain China, and dominate the Middle East? And the United States was going to stand astride the world like a colossus. And all of a sudden, we invade a crummy, tin-pot, little third-rate dictatorship like Iraq, and we've already got more than we can handle. It's clear we're not going to dominate the world. And the question is, how in the world do we get out of there with our skins intact? And how do we then find a foreign policy that makes more sense?
This is one of my favorite interviews regarding Clark's run and I love this piece about his early and deep opposition to the war.
yes, that was a keeper
I think maybe I better start a "Z" file so I can go straight to Donna's gems.
"Some of us are still eating hotdogs......and that's an astonishing thing." -- Wes Clark
There were also quite a few good exchanges between Wes and Perle in the full testimony that can be found here.
It's funny that you mentioned the idea of Hunter scrubbing the archives, I've been collecting various Wes related documents off and on since early 2005 including some of the medal citations that were on his 04 campaign site, I was paranoid it would crash just from age and lack of maintainance or suffer a cyber attack to crash it.
I could not find this testimony anywhere at HASC, (I'm serious, I searched off and on for a week), so I emailed the webmaster and asked why it wasn't accessible...(you can imagine what I was thinking)...a few days later it was right where it should be.
OK, so I suppose it might have been a glitch in my brain but I don't think so...I know that date like the back of my hand.
"Some of us are still eating hotdogs......and that's an astonishing thing." -- Wes Clark
read his comments aloud to the entire world. What a cretin.
Thanks everyone for all the links. And thank you Tom for this thoughtful piece.
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right. - Hunter/Garcia
And to make it virtually real:)
[img=http://thumb15.webshots.net/t/46/46/4/10/19/316341019NEelNe_th.jpg]
Excuse the blurriness in the pics. Recent evidence has shown that Perles hair had caused refractory wavelength interferences unusual neoconic amplitudes in brain fart.
Knight has the goods!
"Some of us are still eating hotdogs......and that's an astonishing thing." -- Wes Clark
So whenever, I'll look for it and recommend. Great piece, BTW. I don't always recommend anything pro-Clark, as I think that sometimes gets transparently annoying and loses more support than it gains. But this is genuinely well-written.
“If you put me on third base, I'll bring you home.” - Wes Clark
First, I gotta say how glad I am to have stumbled in here; I spotted your Diary on DKos and tumbled through a rabbit hole.... as of this moment, your Diary is holding onto the second of seven "recommended diary" slots, but it's also still within the first 20 of the recent diaries, meaning traffic is just building.
So, likely I'm saying what you already know, but: a steady stream of comments - the more substantive the better - could keep it up among the seven for most of the day. Useful if we can keep the conversation going until 7pm EST, when many many people will be reading.
I noticed another Clark related recent Diary: Clark to Emerge as the Anti-Hillary.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/11/20/93611/732 - If one of you haven't gotten to it already, I'll cross post to yours. Cross posting may be useful later in the day, too.
As a supporter since the Draft Clark 2004 days, I have to say it can be a bit frustrating when I wake up and read the sorts of headlines I'm reading today: Kissinger saying that we can no longer win this militarily, that it is now down to regional diplomacy. And then Tony Blair coming out and saying the same thing.
It is as if they are plagiarizing Wes Clark speeches from three years ago. Wes has been hammering on this exact point all along. Before Zinni. Before Murtha. And still more articulately than any of them.
Now, we are going to have people like Blair and Kissinger and the Iraq Study Group getting credit for Clark's ideas.
He is getting essentially no credit in the MSM for his prophetic insights. And until he announces a candidacy, these sorts of things will continue.
I would think that a MSM who was so out of touch on the 2006 midterms when the liberal blogs were SO in touch, would have the humility to put the spotlight on the candidate who is igniting Progressive bloggers. But no.
I'm chomping at the bit for an announcement. An exploratory committee. Something. It's time Wes had the national spotlight.
analysis pieces I've read about Clark anywhere, Tom. Thank you. Let us know if you post it further out. I'm short on time now but hope to return later.
Draco Malfoy: Scared, Potter? Harry Potter: You wish.
snip> Lamont, by contrast, had none of that. It wasn't just that people like Illinois Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and former President Bill Clinton refused to campaign for Lamont even though they had both whispered official endorsements of him. It was that most of those who did nominally help the campaign only agreed to voice positive statements about Lamont, but refused to forcefully take on Lieberman for attacking the Democratic Party or violating campaign finance disclosure laws. Take, for instance, the behavior of the major government watchdog groups. Except for Public Campaign Action Fund, not one of them made a peep after the New Haven Register exposed Lieberman for abusing campaign finance law to create an illegal $380,000 slush fund. Similarly, other than Wes Clark who filmed an ad going after Lieberman by name or Kerry who issued a press release nailing Lieberman for his Iraq position, not one national surrogate really went after the incumbent senator.
Learning From Lamont
by David Sirota
In These Times
November 10, 2006
http://www.topplebush.com/oped3078.shtml
"Some of us are still eating hotdogs......and that's an astonishing thing." -- Wes Clark
in 2005 I believe, during the Q & A - someone asked him why he thought the media had ignored him so much...??
Wes replied (to my surprise) that he felt he got an equally fair treatment by the media as anyone else had. I always wondered about that statement afterwards, as it seemed so patently obvious to anyone paying attention that he was being deliberately blocked out of so many of the discussions.
I flip-flop on whether the phenomena is by design - by directive- or just a factor of laziness and parroting the same roster the other networks are featuring. But keep returning to thinking there is design there- because the pattern repeats.
I could easily be convinced there was a concerted effort-- call it a 'campaign'-- to MINIMIZE Wes Clark, or to shrug him off as irrelevant-- diminishing his stature as a "contender" amongst the annointed ones. But then, I'm the resident conspiracy theorist-- Somebody's gotta do it!
And you're more generous than I Tom in your assessment that they just don't know how to peg him, which I think is true, but beyond that-- I do believe they've got their orders, and the script says to either (A) ignore or (B) minimize. Because he's the obvious threat to their own pet choices on so many levels.
The Donkey in the Room indeed!
Can't wait to see this at Kos. As an "Internet activist" and Clark supporter... I'm ready to pound the keyboard in concert with the rest of us in order to INFILTRATE the message this time.
Our other advantage vis a vis 2004-- is the current MSM somewhat reluctant recognition, albeit grudgingly and backhanded, of bloggers as players that do have impact. I think YearlyKos sweetened that formula for us.
Excellent post Tom!!!
when Wes, Jr. snapped at the press (after the OK win, I think?) that the car his dad was travelling in was stopped for speeding on the way to an event and that incident got more press coverage then the candidate was getting and he had just won the state primary? That said it all for me. He was being completely marginalized and Wes, Jr. was mad as hell and not going to take it anymore!
What kind of press relations function does Clark have now? Back in 2004, netroots aside - we were splendid - there didn't seem to be a very professional press relations component. I figure when he declares, an effective press capability is part of what we will see.
I'd love to get this is every newspaper in the country. Amazingly well written Tom. Keep it up!
Ron Esquerra
Alger County Democratic Party
Veterans coordinator- www.michigan4clark.com
Since Common Wisodom is CW and Wesley Clark is WC, does that prove that Wesley Clark is the antithesis of common wisdom?!!?
Just a stupid little side note
I agree with Syb that tomorrow would be the better day, even though I won't be around.. :( .. but look forward to reading all the comments tomorrow night.
:)
Run Wes Run!
Begin by bloggers and netrooters to get the ball rolling for Wes when he announces at the appropriate time.
Thanks for posting this diary, Tom.
Can't we just enjoy Thanksgiving and Christmas first before we worry about electing our next President? He probably won't announce until January anyways.
But that doesn't mean we can't enjoy our holidays also, lol.
I don't think we have to be go into our highest gear right now, but I don't think we can simply wait until January either. Perhaps if Clark was a media darling we could, they would then do most of the needed work of keeping his name in serious consideration, but we know they won't do that for Clark, at least not a tenth as much as they will for Obama.
Preceptions have tangible consequences. With the mid terms over, the political news cycle is moving on now to the next significant Election, which of course is 2008. All kinds of people, from grass roots activists in Iowa and New Hampshire, to large Democratic doners, to talented political staffers, are now pondering who they are going to support for the Presidency. "Buzz" is a part of that.
And you sound almost as if you think folks like us have no influence on Clark's decision! No one understands a political draft better than Wes Clark. We don't know when Wes will decide, we only expect him to decide by January, it could be sooner than that. It can only make it easier for him to say yes if he knows that support for him to run is continuing to grow. Hey, that's our job.
Get it up on Kos tomorrow Tom & we'll be there in between the other stuff in our lives.
This is a great thread!
Can you send it to WPo/NYT/WSJ opEd? Also read it at DU....KOS next! Thanks for the post.
RUN,WES,RUN!!!! '08 Here we Come....
Hillary has tepid support amongst liberals? What a surprise.
Is there a win of the party (other than the status-quo leadership) that really likes her?
I think General Clark is in a much strong position than he was during the last election cycle. Last time, I think he got "boxed in," the way runners do. Kerry scooped the "decorated war veteran" label, Edwards got the "likeable Southerner" meme, Dean was the "principled outsider." Lieberman was... oh, who knows what he was.
General Clark was all of these things and more - and, to my way of thinking, BETTER at all of them than those I've just mentioned (except, possibly Dean), but since he didn't fit nicely into a label, and since the media was still flustered at the thought of a Democratic General, he didn't get nearly as much traction.
This time, he has a proven track record of assisting the Democratic leadership and campaigning for Democratic candidates - and a lot more people have heard of him. I think it will be a different story if he declares.
Besides, I'm sure we'll all be ready to pelt media outlets who don't include our General or show him the proper respect! :-)
And way to post those pertinent links, WesPeople! For those of us who may not have everything logged into our personal archives, this is a great Blog to bookmark for future use. Thanks for taking the time to write this, Tom! It's a keeper.
for Schumer, Durbin, Reid and Pelosi to publicly acknowledge the help General Clark gave to them.
It would be nice.....
I doubt that Clark cares very much whether or not he gets credit, as long as his ideas and proposals are getting wide circulation.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
BE THE CHANGE you wish to see in the world.
If not us, WHO? If not now, WHEN?
but I think Wes errs on the side of being too humble, at times. He's got to demand more from these politicians or they will walk off with everything he's got.....except maybe Gert! ;)
Hi Stan,
Wes seems to be one of those genuinely humble men who is more worried about solving a problem than getting credit for the solution. As reggiesmom said in her response, sometimes he may be too humble, at least in terms of his possible candidacy. When other candidates get more attention from his ideas than he does, it creates the impression (among the chattering class) that he is parroting them rather than vice-versa.
I can't bring myself to fault him for it, however. Our government could use a lot more people who are more worried about solving problems than getting credit for the solutions.
Crissie
Humility vs. taking credit is a tough line to walk. Didn't Clark get a lot of flak in the 2004 primary debates for a comment about being a general vs. Kerry being a lieutenant? I thought it was entirely appropriate to mention that--sort of a "duh" moment, but it backfired, maybe because of the context.
"Leadership means lifting people up." -Wes Clark
I look forward to recommending it on Dailykos tomorrow.
and great comments.
I look forward to Gen. Clark's next appearance at the HASC -I don't think Duncan Hunter does...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It was not always thus. At the September 2002 hearing, GOP lawmakers joined in Perle's dismissal of Clark's argument that "time is on our side" in Iraq and that force should be used only as a "last resort."
Perle said Clark was "wildly optimistic" and called it "one of the dumber cliches, frankly, to say that force must always be a last resort." While Clark fiddled, "Saddam Hussein is busy perfecting those weapons of mass destruction that he already has."
In retrospect, Clark's forecasts proved more accurate than Perle's, and even Republicans on the committee made little effort yesterday to defend Perle or to undermine Clark. The exception was Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), who pressed Clark to acknowledge that the Iraq invasion should get some credit for signs of democracy in the region.
"We've got to do a lot less crowing about the sunrise," Clark rejoined.
When Hunter's GOP colleagues didn't join his line of questioning, he took another turn grilling Clark. The chairman likened President Bush's Middle East policies to those of President Ronald Reagan in Eastern Europe.
"Reagan never invaded Eastern Europe," Clark retorted.
In another try, Hunter said Clark was "overstating" the risk in challenging other countries in the Middle East. Clark smiled and showed his trump card -- reminding Hunter of their exchange at the 2002 hearing. "I kept saying time was on our side," Clark said. "I could never quite satisfy you."
As for who proved correct, the general said, "I'll let the record speak for itself."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32440-2005Apr6?language=printer
"Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants."
Gen. Omar Bradley
Go, General! I'm bookmarking like mad in this thread.
“If you put me on third base, I'll bring you home.” - Wes Clark
the google results for General. I was looking for the London Times article referenced by Mr. Snyder on page 47 of the HASC Testimony:
...In fact, you had a London Times piece at the end of August, ''Why war should be America's last resort,'' which is another way of saying, we have got to exhaust diplomatic resources before we pursue the war...
All the smear websites are linked first. Not liking this at all.
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right. - Hunter/Garcia
It would help if everyone started using securingamerica.com in their sig lines with "Wes Clark" as the actual text...have to run out the door and can't explain right now, but curious, what exact phrase were you googling?
what could happen and they didn't listen. They should all be forced to read or listen to that testimony.
pg. 54:
Clark: But, there are a number of steps that have to be taken first, like engaging international organizations in the U.N., and trying to build a framework, because we don't want to put the United States armed forces if it takes, I don't know how many, 50,000, 70,000 initially. We don't want a bunch of young men in battle dress uniforms out there indefinitely trying to perform humanitarian assistance. That is not our job. We are not very good at it. We are also not any good at police work. Now, we are doing a lot of it in places like Kosovo and Bosnia, and we have and it has been unfortunate. So, we should try to do better in this case.
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right. - Hunter/Garcia
I listened to Wes audio clips yesterday, and a couple interviewers (Schultz + ?) commented that every one of Wes' predictions from previous visits had occurred.
I was really struck by Wes' interview with John Gibson. Always thought that
Gibson was a raving maniac when I caught bits of his previous interview and he was so nice and respectful to Wes.
pg. 60-61
Mr. HUNTER. And, you also think that we should always think things out very clearly before we do them? Now, that would apply hopefully to inspections as well as military operations. You have never yet really fully answered this question. If the inspection regime is a product of a commission, a committee, a group, some members of which are not totally pro-American and don't believe that our intention of divesting Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction is totally their goal, and we have an inspection regime which ends up with our people looking at a bunch of empty rooms, how does that—how does that allow us to take the next step, and you are a person who thinks we should always look at the next step, of galvanizing world opinion as we stand in the empty room and we say ''Now, will the world be on our side in taking military action,'' how do we do that?
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
General CLARK. Well, I think the first thing is you have a very strong determination that is out in public and supported by this body that says if we don't get the assistance we need from the United Nations as a last resort, we will use force and we will solve this problem ourselves.
Mr. HUNTER. So you would—so if the United Nations doesn't give us a strong aggressive inspection regime, we should reject a weaker inspection regime and take military action?
General CLARK. I am not suggesting that.
Mr. HUNTER. Okay. Now what if they give us a weaker—I think we can——
General CLARK. You are leading the witness, sir.
Mr. HUNTER. I know. But this is a question that has to be answered. We know that the United Nations is not inclined to give us the kind of a rigorous enforced by armed troops inspection regime that all of our experts tell us you have to have to have a real inspection of Iraq.
General CLARK. We have to build up the leverage that our diplomats need. We have one of the greatest Secretaries of State we have ever had, General Colin Powell, up there. We have got to give him the backing he needs, the leverage he needs and the President has got to have what he needs to make it very clear what the consequences for the United Nations and our allies are if we don't move ahead. And, then we have got to roll up our sleeves, and we have got to do the dirty work and it is difficult work. It is hard work. It is work that lots of people find very cumbersome. We have got to deal with our allies. We have got to persuade them.
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right. - Hunter/Garcia
Here is a nice page collection of news articles at myDD.com dedicated to Wes Clark: it is called E- Wire - look at the top of page like a menu bar on the left
http://www.mydd.com/ewire/candidate/30
simple to send out to people, journalists, radio stations, local news to promote WKC
“If you put me on third base I'll take it home.” - Wes Clark
said he wasn't going to run. Some of them were on blogs, and some on MSM. They almost always said that there is now no Democratic Candidate that didn't vote for the Iraq War. When questioned about it they brought up the "Nagourney" article at the beginning of Wes's 2004 campaign. They never even notice his testimony before Congress. That meme is easily refuted, but we need to be prepared to refute it, often.
The other thing that was brought up by some liberal bloggers was that now there is no one who will strongly voice opinions about civil rights and constitutional questions. Again Clark is there, but they don't see it. We need to talk about this again and again.