Wes Clark, 'Forget about the neocons. This era is over'

Here's another great WSJ Op/Ed piece by Wesley Clark, "A Judgment on Iraq," which has been reprinted at his blog at WesPAC | SecuringAmerica.

Once again, Clark shares keen political insights on true meaning behind Ned Lamonts' victory and Joe Liebermans' (ehm, ..."1st half") defeat. Clark argues that it will present "triple opportunity" (albeit fleeting one) for the Republicans, as they attempt to exploit Liebermans' decision to run as an "Independent Democrat", in order to spin the real truths about what really happened Tuesday -- a judgment against those who supported the Bush administrations failed policies on Iraq, terrorism and the Middle East.

However, Clark directly confronts this desperate tactic by the neocons head on and keenly recognizes that it's been the Democratic Party that has been at the forefront towards a real "change in course" for Iraq with a real national security plan, ...

"For the Democrats, the election is a snapshot of a revolt in the making, but not yet done. The truth is that Democrats are as patriotic as Republicans, want a strong and secure America, and like every other American, want to trust the president and his team on national security issues. ..."

Clark also recognizes that Lamonts' victory was indicative of a growing consciousness by American voters that they are indeed "getting it" and looking past the GOP rhetorical campaign to mislead Americans by its policies, which (i) has served to conceal their partisan interests and (ii) has deteriorated America's national security interests.

"The public doesn't have to live with the reminders of old sentiments, jingoistic pronouncements, or votes in the House or Senate. Instead, the public is free to observe, listen and judge. And that judgment has been passed, especially on Iraq: The war was a mistake. Flawed intelligence, overly optimistic planning (or in some cases, none at all) and grandiose geostrategic designs, hyperinflated rhetoric about democracy, and perhaps raw political advantage. Whatever. The public hasn't quite sorted it out--but they know a failure when they see one. And Iraq, as well as the larger Middle East policy, is such a failure. ..."

Read the full article here :: A Judgment on Iraq"

Let's forget the neocons,.. the battle is for a Democratic victory in Congress this November, ...and real security for America!! :)

Note:: An active discussion is also on CarolNYC's blog at http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/7881#comment-122952

•  *pulls up 'Securing America'*

  and rubs the screen

  Have I said I love Wesley Clark today? Cause I do.

  by stax on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 01:33:25 PM PDT

  •  Bush's Iraq policy is a FAILURE

    Wes Clark has it exactly right, real people out in the  hinterlands away from the DC elites know that Bush has failed miserably on Iraq and the Middle East.

    Compare the situation in November 2000 with the present quagmire and brushfires blazing in the Middle East.

    Bushies will blather:  "but, but, but that was before 9-11".  Yes, and if the idiot Bush had bothered to listen to the Clinton administration terrorism experts they could have stopped 9-11 instead of chopping brush.  What part of "Bin Laden determined to attack in the US" is unclear, Miss Condi-Liar?

    Bush has a pre-1776 mentality, he wants to be a dictator-King, yet his vaunted "tough on terror" talk has done nothing to address real threats, instead his policies are breeding terrorists by the hundreds each day.

    by MD patriot on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 02:43:15 PM PDT

    •  Well that was...

      ...aggressive...

      by stax on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 02:49:34 PM PDT

      •  Not nearly as aggressive...

        as our Representatives and Senators need to be.  They need to say it-the-fuck-like-it-is.  Let spill the voice of reason.  During our American Revolution, the patriots did not hold back for fear of politics, they didn't shirk from offending the extremists.  They let it spill out and voiced "Give me liberty or give me death".  We are not the fringe.  We are the majority and we need to speak like it.

        by kharma on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 03:54:20 PM PDT

        •  Exactly...

          Will ONE FUCKING DEMOCRACT in Congress STAND UP and call Bush on this BULLSHIT???

          This is real simple - we have 130,000 troops in Iraq for what again?  To keep Pakistani's from blowing up sports drinks on planes?  What was that again about taking the fight to the terrorists in Iraq?

          I want to see someone asking this questions!!!!

          GOD...I am disgusted.  GRRRRRRRR....

          Bush gave us the only fucking campaign commercial we need this fall when he said in his little press gaggle a few years ago that he 'just wasn't concerned' about bin Laden anymore.

          Will someone please find the link and send it to Rahm and Chucky?

          by jaybeck on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 07:05:26 PM PDT

          •  Seriously

            If Clinton (either one) or Gore or Kerry had been President and had made that dismissive and highly moronic statement about bin Laden, how many times would we have already seen that video clip replayed on cable news, with the talking heads earnestly cluck-clucking about the flip-flopper who hated national security?

            by Leap Year on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 11:01:52 PM PDT

    •  Been holding that in a while?

      Sounds like it's time for you to write a good rant diary! I agree wholeheartedly with your opinions...but it sounds like you have more to say!

      We always like a good rant - go for it!

      by SallyCat on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 02:56:47 PM PDT

    •  the future hangs in the balance....

      having just returned home from CT volunteering for the Ned Lamont GOTV... i am filled with hope for the future of my country.

      we seem to be slowly regaining our sanity have a very dark period.

      but to say that the era of the neocons is over is wishful thinking - dangerously wishful thinking, while lebanon burns and the ME is on the verge of an expanding war... a war that the neocons have long wished and worked for.

      the neocon foreign policy has increased the chances of another 911 level (or worse) attack on usa soil. and we have NOT done the necessary work to prevent another descent into the insanity that we are just now recovering from.

      i'll believe that the era of the neocons is over when we democrats can articulate a new foreign policy that is NOT based on world-wide hegemony and control of ME oil.

      by selise on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 02:57:50 PM PDT

      •  In reference to the NeoCons, I agree

        that we should never forget, but I think that Wes' reference to the NeoCon being "over" it meant figuratively, as in "fugit bout them, they are soooo over"......in terms of the NeoCon movement having the same kind of serious juice given to them in the past.

        Due to the NeoCons' demonstrated incompetence, i.e., the state of the Middle East as we speak, their repeated lack of honesty on anything they predicted when selling their ideology, and the increasingly more than obvious Strategy-to-nowhere-but-Rapture, the NeoCons can no longer feel confident that they can sell the notion that they hold the Key to some "doable" "master plan" to keep American supreme, which was their "rap" was as far back as 1996! And part of the reason for that is how easily one can point to how f*cked things are going now.  

        Wes is just letting it be known that sooner than later the NeoCons will be KOed to a pulp by all who are no longer buying into their delussional vision of Power for the United States and its corporate partners.

        NeoCons have now been irrefutably proven to know NOT what they speak of.....and those who might have bought into their vision once upon a time, can now compare the talk vs. the actual results (too bad it had to come to this for most to remove their cozy blindfolds).

        The NeoCon movement is no longer growing; it has, in fact, commenced in dying.

        But yes, we should never forget the kind of harm those espousing empire building using our military and bullying rethoric can do to a democracy as well as the rest of the world ...literally! We can't ever again let some dumbass Back-assward Think Tank ideology control American Foreign policy.

        Next time some "Global Strategic" tank sends our future Democratic President a letter outlining their approach for world domination, he/she should certainly tell them to crawl back into the hole they hence came.....and that he/she's got an appointed Democratic cabinet to do the "strategery" portion of planning our place in the global world.

        Clinton really should have told them to kiss his Booty loud and clear when he had the chance. I guess that he was always trying to prove that he could be a Good Commander in Chief to those who included in their plans to doubt him purposefully and publicly.
        As far as Bush, well...... he was bought by them.

        by ZootSuitGringo on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 05:33:01 PM PDT

    •  Bush's Presidency is a failure

      George Bush has done nothing in his presidency that can be termed a success.  
      Tax cuts for the wealthy and oil companies ---> hollowed-out economy, about to implode.  
      War on Terror ---> America hated in the world, squandering a century of international goodwill.
      Department of Homeland Security ---> Katrina.
      Uniter not a divider ---> Hahahahahaha.
      MBA Preznit ---> record deficits and squandered billions.
      Honor and Integrity ---> Lies and Treason.

      Bush's Iraq policy is only the first of his many failures.  But, as Ned Lamont said, at least you know where he stands.  For failure.

      by Dallasdoc on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 03:29:44 PM PDT

      •  Like you said, the squander president

        Squandered the international goodwill from 9/11
        Squandered the moral authority on human rights
        Squandered the budget surplus
        Squandered the national unity from 9/11
        Squandered the best military in the world

        by frostyinPA on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 04:07:37 PM PDT

      •  Maybe not, but...

        ...he has done everything he has set out to do.  All the things you list as signs of failure are in fact the main points of the GOP agenda.  We're going to spend the next 50 years (at least) cleaning up the mess -- that's part of the agenda, too.  A government that has to spend all its time and resources on damage control is a government that is not expanding (or even maintaining) social programs, or regulating industry, or doing any of the other things that make Baby Jesus cry.
         
        And even if another Republican never holds elected office, the conditions under which we live for the next couple of generations will be of their choosing.  The collateral damage that includes this nation's blood, treasure, heritage and prestige is precisely that -- collateral damage.  It simply does not show up on their radar.

        The mission -- the real mission -- really was accomplished.

        by Roddy McCorley on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 04:10:55 PM PDT

        •  Yes you are right.

          We will not be the leading nation in the 21st century. Not that we were going to but now it has happened in six years.

          Long live China!

          by abbeysbooks on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 04:19:27 PM PDT

          •  Last year my son...

            ...took a course on ancient civilizations at the community college.  As we drove home one night after I picked him up, he said to me, "We're in decline now, aren't we?"  I had to admit that seemed to be the case.  "I figured it would probably happen during the lifetime of my children,"  I told him.  "But I never dreamed it would happen during the lifetime of my cats."

            Thank you, GOP.  We didn't need that future anyway...

            by Roddy McCorley on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 04:41:22 PM PDT

            •  Toynbee is a must read

              on this. If your son is asking these kinds of intelligent quetions then spur him to read the histories of Toynbee. They are in a 2 volume set that he aproved when they were condensed. They also get you to want ot read the entire multi volume set.

              I loved your answer.

              by abbeysbooks on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 10:39:38 PM PDT

          •  So much for PNAC

            Their goal was "Full Spectrum Dominance"

            Military dominance? Well, we still have the air and sea power, but not the boots on the ground (draft?)

            Economic dominance? Not with a $9 Trillion debt.

            Cultural dominance? Oy. What culture? McDonald's?

            Moral dominance? Give me a break...

            And it's only 6 years into the New American Century.

            That plan sure worked didn't it?

            by offgrid on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 05:04:09 PM PDT

            •  Yes, but in the year 2000 we sure seemed ready

              ...to dominate another century. Remember? We ruled high tech so completely that everyone spoke of English some day becoming the first language of 1/3 of the world. We had given the world a gift that seemed like someday it might be the seeds of an entirely new phase in humanity - the Internet (that you Al Gore... and Cerf and Kahn and American taxpayers). NATO's crushing of the wily Milosevic - predicted by Republican cut and runners as so much more dangerous than Saddam that we were going to get our butts kicked bad for decades - in 79 days made us seem militarily invincible. We had balanced our budget for half a decade and had projected surpluses in the trillions. And we had finally gotten over our feelings of cultural inferiority after realizing that in art, in music, and even to some extent in literature America had dominated the 20th century.

              Yup. I feel like I'm in Spain post Phillipe Segundo. Or in China in 1423.

              by brainiacamor on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 05:14:57 PM PDT

              •  Amazing how much the Neo-Cons damaged all that

                in just 6 short years.

                It's like the story of the goose that laid the golden egg - one golden egg per day wasn't enough, so they launched a pre-emptive war against the goose, cut it open, only to find there are no eggs inside.

                Idiots

                by offgrid on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 05:45:16 PM PDT

                •  They'd planned it for so long

                  it was relatively easy to use events as they unfolded, as well as influencing them. Having thought about it so long, the opportunities must have leapt out at them.

                  by cotterperson on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:39:02 PM PDT

                  •  9-11 was a window of opportunity for them

                    by abbeysbooks on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 10:42:29 PM PDT

          •  The rise of China is hardly inevitable

            ...and may still not happen. They have a helluva lot of issues. Recall the early 90s, when Japanophobia ran rampant?

            China is an emerging superpower, but so is Europe, and if the latter lacks a center the former's gravity can be crushing to its citizenry.

            It may well be that India is the superpower of the 21st century. But as anyone who has been there knows, they have a lot of issues, too.

            We had, until Bush, always enjoyed a lot of advantages over the rest of the world, not least of which were our freedoms. Until Bush we still attracted the best and the brightest from every nation. Now no one wants to come here because they think we're on our way back to a Middle Ages we never experienced and hence were always assumed to be immune from.

            by brainiacamor on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 05:07:21 PM PDT

      •  Au Contraire

        I disagree. He has done everything right to get the neo con agenda entrenched. The Supremes. The rest of the courts. The bureaucracy. Control of the media. He has succeeded admirably.

        by abbeysbooks on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 04:17:54 PM PDT

        •  Getting the neocon agenda entrenched

          ... the ultimate failure of the Bush presidency.  The more he succeeds, the bigger the failure he becomes.

          by Dallasdoc on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 04:30:38 PM PDT

    •  failure

      Wes Clark has it exactly right, real people out in the  hinterlands away from the DC elites know that Bush has failed miserably on Iraq and the Middle East.

      Bush has been a miserable faiure at everthing he has ever touched, tried, or got next to, with the exception of his stellar drinking and coke snorting adventures which by all accounts he was wildly successful at until the Mrs. put her footdown and made him put a cork in it.
      George W Bush. The most famous powerful miserable walking clusterfuck in recorded history.

      by FireCrow on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 04:55:20 PM PDT

  •  get away from your keyboard

    and go get some fresh air

    by surferal on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 03:32:15 PM PDT

    •  screw that...

      ..she has been doing this in a bunch of diaries for awhile now. I say she should step away from the keyboard and go drink some bleach or something.

      by Diggla on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 03:38:39 PM PDT

  •  You win.

    This website really is about you - and only you. Hey, if you can repeat yourself, so can I.

    Next time you register and are looking for an appropriate name, try Squeaky Wheel.

    by elouise on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 03:37:50 PM PDT

    •  PITA would be more appropos n/t

      by kfred on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 04:00:11 PM PDT

•  Bold statement from a Moderate voice

  Wes is by no means "the angry left", but is aptly naming a new direction in America.

  by 4democracy on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 01:36:39 PM PDT

  •  My impression of this op-ed....

    is that it was written for one piticular group of folks....our Dem elected/ want-to-be-elected crowd.

    This 4 star General is doing what comes naturally to him - being a leader and, with an iron fist in a velvet glove, showing the Dem congress the way to win the battle

    Perhaps politicians in office will listen a little more attentively now to the outside-the-beltway voices; they’ll challenge more, stand up earlier, fight a little tougher against the administration’s leadership. And perhaps they’ll sweat a little to gain some stand-off from their earlier positions. Longstanding relationships at home, a comfortable bank account, and the continuing blandishments of the lobbying crowd will no longer be sufficient—Joe Lieberman’s defeat shows that the public is now engaged in politics.

    -------------
    a quote from when Clark was a white house fellow

    "Major Clark is the most able White House Fellow I have known during my seven years in Washington...He brought to his work a brilliant mind and rare common sense. He has initiative, style, imagination, moral courage, and integrity-each in extraordinary degree...He has a rare sensitivity to others and a remarkable ability to motivate and lead them....He is totally dedicated to public service as a military officer."   ----James T. Lynn, Director, Office of Management and Budget, July 8, 1976
    

    by Best in Show on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 03:56:22 PM PDT

•  Once again, Clark gets it right. This is a guy

  who could be a great President.  

  by au8285 on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 01:38:24 PM PDT

  •  or maybe a good Secretary of Defense

    Why would he jump right to the top spot with no elected experience?  Sure, Ned Lamont will be in the Senate after being only a town selectman, but the Senate is a far cry from President.

    by MD patriot on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 02:44:40 PM PDT

    •  Uh...

      you are kidding comparing Ned's and Wes' experience right??????

      Are you really comparing a town selectman, to the god damn 4 star general, head of NATO?

      no offense to Ned, but come on!

      by Jambro on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 02:58:30 PM PDT

      •  'Supreme Allied Commander, Europe', please

        First in his class at Westpoint. "Caught" on camera saying he'd beat (or was it "kick") the shit out of anyone who'd try to SwiftBoat him.

        He's my candidate
        for 2008.

        by DrReason on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 05:07:42 PM PDT

        •  Not only ...First in his class at Westpoint.

          but first for 3 years out of 4 --he missed one year by coming in 3rd ...out of a class of 589

          He's my candidate too
          for 2008 and 2012

          by Best in Show on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 05:16:14 PM PDT

          •  Damn! Didn't know that.

            Thanks.

            by DrReason on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 06:56:15 PM PDT

        •  He was misquoted

          But he did correct the press I recall, the actual quote was he'd "kick the living shit of them"

          by Shullat on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 06:27:07 AM PDT

          •  Excellent!

            I didn't know that. Brilliant.

            by DrReason on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 12:04:17 PM PDT

    •  The US Presidency is about leadership, ..

      ...character and integrity!! And as NATO Supreme Commander, Wes Clark has demonstrated all those qualities and more!

      Should he run again in 2008, it will be because of his strong leadership to support great Democratic candidates towards victory in '06 all of whom share these exact qualities; and because of his conviction to defend our democratic values, image and reputation, here and around the world.

      by Knightrider on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 04:00:45 PM PDT

      •  Clark's a very smart guy

        I'm glad he's on our team

        by Land of Enchantment on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:18:34 PM PDT

      •  Wes is also part of the Permanent War Party

        So while I want him on the Democratic team, he should not be at the top of the ticket.  Wes points out Bush's blunders, but he would also be quick to believe that a "proper" war plan would be good.

        Let's try for a civilian government, with advisors from the military.

        Russ Feingold, President
        Wes Clark, Sec Def or Nat. Security Advisor

        by MD patriot on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 07:12:06 AM PDT

        •  war 'only only only' as last resort

          That subject lines takes cahones, I'll give you that- however, you couldn't be MORE wrong.

          Wes sees war as a failure of other political & diplomatic processes that should always hold sway. He's also a big reformer of the military himself.

          If it comes to it, any practical person would want the "proper" war plan that would result in meeting one's objectives, no? That hardly makes him a member of the permanent war party, as you claim- it just makes him competent.

          Honestly- your comment is bizarrely off base.

          by velvetdays on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 10:02:24 AM PDT

    •  Federal law requires SoD to be civilian for 10yrs

      ...Clark retired in 2000, therefore after 8 yrs, he's prohibited from serving in this position.  What's more important is that Clark already knows the DoD and knows how to "win."

      However, the next SoD under a democratic President should merit a strong sense of defense and respect by our military.  If Clark runds and wins in 2008, as POTUS, I hope that he asks John Murtha to serve as SoD! :)

      by Knightrider on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 06:24:22 PM PDT

      •  Laws don't apply in this post 12-12-2000 era

        Look up Dec 12, 2000.  That was the day the "Rule of Law" ended in the USA.

        So some pesky little law about the SecDef is meaningless when the Bushies are routinely shredding the US Constitution, and breaking so many laws that they don't even bother to tell congress which laws they are breaking!

        by MD patriot on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 07:03:35 AM PDT

    •  Didn't seem to be a problem for Eisenhower, ...

      though I'm not saying he was a great President.  But he wasn't a failure either, and our current president make Eisenhower look like he belongs on Mt. Rushmore.

      by au8285 on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 07:26:23 PM PDT

      •  What good did Ike do?

        Kept discrimination going strong, how many lynchings during his terms?

        Set up the "military-industrial complex" that he then warned us about on his way out, once he could do nothing to stop it.  Got the early start on the "Cold War" follies, helping to institute the bi-partisan Permanent War Party that Lieberman and Bush have carried on.

        Ike = no good, don't believe the PR.  Sure, he followed orders well in Europe, but I see nothing good about his presidency.  How about that Senator McCarthy?  Ike's own party and he did nothing to rein him in.

        ANYONE looks good compared to WPE Bush.

        by MD patriot on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 07:07:11 AM PDT

  •  I'm taking 2008 off

    Just to help Wes Win the Presidency. I should probably call, just to let him know.

    by bldr on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 02:47:47 PM PDT

  •  And he won't roll over and play dead on the

    campaign trail a la Kerry, Mondale, McGovern, etc.

    by Ice Blue on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 02:51:34 PM PDT

    •  Uh...he was pretty lackluster in 2004.

      You know, he did run in 2004.

      If you don't remember that, there's a good reason why.

      He seems to be improving, however.

      by suzq on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 03:18:04 PM PDT

      •  Edwards/Clark '08!!!

        Looks like a winner 2 me!!!!

        by serrano on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 03:41:18 PM PDT

        •  How about Clark/Edwards instead?

          by mombadanes on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 03:53:40 PM PDT

          •  neither

            Neither ticket would ever happen.  just sayin'

            by AKTup on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 03:57:59 PM PDT

          •  I Could Live

            w/that. But I think Edwards has more sizzle and is more appealing.  I like and trust them both.  Edwards is also well-positioned to win Iowa, followed shortly by SC, so the schedule favors him.  I really like his willingness to focus on poverty...

            by serrano on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 03:58:14 PM PDT

            •  I just think that Clark's

              military experience is going to really be needed to help us get out of Iraq...since Bush is leaving it to the next President to resolve!

              by mombadanes on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 04:00:25 PM PDT

              •  that includes the Iran, Syria, Pakistan, N. Korea

                ..Afghanistan and Sudan; ... as well as Russia, China and Indonesia whose interest often conflict with our own.

                by Knightrider on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 04:19:12 PM PDT

              •  It's not military that's needed

                to get out.  The US military could extract itself, given orders to do so.

                What's needed are some real diplomatic skills and some long-term vision.

                by ogre on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 05:13:25 PM PDT

                •  He certainly has the diplomatic credentials.

                  General Wesley Clark: International Awards and Honors

                  International awards and honors include the

                     * Honorary Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (United Kingdom);
                     * Commander of the Legion of Honor (France);
                     * Grand Cross of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany;
                     * Knight Grand Cross in the Order of Orange-Nassau, with Swords (Netherlands);
                     * Grand Officer of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Italy;
                     * Grand Cross of the Medal of Military Merit (Portugal);
                     * The Commander's Cross with Star of the Order of Merit of Republic of Poland;
                     * Grand Officer of the Order of Merit of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg;
                     * Grand Medal of Military Merit (White Band) (Spain);
                     * The Grand Cordon of the Order of Leopold (Belgium);
                     * Cross of Merit of the Minister of Defense First Class (Czech Republic);
                     * Order of Merit of the Hungarian Republic;
                     * Commander's Cross, The Silver Order of Freedom of the Republic of Slovenia;
                     * Madarski Konnik Medal, Order of the Madara Horseman, First Class with Swords First Class with Swords (Bulgaria);
                     * Commemorative Medal of the Minister of Defense of the Slovak Republic First Class (Slovakia);
                     * First Class Order of Lithuanian Grand Duke Gediminas (Lithuania);
                     * Order of the Cross of the Eagle (Estonia);
                     * The Skandeberg Medal (Albania);
                     * Order of Merit of Morocco;
                     * Order of Merit of Argentina;
                     * Grade of Prince Branimir with Ribbon and Star (Croatia) and
                     * The Meritorious Service Cross of Canada.

                  SecuringAmerica

                  by cotterperson on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:44:50 PM PDT

                •  What you said!

                  What's needed are some real diplomatic skills and some long-term vision.

                  That can hardly be phrased better or more succinctly!

                  Both are needed on the domestic scene.  (We need a uniter.  Heh.)

                  But more importantly, we must earn trust and respect in the world.  We simply must.  It can't be done in 4 years or in 8 years.  But I think Wes Clark might be able to get us going in the right direction better than anyone else.
                  _

                  by DSPS owl on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 11:50:00 PM PDT

            •  A deal for you

              After 8 years as Clark's VP, Edwards would become president for 8 years because this country would be in such great shape.

              I really like his willingness to focus on poverty...

              Me too. The guy is genuine. I loved seeing his parents in the audience at the DNC. His wife is incredibly articulate and intelligent. Laura Bush, you're no Elizabeth Edwards.

              by DrReason on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 05:11:44 PM PDT

              •  Warner

                the better choice there

                by velvetdays on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 12:56:50 PM PDT

            •  More sizzle

              and less substance.

              by roseba on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 12:41:08 PM PDT

            •  sizzle is in the eye of the beholder

              ....fercripessake!

              by Sybil Liberty on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 01:25:34 PM PDT

        •  This ticket

          will not happen.

          by WesClarkJr on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 08:14:35 PM PDT

          •  Wes Jr?

            We saw you speak in Seattle--you were AMAZING...hope you run for office yourself someday!  

            And for the record, thanks so much for confirming what I would guess, re Clark & Edwards.

            Lots of good wishes to the little one!

            by oscarsmom on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 08:21:45 PM PDT

          •  I understand a message must be repeated 10X

            ... to make it stick ;)

            ... 8 more.

            by Knightrider on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 08:23:09 PM PDT

          •  Really?

            I'm one of the many, many people who think your father would make an absolutely fantastic president. If he doesn't happen to win the nomination, I think he would be a fantastic vice president.

            As I'm sure most of us recall, Edwards was asked many times during the 2004 primaries if he'd be willing to be the Veep nominee. And of course, while he was still running for the top spot he said he wasn't interested (everybody says that). But when the time came, and Kerry asked him to join him on the Democratic ticket to try to win back the White House, Edwards agreed. As he should have.

            by MeanBoneII on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 02:30:45 AM PDT

          •  understatement of the year award

            I just can't stop laughing.

            by velvetdays on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 10:04:41 AM PDT

          •  woot!

            !

            by Sybil Liberty on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 01:28:54 PM PDT

      •  I think he was pretty wet behind the ears

        politically.  My guess is that he'd do a lot better this time.

        A lot of people weren't ready to hear an anti-war message back then, and the candidates who articulated one were often rather timid about it -- except for Dean, who wasn't timid but seemed to put a lot of people off (don't flame me, I'm telling you what I observed in terms of people's reactions to him).

        I think some with Clark's background, who truly values and understands the military, doesn't believe in playing macho ideological games with our soldiers' lives, and also knows how to listen to military advisors and not micromanage when the military DOES have to get involved, could be very attractive next time around.

        I'm still pining for a Gore/Feingold ticket myself, but I could persuaded that Clark's the guy.

        by litigatormom on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 03:50:59 PM PDT

        •  When I think of Gore

          I think of his stupid choice of Lieberman. And I thought it was dumb at the time in 2000.

          by abbeysbooks on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 04:22:11 PM PDT

          •  That's myopic

            Reader referred to this comment.

            by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 04:25:03 PM PDT

          •  Everybody makes mistakes

            Most people thought it was a good idea at the time.  Although he was awwwwwfully boring and whingy even then......

            I don't think he'd make a similar mistake this time.  I'm assuming that he'd have different campaign advisors too....

            by litigatormom on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 04:25:23 PM PDT

            •  Not in my neck of the woods

              This "most people" and his Dem friends were all tremendously disappointed with Gore's choice of Lieberman.

              What can I say? I also thought it was clear in 2000 that Bush was a bloodthirsty nihilist who had his sights set on revisiting Iraq with an Apocalyptic zeal. Being right in such matters is a cold comfort, indeed.

              by FutureNow on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 05:14:59 PM PDT

            •  not everybody

              I and lots of others still couldn't forgive him for his pompous priggishness re Monicagate. I had hoped for Robert Rubin to be the VP candidate - thought he deserved it and was more than qualified to help lead the nation domestically. Rubin also could have - not saying he would have, but could have - sliced Dick Cheney to ribbons when Dick tried to pretend that his oil industry millions hadn't come about largely because of political connections.

              by brainiacamor on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 05:18:55 PM PDT

              •  And on and on

                Our moral compass! Great!

                by randallt on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 06:48:41 PM PDT

            •  I stand corrected

              The MSM seemed to think it was a good idea -- I remember lots of play on the "historic" choice of a Jew, and Hadassah's background as the child of Holocaust survivors.  They thought that Joe's priggishness during Monicagate would innoculate Gore from that issue -- although I never understood why he would have been tainted by it in the first place.

              And Joe seemed so benign and harmless, dweeby and sober and earnest.  It's not that I was enthused about him -- I just never imagined he was such an raging egomaniac.

              by litigatormom on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 07:34:37 PM PDT

      •  True, he was pretty lackluster in '04, but

        you know the saying:

            practice makes adequate.

        by Ice Blue on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 06:17:10 PM PDT

      •  not lackluster - just didn't fit party mould then

        he just wasn't a polished slick performer - and we were all about "winnable" candidates in 2004 and waited for the right wing media to tell us who was our best candidate... they told us Kerry... we went for Kerry

        I went to a Clark meeting in 2004 - the only candidate effort I have ever been to - and saw plenty of enthusiasm and he didn't come across as lackluster...

        by ResponsibleAccountable on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 08:47:24 PM PDT

  •  I've got some problems with Clark

    He falls too easily into the "antiwar Democrat hurts dems chances" trap.  That may be how some voters perceive Lamont's win, but it's not reality.  The reality is that our country grows weaker every day we remain in Iraq.  Our treasury is depleted, our military is ground into the desert, more soldiers are killed, and worst of all, each day we make more enemies in Iraq, as our soldiers rape, pillage, and kill Iraqis.  

    Another newsflash for Clark:  Lamont is not an "antiwar" candidate.  There has not been an "antiwar" candidate in any of our lifetimes that I can think of.  Lamont is against the Iraq war, that does not make him "antiwar".  Clark is promulgating yet another poisonous myth about democrats.  His appearances on Fox are perhaps polluting his mind.

    Clark is wrong about our need to stay in Iraq.  Yes, if we leave, disaster strikes.  But if we stay, disaster strikes.  There is no good option for us in Iraq, this was determined the moment Bushco decided to conquer the volatile nation.  It is delusional to believe that some option exists that will make all of the lives and money we've wasted worthwhile.  Iraq is a complete failure, a disaster of epic proportions, of the sort that breaks world empires.  Centuries from now, historians will point to Iraq as the beginning of the end of America as a superpower.  The question now is, do we age gracefully like the former European empires, or do we lose our hegemony with a brilliant flash of nuclear retribution on a world that has turned against us.

    by Subterranean on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 08:50:05 PM PDT

    •  false

      You are incorrect. Clark is right to stay that we should stay in Iraq WITH A PLAN TO WIN. Clark has never been for the war in Iraq, but he did lay out a plan for victory in his book "Winning Modern Wars", which he wrote before he became a presidential candidate. Have you read it? If not, I suggest you take a gander before you slam General Clark again.

      by pistol on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 01:23:24 AM PDT

•  '... want to trust the president'

  I'd love to have a president that I could trust (at least within the context of functional checks and balances).  But I couldn't trust this president unless I got a lobotomy first.  It'd be like trusting Hannibal Lector to host a pleasant dinner party.

  by Bearpaw on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 01:39:15 PM PDT

  •  Visual Malapropism

    "It'd be like trusting Hannibal Lector to host a peasant dinner party."

    by The Gryffin on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 01:53:22 PM PDT

    •  Your sig line

      is another

      Visual Malapropism

      by fezzik on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 02:31:48 PM PDT

      •  as is George Bush

        by anotherCt Dem on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 02:36:44 PM PDT

    •  That would be

      a dinner party where the main course is peasant.

      by sidnora on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 02:40:29 PM PDT

      •  Pheasant? (n/t)

        by DSPS owl on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 12:01:40 AM PDT

  •  Well at least you'd know what's on the menu

    along with the chianti...

    by MA Liberal on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 02:44:46 PM PDT

  •  I'd settle for having a President.

    I'm stuck with a usurper and a traitor.

    by khereva on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 02:47:21 PM PDT

•  Dems as patriotic as Republicans?

  I measure patriotism in action, not in rhetoric/flag waving.

  Does anybody have statistics comparing Democratic and Republican track records regarding these patriotic issues:

  1. Shipping assets off-shore to avoid paying American taxes

  2.  Violating American laws

  3. Sending jobs overseas

  4. Harming American land, air, water, health

  by LNK on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 01:41:12 PM PDT

  •  So let's be clear

    Are you implying that Democrats are more patriotic than Republicans?  

    (No need to be shy.  This is a Democratic blog, after all.)

    by Black Maned Pensator on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 04:14:29 PM PDT

    •  I'd hazard that's true

      On AVERAGE.

      Individually, who knows?

      by ogre on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 05:14:49 PM PDT

  •  That was a very unfortunate statement

    It leaves the listener thinking that Democrats are NOT as patriotic as Republicans. After all, he makes it sound like the patriotism of Republicans goes without saying.

    I guess we shouldn't bag on him for this, he could have just slipped, but I hated reading that.

    He should have just said, Democrats are very patriotic.

    by upstate NY on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 04:14:43 PM PDT

    •  patriotism of republicans

      goes without saying in the WSJ where this was printed...

      by AKTup on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 05:00:38 PM PDT

      •  it's Wes Clark who is saying it, not the WSJ

        This just reinforces it in all the minds that read the WSJ.

        by upstate NY on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 05:16:36 PM PDT

    •  Wes' message was particular to 'republicans'

      ..in my view, ...after all, it's the WSJ.  

      But I think that quote by Clark appropriately appealed to our common sense of "patriotism", not as Dems or Repubs, but as Americans.

      Many "republicans" are conscious of where and how this administration and this GOP-led Congress misled this country; and are seriously questioning exactly how much they've has gutted their traditional "conservative" causes, whether we agree with them or not.

      Unfortunately, the Rove Media Machine (MSM) will continue to polarize legitimate debate and discussion through its divisive rhetorical campaign.  Sadly, the GOPs campaign is the only tactic available to them, since they lack the facts to support their hyped-up record.  So they will continue to mislead Americans with hateful rhetoric for its "political advantage", rather than address the real problems and provide real solutions towards our national security needs.  

      by Knightrider on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 05:44:52 PM PDT

•  Wes Clark really wants to win in 06

  Unfortunately we don't know about Joe, but I'm thinking that he wants to win, and everyone else be damned.

  I would like to feel pity