Wes Clark to do Democratic Radio Response this Saturday!

[FrenchieCat]

by SuzanneWesPAC on 05/26/2005 04:36:20 PM EST
***Radio Alert***

General Clark has been asked to do the Democratic Radio Response which will run on Saturday, May 28th at 12:00pm Eastern.

Thanks,
Suzanne
----------
Personally, I'm Glad to hear it.
Iraq may be back on the Dem's agenda after all!

[Cha]

1. It should be always on the Dem

agenda. It will be very interesting to hear what Clark has to say on Sat.

[blm]

2. Good. I always enjoy hearing a smart man talk.

And he ain't hard on the eyes, either. ;)))))))

[FrenchieCat]

4. He'll also be on Al Franken on Monday...

FYI

[Mark Williams]

3. Watching the Democratic Radio Response

I've got a question for you guys. Where can I hear the Democratic Response? Does c-span play it? CNN?

Also does anyone know when it is usually released?

[CarolNYC]

71. to hear the address...

you can also check www.securingamerica.com Saturday afternoon where they will post a link to the remarks as soon as it is available.

[xultar]

5. I've missed ya Frenchie!

[FrenchieCat]

8. Hello!

Hello Xultar! :pals:

[Gloria]

6. With the huge operation in Iraq--Operation Desperation--

I'm looking forward to this!

I'm not sure where I can hear it locally--which site has it archived??

[Coexist]

7. Thanks - I'll be sure to listen in

[FrenchieCat]

9. I think you can catch it on C-Span radio....and on C-Span

see schedule here:
Check under Saturday... on this site:
http://www.c-span.org/watch/schedule.asp

I'm sure that the fact that this is Memorial Week-end has a lot to do with it.

Who better to commemorate the fallen?

[zalinda]

10. Why doesn't he run for a lesser office

in Arkansas? While I like the guy, we have no idea how he would react to the pressure of the political arena. I would feel better about him in the Presidential role if he had held some sort of office in the past.

zalinda

[CJCRANE]

13. How is being the head

of a 19 country coalition and Commander-in-Chief of a war not an example of handling political pressure?

[FrenchieCat]

14. Well you have time to do your homework

#1- Clark leadership skills, infectious energy, can-do attitude, broad vision and his world known National Security and Foreign Policy expertise should be wasted in Arkansas politics? The man is a NS/FP genious. Does Arkansas need his expertise more than does the world?

#2- I'm telling you, folks are getting tired of lifetime politicians. However, if you want business as usual, then you want a politician. Many are getting tired of the same 'ol same 'ol..... what about you? Many are now looking for a leader (it's not the same thing), not a politician. Many lament about what's going on in Washington, but many of those same folks are "afraid" of doing anything about it cause they want to be "safe"...which means "losers" in the end. Where do you fit?
Here's an interesting article dated today about this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1811930

#3- Clark ran in the political arena for the highest office of the land, and did fine in a very short time. Read this article: http://frenchiecat.forclark.com/story/2005/5/26/153030/893
and this one:
http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2004/02/18/opinion/myers.html
and this one:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30D17F93B590C738EDDAB0894DC404482

#4- The qualities that I want in a leader are those that cannot be found elsewhere. There are many Pols who are experienced in Domestic policies, but few who are well versed in the area of Foreign Policy & National Security (the issue that largely re-elected Bush--if you believe he kinda of won). Why have a bunch of folks who all have the same qualifications battling it out yet choose to ignore the one who's qualifications most don't have?

#5- You don't know Wes Clark--Obviously!

[zalinda]

21. And that's the problem, I don't know Wes Clark

Being in the service is quite different than being in politics. Would it hurt for him to be a congressman for 2 years? That would give every one a taste of how he would do in politics, rather than the service.

It's the same reason I couldn't vote for Nader, ever. Holding office can show your strengths and weaknesses. I'd rather know before they become President, how they deal with problems.

zalinda

[FrenchieCat]

23. He was in the service? my goodness, can you underplay

his career just a wee tad more?

Wes Clark has been dealing with politics for a long time. Amazing that you would want to put him in the house now. Look some leaders are politicians, and some are not. If you are inflexible to that idea, then I've got a few guys and gals for you to love....of course, we talking same ol' same ol'.

However, know one thing...those who have made the biggest difference in lives are not always politicians. You should talk to Nelson Mandela one day, if you ever get the pleasure. Come 'on....be a liberal and keep your mind open.

Waiting for the General
By Elizabeth Drew
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795
Clark displeased the defense secretary, Bill Cohen, and General Hugh Shelton, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, by arguing strenuously that—contrary to Clinton's decision— the option of using ground troops in Kosovo should remain open. But the problem seems to have gone further back. Some top military leaders objected to the idea of the US military fighting a war for humanitarian reasons. Clark had also favored military action against the genocide in Rwanda.

http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/001104.html
Clark was almost alone in pushing for a humanitarian intervention in Rwanda.

Pulitzer award winning Samantha Power for her book "A Problem from Hell" : America and the Age of Genocide
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060541644/qid=1114936910/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-7692952-2877630?v=glance&s=books
endorsed Wes Clark http://www.kiddingonthesquare.com/2003/12/redeeming_wes...
The following excerpts from Power's book give the details. The narrative surrounding the quotes was written by another person commenting on the book. Note especially Power's last comment below on Clark's pariah status in Washington:

General Clark is one of the heroes of Samantha Power's book. She introduces him on the second page of her chapter on Rwanda and describes his distress on learning about the genocide there and not being able to contact anyone in the Pentagon who really knew anything about it and/or about the Hutu and Tutsi.

She writes, "He frantically telephoned around the Pentagon for insight into the ethnic dimension of events in Rwanda. Unfortunately, Rwanda had never been of more than marginal concern to Washington's most influential planners" (p. 330) .

He advocated multinational action of some kind to stop the genocide. "Lieutenant General Wesley Clark looked to the White House for leadership. 'The Pentagon is always going to be the last to want to intervene,' he says. 'It is up to the civilians to tell us they want to do something and we'll figure out how to do it.' But with no powerful personalities or high-ranking officials arguing forcefully for meaningful action, midlevel Pentagon officials held sway, vetoing or stalling on hesitant proposals put forward by midlevel State Department and NSC officials" (p. 373).

According to Power, General Clark was already passionate about humanitarian concerns, especially genocide, before his appointment as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO forces in Europe.

She details his efforts in behalf of the Dayton Peace Accords and his brilliant command of NATO forces in Kosovo. Her chapter on Kosovo ends, "The man who probably contributed more than any other individual to Milosvevic's battlefield defeat was General Wesley Clark. The NATO bombing campaign succeeded in removing brutal Serb police units from Kosovo, in ensuring the return on 1.3 million Kosovo Albanians, and in securing for Albanians the right of self-governance."

"Yet in Washington Clark was a pariah. In July 1999 he was curtly informed that he would be replaced as supreme allied commander for Europe. This forced his retirement and ended thirty-four years of distinguished service. Favoring humanitarian intervention had never been a great career move."


Samantha Power's comments on Wesley Clark at the December 17, 2003, press conference in Concord, New Hampshire after the General's testimony at the Hague .

"Good afternoon. It's a real honor for me to be here with General Clark, and with Edita Tahiri. My name is Samantha Power. I spent about seven years looking into American responses to genocide in the twentieth century, and discovered something that may not surprise you but that did surprise me, which was that until 1999 the United States had actually never intervened to prevent genocide in our nation's history. Successive American presidents had done an absolutely terrific job pledging never again, and remembering the holocaust, but ultimately when genocide confronted them, they weighed the costs and the benefits of intervention, and they decided that the risks of getting involved were actually far greater than the other non-costs from the standpoint of the American public, of staying uninvolved or being bystanders. That changed in the mid-1990s, and it changed in large measure because General Clark rose through the ranks of the American military.

The mark of leadership is not to standup when everybody is standing, but rather to actually stand up when no one else is standing. And it was Pentagon reluctance to intervene in Rwanda, and in Bosnia, that actually made it much, much easier for political leaders to turn away. When the estimates started coming out of the Pentagon that were much more constructive, and proactive, and creative, one of the many deterrents to intervention melted away. And so I think, again, in discussing briefly the General's testimony, it's important to remember why he was able to testify at the Hague, and he testified because he decided to own something that was politically very, very unfashionable at the time."
http://www.kiddingonthesquare.com/2004/01/index.html

http://www.eamedia.org/2005/nr05/01.php
"US forces with a mandate and adequate cover should go in and stop the ethnic cleansing and genocide in Darfur," he said in answer to a question. "It has gone on long enough. Enough is enough. It must stop."

http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/USATODAY/2004/07/06/501055?extID=10026
Out of time in Darfur
By Wesley Clark and John Prendergast | Jul 06 '04
For the past year, the international community has shamefully acquiesced to the crimes against humanity occurring daily in the Sudanese province of Darfur.

"Janjaweed" militias, Arabs backed by the Sudanese government, are continuing to conduct mop-up operations against non-Arab villagers in a massive ethnic-cleansing campaign in the region. The current conflict flared early last year when two rebel groups in Darfur attacked government forces. The swelling crisis could leave hundreds of thousands dead in the coming months.

some comments about Wes Clark's involvement in attempting to get something done about Darfur.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/4018.html

[zalinda]

49. I wasn't underplaying his service

From MY understanding, when you are in the service, you give or receive orders, depending on where you are in the pecking order. From MY understanding, politics is more give and take and making sure feathers don't get ruffled too much to cause damage. Which is why Bolton is such a horrible choice for the UN.

When you are in the service all your life, sometimes it is difficult to cope with the give and take that politics sometimes demands of you. Now, how do I know this.......I have 2 uncles who were lifers. One quit the military because his wife asked him to, but couldn't cope and went back in the service again.

Wow, overacting much, I make a suggestion and I'm smacked down. Do you think the other jobs are beneath him? If he truly wants to "serve", Arkansas could really use his help. I truly wouldn't want anyone who ONLY wants to be President, and thinks anything else is beneath him.

zalinda

[Donna Zen]

50. Give and Take

From your uncles, you must be aware that the military is the most political of institutions. Sorry if you felt "smacked down" nevertheless, this "not ready for prime time politics" is a constant and weak complaint.

And yet, no one questions that governors have never negotiated international treaties, or read and understood vast amounts of high security intelligence. And they shouldn't.

Each candidate comes to the field with their own life experiences--their own skill set.

Are generals capable of being president? Well, out of 43, 11 have been generals. What you really want to look for is executive leadership, and that is what they have. Your tax dollars have provided hours of training in leadership, management, and team-building for the generals.

The Democrats have not had experience with military leaders among their ranks. No republican ever suggested the Powell run for congress before become SoS. Actually, the republicans tried to get Powell to run for the presidency. I guess that's why the republicans attract more generals: they understand who these people are, highly trained, very smart, leaders.

Clark was a prize that they wanted. He is a brilliant general, the most highly decorated since Eisenhower, and a diplomat with economic expertise. I'm sure they would have treated him much better than the Democrats have managed. But then again, he is that rarest of the rare--a liberal four star--O 10.

[Jai4WKC08]

51. I don't think anyone meant to smack you down...

But I do think your view of senior military leadership is narrow and based more on myth than reality. I'm not saying in any way hostile--people who haven't served, and even many who have, usually don't know any different, perhaps because of the way the media portrays military life.

At the general officer level, especially at the CinC-dom level, military service not just giving and taking orders. Really, it's not at any level of command. REAL leadership in the military, like anywhere, is more about negotiating than just giving orders. I say that as a retired military officer myself.

You can't really lead if can't get your subordinates to WANT to do what you want them to, and you don't operate in a vacuum--there are commanders of adjacent units, and staff officers of the same rank at other headquarters you need things from. It's not as cut and dried as a lot of people think.

But at a command like NATO, it's even more "political" because NATO command means working with other heads of state (Supreme Allied Commander has head-of-state status by treaty), and various ministers of defense, who are civilian political appointees, with all the give and take any elected official goes thru. And just as much political pressure--even more with Clark because there was a war to fight.

You see, ANY military action Clark wanted to take, even if ordered by the US chain of command, could be vetoed by ANY ONE of the 19 member nations of NATO. He couldn't just give them orders. Plus, he had to work with other regional heads of state who were not members of NATO, like the presidents or prime ministers of Albania, Macedonia, etc. And there were the Russians, who participated in the Bosnian peace keeping force, and eventually in Kosovo too. Granted, Madeleine Albright and her folks played a role there too, but Clark was on his own a lot of the time.

And then there's the fact that a regional CinC is sort of like a governor for the American community within his region. Clark was a CinC in two different regions. For each, he had to submit yearly budget, and budget projections, to Congress, and work with Congress for appropriations and approval of programs and their priorities. Not just for military stuff, but for schools, hospitals, housing, support facilities... all the things a governor goes to a state legislature for. Sure, the Sec of Defense does a some of the leg-work, but ultimately the CinC himself is responsible for what happens (or doesn't) in his area of responsibility, and he frequently goes directly to Congress to defend his actions and proposals, and has a liaison staff that works with the Congressional staff on a daily basis.

So yeah, after that level of leadership, a state role would be sort of a step down for Clark. I truly don't believe that Clark really cares about the level so much, but frankly the state-level stuff doesn't interest him, because he's done it all as a CinC, and has been working at the international level for so long.

One other thing... if you felt like people were piling on, it may be because you hit kind of a nerve with suggesting that Clark needs to be a governor or a legislator first, for several reasons.

One, because a lot of people use this argument as an excuse because they just don't want to see Clark win the nomination. Not saying that's your motive, but it's one we've seen many times. Two, a lot of us think one of Kerry's main vulnerabilities was that he'd been a senator for so long, with a record based on deal-making and vote-trading, and very hard to defend. As would any legislator--we think a nominee with executive experience is very important. And finally, because quite honestly, there is NO practical opportunity for Clark to hold another office, whether he wanted to or not.

In that last regard... Arkansas already has two Democratic senators, and Clark's district already has a Democratic congressman. All three are popular and not likely to retire or step down any time soon. They are not vulnerable, and even if they were, Clark would not undermine them.

Yes, he could run for governor in 2006, but there's a good, popular Democrat already planning to run whom he supports. And the simple fact is, he has said it would be wrong to run for governor, to take office in Jan '07, if he is even thinking of running for president in '08. He will not do that. He's not a guy who makes political promises only to break them. He's not a "typical" politician.

So if he were to run for governor, serve a term, that means he could not run until 2012, and only then if we lose in 2008, which none of hopes for--certainly NOT Clark--under any circumstances. So for those of us who hope passionately to see him in the White House, 2008 is his best and maybe only shot; it rules out the possibility of his seeking another office.

[CarolNYC]

60. fighting for schools

"And then there's the fact that a regional CinC is sort of like a governor for the American community within his region. Clark was a CinC in two different regions. For each, he had to submit yearly budget, and budget projections, to Congress, and work with Congress for appropriations and approval of programs and their priorities. Not just for military stuff, but for schools, hospitals, housing, support facilities... all the things a governor goes to a state legislature for. Sure, the Sec of Defense does a some of the leg-work, but ultimately the CinC himself is responsible for what happens (or doesn't) in his area of responsibility, and he frequently goes directly to Congress to defend his actions and proposals, and has a liaison staff that works with the Congressional staff on a daily basis."

At the Chris Heinz thing, he told of how he fought to get a new school while at Ft. Irwin. There was a lot of persistence, bringing Congressmen to the school, pulling together statistics, arguing, pestering, etc, etc....but he didn't give up and he did get the school. This is a man who know how to get a mission accomplished. :)

[zalinda]

63. Thank you for not treating me as a

stupid person. Many on this board treat a question as if it is a personal attack. First, I said I like Clark, and would have voted for him if he had won the primary. Second, I am a pragmatist, I think a number of the candidates last fall were qualified, and could have done a good job. Third, to think that ONLY your "guy" is the guy for the job, and no one else, is a big reason that the dems lose. The repubs back the guy who won their primary 100%. You don't hear grumbling about THEIR guy not winning, and that the primary was a fix. For years afterward, you still hear dems grumbling about their robbery.

I understand that the dems are not in lock step like the repubs, but you can certainly treat questions about your "guy" with more respect than with a dismissive attitude. Do I disagree with some dems, sure, you bet. But, I'm not going to disrespect their view points, just so I can be right. Remember, you catch more "bees" with honey.......I know it should be flies, (before some one here corrects me)but, the premise is that you can attract more worker bees to the dem party, if you don't treat them as if they have nothing important to say.

zalinda

[Tom Rinaldo]

64. You had a good question

It's not your fault that you weren't logged onto DU other times when other people asked the same question. It comes up fairly regularly here, but so what? It always deserves a serious reply and you will certainly not be the last sincere person to ask that about Clark, so those of us who have already answered that question to our own satisfaction should welcome the chance to give our answers to it for others.

Anyway, that's the way it should be in an ideal world, lol. I haven't read through this whole thread yet, but the tone overall has been decent. I see that more than one person has engaged your question with the thoughtful reply it deserves. It is true, as one poster above noted, that backers of one Democrat over another for a possible Presidential run have at times "jostled" with each other at DU. Sometimes that takes the form of shooting holes into "rival" Democrats prospects. One target that some, who would prefer that Clark not be the 2008 nominee, have taken aim at is Clark's "lack of political experience". There were a few who raised that same issue repeatedly while barely acknowledging any of the substantive comments on the replies given them, no matter how thoughtful and thorough those replies may have been. In other words, a few have shown little or no interest in discussing that question about Clark, their goal instead seemed simply to insert that question repeatedly into any discussion of Clark as a possible Democratic Presidential candidate in a form of dismissal.

This is not a problem only Clark supporters encounter. There always seem to be a few posters who repeatedly show up on threads to poke at perceived holes in this or that Democrats "armor", sometimes the concerns are sincere, at other times some different agenda appears to be in play. Such is life on political message boards. Sorry that you perhaps picked up some residual static. For the record, while I hope Clark will be the Democrat's nominee in 2008 he is not the only Democrat who I would support for President, and I agree it is rarely helpful, at least at this point in time, for us to go around seriously tearing into any Democrats right now when there are a host of Republicans waiting to be taken down.

I hope some of the answers you got to your question were helpful.

[AP]

52. At the very least, it'd be interesting to see which interests got his ear

and how he'd vote on various issues.

I generally don't think resumes need to be padded with elected office experience to run for president. If it's clear what your motivations are, and it's clear who you'd represent, that's good enough for me. But if it takes elected office to bring that stuff to the surface...well...

[Jai4WKC08]

58. I just had a funny thought...

Can you imagine which committees the repub "leadership" in Congress would make SURE he got assigned to?

'Nuff said.

[FrenchieCat]

53. Is it an overeaction ? Well, I am certaintly NOT a DIPLOMAT....so

let me put it this way. It is curious that, although I provided information on the General....you chose to comment on none of it, and instead came back with some personal antitode as to why you still feel correct in your assertion that Clark should just shuffle his ass over to some legislature somewhere and get the hell out of the national picture.

Did your "uncles" negotiate peace treaties, urge action against Genocide, lead hundreds of thousands of troups, including looking after the welfare of these troups' families along with the schooling of their children? Did your uncles plan, lead and win wars? Did they write any best selling books? Were your uncles Rhode scholars, 1st in their classes at West Point, Oxford graduates with masters in Politics, Philophy and economics? Were your uncles College Professors who taught social Science and philosophy? What about Investment Banking? Were your Uncles NATO Allied Supreme Commanders? Did your Uncles testify under oath many times over in front of both houses of congress? Did your Uncles encourage Sye Hersch to write a lot of what he's written? What about what Richard Clarke had to say about this admin? Did you uncles run for President of the United states, and in 4 short months raise more than most who had been in the race three times as long; win a primary, come in second in 3 others, and 3rd in 3 more? Did your uncles act as surrogates during an entire general election period for one of the candidates? Did your uncles do any commentating on National television? Did your uncles, on national television, defend the right of those who dissented (while we were at an all time nationalistic high) against the conventional wisdom....without fear and without care to their own reputations? Are your Uncles' names on John O'Neill's Wall of Heroes? Did they expose PNAC and "Neocons" to the world?

(on edit) AP, did John Edwards do any of these things as well? Well he did run for President and win a primary, and some 2nd and 3rd places.....that he did do.

Well you see where I am going. Your comparing the experience of your "uncles", talking about your understanding of what the army is all about compared to the political world, with what General Wes Clark has experienced and lived is somewhat a bit silly, IMO.

If you haven't heard...it takes confidence and quite an ego to run for President. Ask John Kerry, John Edwards, and so many others who have done it.... Why you should be surprised, I don't really know.

Had you read what I provided, and were of good faith, you would have least discussed the facts that I presented you with. The fact that Wes Clark did not always follow orders, and many times tried to change orders that he received at the cost of his career in the army if it didn't meet his principles...and loudly at that.

Yours is the same excuse that many use who want to minimize what it is that Wes Clark offers our nation....as opposed to lifelong Democratic politicians that don't seem to win jackshit.

Sorry, but discerning DUers and Clarkies can spot bogus arguments from miles away. We're used to it. Try not to be so taken aback.

DU is about political debate...and smackdowns are not unheard of in these parts.

[chknltl]

137. Thank you for the link

Went there, read the speech, left a letter, saved the page in my faves, WILL vote for Mr. Clark and lastly I DO feel that his prior service to America is a great reflection of how he would handle service to the world as President of the United States.

[Sparkly]

46. I don't know why the legislature is so often seen as "President School."

It's become a common assumption, and I respect your right to the opinion, but in my view being a legislator isn't a pre-requisite for anything. Nothing against them, either.

[Gloria]

55. Did Eisenhower serve in Congress for 2 years???

Nope.

From a bio:

After the war, he became President of Columbia University, then took leave to assume supreme command over the new NATO forces being assembled in 1951. Republican emissaries to his headquarters near Paris persuaded him to run for President in 1952.



While Clark hasn't been a university president, he has been a teacher AND a businessman with many interests in new technology.

Oh, and look. Eisenhower was supreme commander of NATO, Clark was a supreme commander as well....NATO's Supreme Allied Commander, Europe.

[AP]

If Eisenhower had been in Congress and if people saw how he voted, and

they saw who got his ear, and saw that he wasn't a big fan of democracy movement (eg, Mossadegh in Iran), maybe they wouldn't have been willing to elect him president. IIUC, people didn't know if Eisehnhower was a democrat or a republican until he announced he was running for president, and a lot of people probably thought he was fairly liberal (having been an Ivy League university president).

Perhaps if people realized that he was pretty conservative (especially on FP) enough people would have felt more comfortable voting for the Democrat that the Dems would have narrowly won.

[AP]

68. ...

...

[chknltl]

25. Clinton/Clark '08?????

.....just a thought. I have always felt in my heart of hearts that Wes Clark would have made a great president. He positively exudes honesty, unlike our current Antichrist

[Totally Committed]

35. Make that Clark/Clinton and I might be okay with it...

POTUS is the CIC, while the V-POTUS is the head of the Senate. So, that order would make the division of tasks more appropriate, imo.

But, '08 is still way far off, and neither of them has announced, so the point is moot.

TC

[Totally Committed]

22. ??? Don't know how he'll react ???

He won a war, while leading a 19 country coalition, without sustaining one casualty.

He is the highest decorated officer since Eisenhower.

He opposed this war with Iraq.

He is now the "go to" guy on foreign policy and national security for Pelosi, Reid, and the Democratic Party.

He has a chief negotiator for the Dayton Accords.

He was a Rhodes Scholar, and one of his Graduate degrees is in Economics, and another is in Philosophy.

He's the author of many articles, Op-Eds and two books.

There's more, but really.... You don't know how he'd react??? :banghead:

TC

[Texifornia]

24. Handle pressure?

He earned a Silver Star as a combat company commander. Political pressure is nothing compared to that.

However, the political pressure on him was more during the Kosovo campaign than has been endured by any elected official in congress.

Finally, Senators and Congressmen lose presidential election. They lose them all the time. Generals usually win general elections.

General Clark beat three Senators (Mosley-Braun, Lieberman, and Graham) two Congressmen (Kuchinich and Gephardt) and won as many states as Senator Edwards and Governor Dean. All of this while starting a year later than all of them.

Running for a lesser post simply destroys Clark's chances at the Whitehouse.

[Sparkly]

44. Yeah, but can he handle pressure?

:hide: :crazy:

[FrenchieCat]

45. That's all he's done all of his life.....

Clark has lived in nothing but Pressure Cookers!

[Sparkly]

47. Yeah but...

Has he pushed enough paper, had enough strings attached, compiled enough of a voting record for his opponents to use?

Has he speechified daily, has he held forth on peripheral topics "for the record," has he rubbed elbows in committees?

Has he met the hard objectives of road-building projects, had sufficient photo-ops, secured pork for local projects, erected a monument someplace to commemorate something?

Again, nothing against legislators, but the idea that they're the only ones "pressured" or who make independent (!) decisions is ludicrous.

[howmad1]

34. Pressure?

Listen, if the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, a Rhodes Scholar, first in his class in West Point, and 4 star General can't handle political pressure, fahgetaboutit! I mean, look at our current president putz, doesn't he handle pressure quite well? Gimme a break. This guy has lived in pressure situations all his life.

[Totally Committed]

11. Thanks for the info!

I am proud to see Wes doing so much for the Democratic Party. And, I'm happy to see the Democratic Party recognizing him for it.

TC

[welshTerrier2]

12. i hope he spends most of the time talking about PEACE ...

peace in Iraq ... peace in Syria ... peace in Iran ...

Democrats are useless if they continue to co-sponsor bush's imperialism ...

i've had numerous conversations with many of DU's Clark supporters and i hold them in the highest regard ... let's hope their guy earns his stripes by setting the Democratic Party on the path to peace ...

[dogman]

15. I saw him speak in person last week.

He is very concerned that Bushco is making no attempt to deal with Iran and is likely to attack. He is also disappointed with their failures to deal with North Korea. He has argued with Perle that you must deal with these nations diplomatically even if it might eventually fail. War is the last resort.

[CJCRANE]

16. It's clear

that Clark's not a jingoist - the troops are like family to him, only to be used as last resort.

[Dinger]

96. "The Troops Are Like Family To Him"

Yes, Wesley Clark cares deeply for our men and women in uniform. The giggling murderer in the sees them as "collateral damage."

[Jai4WKC08]

56. Clark wants peace in all those places

But he doesn't believe that peace is served by allowing Iraq to lapse into civil war.

He does want to involve all the nations in the region, and take the Americans out of an occupying role, ultimately out of any military role. He wants to talk directly to Syria and Iran, and make them see how it can be in THEIR interests for a democratic Iraq to exist. He has advocated for a regional dialogue, and the creation of an international force, headed by a non-US military command, with inclusion of neighboring Arab nations, to provide for Iraqi internal security. He knows that resolving the Palestinian problems are key to defusing anti-American sentiment among Arab populaces. And he sure as hell is against expanding the conflict by attacking Iran, or any other nation, unless there is an imminent threat and all other means of containing it have been exhausted.

But he won't propose an immediate pull-out of US forces from Iraq, if that's what you're looking for.

Clark was against invading Iraq from the beginning, but he takes it as a given that we're there, and what we do next has to be based on how things are now, not how they should be.

Butcha know, I have no clue if any of this will come up in Saturday's broadcast at all. I know that Clark believes "national security" is a lot more than just what we're doing, or should do, vis-a-vis Iraq, Iran, Syria and Korea. For him, it's also the economy, the environment, civil liberties, education, health care--all the things needed to make America strong and Americans secure.

And it's honoring the people who serve the nation, both in the military, and in hundreds of civilian roles, and meeting our commitments to those people and their families. This being Memorial Day weekend, I'd sort of be surprised if he strays too far from that concept.

[FrenchieCat]

65. I agree that this radio address will not be made for the point of

dogging George Bush as much as it will be to recognize our servicemen and women on this Memorial Weekend. However, knowing the General, he will get something in that will not be pleasant to BushCo. He's good at that....hence, the Pubs hate him the most out of all potential anything.

Hell, in the Repugs' eyes, Wes is a traitor....since he's the only 4 star General to ever declare himself a Democrat. He broke their record on that one, and they don't like that one fucking bit. They've got their disreputed Colin Powell and their "Party before Nation" Tommy Franks. What they ain't got is a charismatic intellectual informed good looking superstar 4 star General. They hate that shit!

Good! :applause:

[Jai4WKC08]

66. "...he will get something in that will not be pleasant to BushCo."

Heh-heh. Yeah, I look forward to it. He never fails to stick it to Bush, one way or th'other. Depending on the audience, sometimes he's a little too subtle for many people; sometimes he slaps Bush in the face. Either way, he never dissappoints.
:evilgrin:
(I need the "evil grin" smilie smoking the cigarette--it's just that good.)

[Totally Committed]

67. Nothing will ever equal his...

"...prancing on the deck of an aircraft carrier..." remark. I still laugh out loud whenever I think of him saying that one.

TC

[returnable]

17. Kickin'

:toast:

[Adelante]

18. GO WES!!

:bounce:

He's spending 75% of his waking hours on work for Dems, it seems.

[Pithy Cherub]

19. Thank you for keeping our ears and eyes peeled

on what General Clark is doing! :woohoo:

must remember to turn on radio :freak:

[Dr Fate]

20. I kinda like this fella.

Looking forward to it.

[Clark2008]

91. I kinda LOVE this fella!

:7

:hi: Dr. Fate. Nice to see you under less flaming circumstances! (You know I'm joking with you. ;) )

[snowbear]

26. The General ...ROCKS.....

~~~ :yourock: ~~~

I caught ex-DNC Chair Terry McAuliffe on.. :think: .. I think it was WoofWoof.. (one of those shows) and he was asked something to the tune of:

..."With the war on terror being such a vital issue, why wouldn't Democrats want a candidate like General Wesley Clark over someone like Hillary Clinton?"

McAuliffe response was something like.. "Look, I'm not saying that's not a very good possibility, General Clark would be a stellar candidate Democrats choose"..

He went on to praise Hillary.. but I was happy that for the first time in.. EONS... Wes Clark was actually brought up in a conversation about '08 candidates!!! :o

:bounce:

[Auntie Bush]

32. I saw that too and thought the same thing. He actually seemed

enthusiastic about Clark. But yes, he was still pushing Hillary. Then Donna Brazil came on and continued to push Hillary too. Bummer! But I'm happy to see the MSM bringing up his name as a possibility...something they haven't dared to do. It's looking like it will be different with the next election. :woohoo:

[tishaLA]

39. He was doing more than pushing Hillary

it was like he was her fucking campaign director. Bill Richardson? Oh he's great, but you know Hillary brings everything he has to the table and more. John Kerry? He did a great job last year, but Hillary has everything he has and more. John Edwards? Oh he's a wonderful speaker, but Hillary has everything he has and more.

Terry Mac was, as usual, repulsive. I felt like he only wanted to talk about the Senator from NY--and I like her by and large, mind you--and everyone else was just filler.

[FrenchieCat]

43. Well, McAuliffe was DNC Chair grace of Clinton....

so yeah...he's probably pushing her.

What's new. Him and a lot of others are doing it.

Thank Goodness he is no longer the DNC Chair! Yeah!

[Totally Committed]

62. "Thank Goodness he is no longer the DNC Chair!"

A thousand thanks to all political gods for that! He was a yutz!

TC

[Clark2008]

93. Sounds like Donna needs to be "Clarked" again.

It just pisses me off how she continues to push for the status quo.

Why do these people think Hillary could flip any red states? Voting machines aside, we need to be concentrating on flipping a red state or two or three. Flipping a red state or two or three would not only better unite this country in perception, it would also give Dems a chance to win at a high enough percentage that the damn Diebolds won't matter.

[Dinger]

97. Donna Brazille - Yawn . . . .

Same ol'same ol'

[Totally Committed]

141. Donna Brazile

has ended up being one of the biggest disappointments for me. I used to really like her, but she has become increasingly pro-"status-quo", and this party is in desperate need of shaking up if it is wever going to win an election cycle again.

TC

[Clarkie1]

27. Excellent news: "Democrats are the Party of National Security"

"Strengthening our national defense. Rebuilding our economy. Providing families with affordable health care. Making America energy independent. Securing our retirement. That's our agenda." - Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, National Press Club, May 26, 2005

Harry Reid also said today:
"We need a common sense reform agenda for the common good. And that starts with defending our nation and making it more secure. As of this month, more time has passed since 9-11 than the time between Pearl Harbor and the defeat of Japan. During those three years and eight months - sixty years ago - we invaded North Africa and Normandy. We freed people from the Philippines to France. Hitler lay dead and Tojo was in chains. We had defeated fascism around the world and had begun to build the new United Nations.
"But today Osama bin Laden is still on the loose, our homeland is still not secure, we're still not energy independent, and - in many ways - Americans are less safe than we were before 9-11.

"Democrats are the party of national security. And we have an agenda to defend America from danger. We stand for increasing our military strength by 40,000 troops so we can wage the War on Terror on every front. We stand for securing our borders and bridges, our seaports and airports, our nuclear and chemical plants. We stand for tracking down and securing the loose nuclear weapons that threaten our people. And we will honor our troops and their families by making sure they get the benefits they have earned."

The only thing I see missing from Reid's agenda is VOTING REFORM. This is critical. There can be no national security without securing the integrity of our own Democratic processes.

Looking forward to hearing Wes Saturday morning! Thanks for the heads-up, Frenchiecat!

[FrenchieCat]

28. You are welcome,

And I agree with you that Voter reform should be one of THE MAIN issues for Democrats to push. Without that one, we are losers forever more...except for maybe a Cloture vote here and there.

[Adelante]

29. That was my one disappointment with the agenda

No voting reform.

Wes has gotten more and more into it, though, so maybe he can have an influence there, too.

[yebrent]

30. You can tell Reid has been talking with Clark

"Democrats are the party of national security" has been Clark's main talking point for some time now. He is taking a page from Rove's playbook, by going after the opponents strength and neutralizing it. If the the Repukes lose national security as their issue, then they are done with.

[FrenchieCat]

31. Where you can access the address.....

There will be a link posted on Saturday on www.DNC.org
Saturday, May 28th at 12:00pm ET.

[Donna Zen]

33. Memorial Day

For those of you wishing for a Clark anti-Iraq smack down, while he is excellent with those, I'm going to assume that this will be a tribute to those who have died in battle. I think that he will adhere to the traditional intention of the day.

Note: regarding voting, or non-voting in America's case, Clark included it in his speech to the ACLU last Saturday. We send him lots and lots of information. One of the bloggers recently spoke with him in NYC, and he is aware of our concerns.

[FrenchieCat]

36. Plus I believe he is pushing for a voting holiday....

and understands the Diebold issue.

[dogman]

41. Yes, when asked about the issue he said without a doubt

one problem in Ohio was the lack of machines. Working people who would most likely vote Democratic could not spend there day waiting to vote. The best solution would be a National Holiday. Lets face it, this chance to vote is more important than any Holiday we have. It needs to be a Holiday where everyone is off except life saving personnel. It would then serve as a reminder to people what makes the rest of there life livable.

[RAF]

37. Nice, That's a big gig.

Kind of telling of the respect Wes Clark has among the leadership. Radio responses aren't handed out lightly.

[Adelante]

76. He did it once before that I remember

About a year ago.

[FourStarDemocrat]

38. Good news. I'll be tuning in. :-)

I have a feeling that it being Memorial Day, Wes may also remind the country how our veterans are losing benefits and getting the grand kick in their butts while they are the ones risking their lives for Bush's war.

[CarolNYC]

40. Go Wes!

Very cool...Thanks for the heads up, Frenchie...about this and the Franken thing on Monday.

[Sparkly]

42. Yeah!!!

Go, General!

Go, General!

Go, General!

(Fine, go ahead and call me a Clark cheerleader!)

[FrenchieCat]

48. I will.....you, you, you

Cheerleader, you!
But then, that's OK...cause So am I!

[LuPeRcALiO]

54. thanks, I'll tune in

if I'm awake anyway...

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FrenchieCat]

59. Self Deleted because

My kick ass response was no longer required. :applause:

[Adelante]

78. Damn! I'm sorry I missed it

:woohoo: It's Saturday!! :woohoo:

There's nothing on the DNC website about today's radio response. What's up with that? :wtf:

[FrenchieCat]

79. Didn't see it at the DNC site either....

(how unimpressive!)

Anyway, Think you can hear it broacasted at 2:40?
http://www.cspan.org/watch/cspanradio.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CSR&ShowVidDays=30&ShowVidDesc=&ArchiveDays=30

[Jai4WKC08]

81. I just did a site search at the DNC site

For "Clark." Not one entry pertaining the Wesley or Wes Clark, or anything related, came up.

So on the entire DNC website, there is NOTHING about what the General has been doing for the party???

:grr:

[tishaLA]

109. If you do a search at the DNC site

You come up swith next to nothing for Nancy Pelosi, too! Or John Edwards. Or John Conyers. It's unreal.

[Totally Committed]

143. No one should have to do a SEARCH at the DNC site...

for a transcript of the Memorial Day Radio Address! That's why this Party is in the crapper right now, I swear!

I went over the the "Kicking Ass" Blog yesterday evening and it was front and center. Hope it is still that way -- prominently there for all the world to see. The Democrats need to become the Party that supports the troops, that demonstrates a really compassionate view of how they and their families are cared-for and respected, national security, and who stand for a Foreign Policy that is not a bombastic display of arrogance.

TC

[Ilsa]

61. Thanks, I'll check it out.

I love Wes Clark!

[prvet]

69. I Love this Guy

Hope he runs

[Totally Committed]

75. Welcome, prvet!

(I hope he runs, too.)

TC

[Totally Committed]

70. From Wes --

from Wespac:

Dear --,

On Monday, America honors the many brave men and women in uniform who have given their lives to the cause of freedom throughout our nation's history.

Memorial Day first began in the late 1800s as a holiday to commemorate the sacrifice of Civil War soldiers. Since World War I, our nation has observed Memorial Day to honor and remember all the dedicated servicemen and women who have died in every American military conflict.

This year, with our nation at war and tens of thousands of our fellow Americans serving bravely in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world, Memorial Day is especially significant. I hope you will join me in observing Memorial Day this Monday at an event in your community as we remember the servicemen and women who have died for our country.

On Saturday, I will be delivering the Democratic response to the President's weekly radio address. I'll be thanking all of our brave men and women in uniform for their service. And I'll be urging Congress and the White House to honor their service - by providing our soldiers and their families with all of the support they deserve, in and out of battle. It's the least we can do - and it's high time that we do it.

I invite you to listen to Saturday's radio address on a local station near you. You can also check back at SecuringAmerica.com Saturday afternoon, where we'll post a link to my remarks online as soon as they become available.

Please join me this Memorial Day as we honor the dedication and sacrifice of America's armed forces throughout the history of our nation.

Gert and I send our best wishes to you and your family for a safe and happy Memorial Day weekend.


Sincerely,
Wes Clark

----

TC

[Gloria]

74. His message sent chills down my spine....I knew he was going to

address the current degradation of the troops by this WH and Congress in his talk tomorrow!!

Can't wait to hear it and I'm so glad it will be archived at the WesPac site...hopefully, we an download it for permanent repose on our hard drives....

[Coexist]

72. My personal take on General Clark and this red state

I live in Florida - whether or not it is actually red is anybody's guess, but any race will be tight either way. The barometer of Florida is Pasco County. Once Pasco was called for Jeb, he knew he had won. When Pasco was called for George in 2004, he knew he had the state. It is widely recognized for being first in with results and it's ability to be a microcosm of the state in general (politically).

I live in Pasco County. I am very involved in this county. When I look at candidates for President, I can tell you if they will sell here or not. Hillary will never sell. Kerry is a tough sell. To win this county overwhelmingly (which is what you will need to do to win the state) you need a certain something that they don't have.

I have come up with this simple litmus test. Laugh if you want to, but I know these people. If a candidate can walk out onto a stage to "Hair of the Dog" by Nazareth, and not have people snickering or rolling their eyes - he or she will walk away with Pasco. From the ranches to the suburbs here, they want a leader who commands their respect. They don't want pretty speeches with hope for the future and all the same rhetoric they hear every two years from politicians. He/She doesn't have to follow Nascar, they don't have to follow football - both would help - but they have to be a firm leader - end of story. General Clark is the only Democrat out there right now that fits this bill besides Boxer, and Boxer won't run. Conyer's is close, but his manner of speaking would put people off here - he is too sophisticated and deliberate. Clark calls a spade a spade and has the credentials to shut up the Republicans who cater to the Dems-are-politically-correct-wimps crowd.

Whether or not it is right to judge a leader by his kick-ass ability is another question. But General Clark has what it takes to be a winner in this key state - and I am backing that winner 100%. I hope the rest of the Democrats agree next Primary go-round.

[Clark2008]

99. You know, I could close my eyes and SEE Clark walking out

to "Now you're messing with a... son of a bitch..." and, as a tough-as-nails battle-hardened soldier, he could pull that off with nary a whimper of laughter from the crowd.

Oh, that so rocks, FLDem!

:hi:

[applegrove]

73. Check out today's Darfur: Daily News May 27, 2005

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3742377&mesg_id=3742377

[FrenchieCat]

77. DNC site has nothing about an address there...just a pic of Dean (LOL!)

Think you can hear it streaming here though:

http://www.cspan.org/watch/cspanradio.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CSR&ShowVidDays=30&ShowVidDesc=&ArchiveDays=30

[Gloria]

85. 2:50 pm ET on CSpan radio stream.....

according to their schedule.

[LuPeRcALiO]

80. pretty good Memorial Day message!

Hell to find it though. Does the DNC even know they have a weekly radio address?

[Adelante]

82. It used to be on there

Maybe they are upgrading that website or something.

I also looked for the party's "Critical Issues Survey" which is being distributed all over, apparently, but nothing online.

[LuPeRcALiO]

83. link from the radio station: "Not Found"

here's the link from the station (KNX1070.com):

DEMOCRATIC ADDRESS
various
Saturdays: 8:06 AM
www.democrats.senate.gov/radio.html

:shrug:

[welshTerrier2]

84. It's on Now ... is there a link ?????????????? n/t

[FrenchieCat]

86. As Democrats.....we are going to have to do better than this....

I wanted to listen to the address, but couldn't!

I know that belonging to the Democratic Party is like belonging to an unorganized Party....but this is ridiculous!

Will stream at 2:40 on C-Span Radio.....I guess.

[Coexist]

87. unreal - nothing on DNC.org where it was supposed to be

unbelievable

[LuPeRcALiO]

88. It's a good message, not too political and very inspiring

mostly about supporting the troops but also about making sure they have the body armor and vehicles they need (hint, hint). Also using all diplomatic means before taking military action. Worth waiting for IMHO.

Heard it on the radio about a hour ago.

[Totally Committed]

90. Typical...

I forget who said this: "I don't belong to a organized Political Party, I'm a Democrat."

TC

[Jai4WKC08]

140. Will Rogers n/t

:kick:

[Totally Committed]

89. A Couple of Articles About the Address:

Wesley Clark remembers those in uniform this Memorial Day weekend

WASHINGTON Former Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark is remembering those who inspired him to enter the military this Memorial Day weekend.

Speaking in the Democrats' weekly radio address, the retired Army general said he'll always remember "those who selflessly gave their lives and paid the ultimate price so that we could live in freedom."
Clark also used the address to insist that Reserve and National Guard members receive health insurance for themselves and their families through the military's health care system, just as the active force does.

http://www.10tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=3404324

----

Bush Honors War Dead in Radio Address

Excerpt:

Retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark, who was a candidate for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, said in the party's broadcast Saturday that Memorial Day recalled personal memories.

"This Monday, I will be remembering those in uniform who served in World War II and Korea and inspired me to enter military service in 1962," Clark said. "Like many others of my generation, I will also be remembering the many times I visited the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington. I will remember those who selflessly gave their lives and paid the ultimate price so that we could live in freedom."

Clark also used his address to insist that Reserve and National Guard members receive health insurance for themselves and their families through TRICARE, the military's health care system, just as the active force does.

"And just as importantly, we have got to keep our promises to veterans and provide them the medical care they need," Clark said. "That means fully funding the Veterans Administration system."

http://www.appeal-democrat.com/articles/2005/05/28/ap/headlines/d8ac8iq80.txt

TC

[FrenchieCat]

92. I see the Wes' Jab on Bush ...just in these articles.

Cause we all know that Bush really didn't "serve".

Clark said "....Memorial Day recalled personal memories."

"I will be remembering those in uniform who served in World War II and Korea and inspired me to enter military service in 1962," Clark said. "Like many others of my generation, I will also be remembering the many times I visited the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington. "

[Clark2008]

94. Here's more

Clark urges expanding reservist health care
2004 presidential candidate offers Democratic response to Bush

(AP) -- Retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark used the Democrats' radio broadcast Saturday to insist that Reserve and National Guard members and their families should receive the same health insurance as the active force does.

"And just as importantly, we have got to keep our promises to veterans and provide them the medical care they need," Clark said. "That means fully funding the Veterans Administration system."

"This Monday, I will be remembering those in uniform who served in World War II and Korea and inspired me to enter military service in 1962," he said.

"Like many others of my generation, I will also be remembering the many times I visited the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington. I will remember those who selflessly gave their lives and paid the ultimate price so that we could live in freedom."

Also timed for Memorial Day, the House Democratic campaign committee is rolling out an advertising campaign this weekend accusing House Republicans of failing to support National Guard and Reserve troops.



http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/28/dems.radio.ap/index.html?section=cnn_latest

[Totally Committed]

95. MP3 and Transcript now up...

at:

http://www.democrats.org/blog/comment/00012116.html

TC

[snowbear]

98. Thanks!! I just turned it on....

He's incredible, as always!! :hug:

[welshTerrier2]

100. sorry ... very disappointed ...

not a word about our corrupt foreign policy beyond:

"America continues to face a national security challenge." and
"Democrats stand for a strong foreign policy" and
"Democrats want to expand America's active duty forces by 40,000 so we can effectively fight the war on terror." ...

how can we be the "stewards of their sacrifice" when we fail to fight against policies that exploit them ???? just what "stewarding" will we do as they are moved like expendable pawns into Syria and Iran? why talk ONLY about honoring veterans and ensuring they receive the necessary support when so many more are likely to be killed by an immoral and illegal foreign policy ???

Democrats are so busy "standing for a strong foreign policy" that we are not standing up for an appropriate use of the military ... it's a very sad business that on a Memorial Day weekend, the one word that we did not hear was "PEACE" ...

sorry, but i was very disappointed in this speech ... i did not expect Clark to call for near-term withdrawal from Iraq but i did think it was important, in the context of honoring veterans, to talk about the hawkish rhetoric eminating from both parties and the likely effect that will have on those in our Armed Forces ...

[Clark2008]

101. It was a MEMORIAL DAY speech - not a political one.

He wasn't supposed to spend his five minutes (and that's about all he got) popping Bush. He was honoring our soldiers.

I think you expected too much.

[welshTerrier2]

102. Memorial Day should be a day to honor veterans by honoring PEACE

i appreciate that he was "honoring our soldiers" ... i just don't think he chose the best way to do that ...

we are on the brink of war with Syria and Iran and maybe other countries ... perhaps more than 100,000 Americans will be put in harm's way to help achieve a totally corrupt foreign policy ... Memorial Day speeches don't have to be about "politics" ... but they should be about the most important aspects of how we treat Americans in uniform ...

to ignore the issue of PEACE, especially given the lies and exploitation we've seen from the current administration, does not seem like the most effective way to "honor our soldiers" ... i'm sorry, but i just don't see that as "expecting too much" ...

[FrenchieCat]

105. Memorial Day is about those who have fallen.....

in WAR....

Only George Orwell and George Bush have stated that War is Peace and Peace is War.

Confusing the two is not the way to go.

Your mind's made up though....so be it.

[FrenchieCat]

103. There's a time and place for everything....

Alienating veterans by being more political than is required on such a solemn occasion would be in bad taste......for most Americans.

This message was not for you, it was for those who fought, are fighting, and for their families....

Memorial Day is a day of solemn remembrance of the war dead...regardless of their party affiliation.

[welshTerrier2]

106. a very wise DU'er said this ...

"However, knowing the General, he will get something in that will not be pleasant to BushCo."

[FrenchieCat]

113. Very wise indeed....

:hi:

[Clark2008]

116. And he did, but not too much

He talked about how he is personally effected (as opposed to the chickenhawk Bush) and how Bush isn't taking care of our soldiers.

It was a small bash in an otherwise kind honoring of our soldiers. Like adding spice to a dish.

[Totally Committed]

107. Right...

as I understood it, it was a Memorial Day speech to honor the men and women in the service, the veterans, not to go after America's policy vis a vie war and peace.

At least that's what I understood. Within those parameters, the speed was extraordinary, imo.

TC

[dogman]

104. It is Memorial Day and so an expected tribute is appropriate.

This was included and is consistent with his previous views. It is a mild rebuke of Bushco and is in line with not using the military to play politics, yet still make the point that the present administration has failed our troops.
"As Democrats, we stand for a strong Armed Forces and we stand for a strong foreign policy too. We believe in using every means at our disposal to protect our nation and to advance our values. That means using diplomacy, international law, allies, our economic might and yes, as a last resort, we'll use force. But when we do so, we'll do it the right way.

We'll go in with a plan that works from start to finish and that gives us the power to prevail on the battlefield and after."

[welshTerrier2]

108. was the quote you provided part of today's speech?

or was that from a different speech?

my point is NOT that Clark shouldn't have made an "expected tribute" to those in uniform ... my point is that i wish he had done so in a very different manner ...

[dogman]

110. Yes it was from today's speech.

He usually manages to get the message in context.

[welshTerrier2]

111. yikes ... is this transcript NOT an accurate record ???

someone posted the following link as a transcript of Clark's speech ... my comments above are based on the transcript I read ...

http://www.securingamerica.com/?q=speeches/2004-05-28

is this NOT an accurate record ????

the following quote you posted makes the speech much more tolerable than the transcript I read:

"That means using diplomacy, international law, allies, our economic might and yes, as a last resort, we'll use force. But when we do so, we'll do it the right way.

We'll go in with a plan that works from start to finish and that gives us the power to prevail on the battlefield and after."

[dogman]

112. They are the same I believe.

I went to the link in post 95.
http://www.democrats.org/blog/comment/00012116.html
There is an MP3 of the actual speech there. I found the same sentences in the link you show also. As I said it is not the main thrust of honoring troops but as you have said it is an important part of the larger picture.

[welshTerrier2]

115. whoa ... a page refresh produced different text !!!

after your last post, i looked for the sentences i asked about above ... they were definitely NOT THERE ... i couldn't understand how you were seeing something different from what i was seeing ... so, i tried a page refresh and voila ... the text was different than the original text that link had provided ...

i have no idea why the page was updated ... i wonder if they had a pre-release copy of the speech that did not include the sentences we've been discussing ...

[dogman]

118. That could have been it.

All's well that ends well. I was glad to see he got something in with out being outlandish on a solemn occasion like this.

[Clark2008]

121. I think they did have a pre-release copy

And then, probably updated it upon the release of the official transcript.

[dogman]

122. That is what has been posted on the CCN chat.

It's even better to see Wes is able to make improvements on short notice.

[Totally Committed]

120. welshTerrier2, please remember

that because this was a Democratic Party's Radio address, the Democratic Party's policies and agenda are expressed in the words of the speaker, and this address had the added burden of having to honor all troops and veterans on behalf of the Party. My guess is they vetted that address carefully before he read it.

Since the Party's official position on the war is not "total pull-out", nor "peace now", I can't see how anyone could expct it to show up in that address.

"We are the stewards of their sacrifice", is a powerful statement to all America that the Democrats are head and shoulders about BushCo in honoring the troops, National Security, and Patriotism. This is the message that Red State America needs to hear if we are going to win the next election. They may hear it with a Democratic Four-Star General from a Red State saying it. If you look at the address that way, it was a rousing success.

We cannot govern if we do not win. And, in my opinion, there will not be peace again until we govern. It's a question of priorities now.

(I love your icon, btw! It is the cutest.)

TC

[welshTerrier2]

123. sure, butter me up ...

my icon is a picture of my sweet little pup ... thanks for noticing ...

please understand, as i stated elsewhere, that i did NOT expect Clark to call for near-term withdrawal, total pull-out, or peace now ... i think he's dead wrong for not doing so but i did NOT expect him to do it ...

three points are important here ... one is, that i apparently read an outdated transcript of Clark's speech that was provided in a link by another DU'er ... the text at the link has since been changed and i have retracted all of my comments about Clark's speech ...

and the second is a discussion of being "stewards of their sacrifice" ... what greater stewardship can you envision than to ensure that American troops are not sent into harms way to serve as corporate pawns as they are in Iraq and will be in Syria and Iran ??? why, in honoring the service of those in the Armed Forces, should there be an hesitancy to speak truth to power and call the bush lies what they really are ??? i cannot think of anything that would honor those who served, and are serving, more than honoring PEACE ...

and, third, you raised the argument "there will not be peace again until we govern. It's a question of priorities now." ... here we have a very strong disagreement ... at least we do if i understand the point you're making ... i couldn't agree more that we will not see PEACE as long as neo-cons retain power ... we're on the same page there ... but that does NOT mean that we shouldn't be fighting for PEACE and trying to educate the American people on the moral bankruptcy of bush's foreign policy ... it seems to me most Democrats, especially that sorry lot in the Senate, have been nothing but mush-mouthed "go alongs" ...

we are not going to win anything until we offer the American people two things ... one, that we will do whatever is necessary to protect this country from foreign attack ... BUT TWO, bush's entire Middle East policy is weakening the US and greatly weakening Iraq ... going into Syria and Iran, as they clearly plan to do, will be catastrophic ... it's important for you to understand, even if you completely disagree with me, that i believe Democrats cannot win without adopting BOTH of these positions and convincing Americans of their commitment to them ... the positions i'm advocating are not only good policy; they are good politics as well ... you're right to say that the Democrats cannot BRING PEACE until they are in power; but we must lead by calling for the best policies NOW and demonstrate our commitment to our beliefs ... otherwise, we will continue to be a minority party ...

i'm off now to read the updated text of Clark's speech ...

[Totally Committed]

127. You said:

"we are not going to win anything until we offer the American people two things ... one, that we will do whatever is necessary to protect this country from foreign attack ... BUT TWO, bush's entire Middle East policy is weakening the US and greatly weakening Iraq ... going into Syria and Iran, as they clearly plan to do, will be catastrophic ... it's important for you to understand, even if you completely disagree with me, that i believe Democrats cannot win without adopting BOTH of these positions and convincing Americans of their commitment to them ... the positions i'm advocating are not only good policy; they are good politics as well ... you're right to say that the Democrats cannot BRING PEACE until they are in power; but we must lead by calling for the best policies NOW and demonstrate our commitment to our beliefs ... otherwise, we will continue to be a minority party ..."

I agree with this 99%. I just don't think we need to be making speeches about it as blatantly as you think we should (that's the 1% disagreement, and it's mild...) The NeoCons are successful because they talk the talk the Red Staters need to hear, and then do whatever they damned well please. Cynically, I think this Party needs to adopt that policy more, in a way. I am just horrified by this administration, and no there will never be peace again as long as they are in power. I say if playing their own game against them wins it for us, we should do it.

As for the "sorry lot" in the Senate, I agree 1000%.

Your pup is a cutie! I love dogs, so I am not buttering you up at all. I have a cutie of my own who is half cockapoo/half Yorkie, and I love her.

TC

[welshTerrier2]

132. whoa ... 99% ...

i'm usually happy if i can get 50% ... well, i'm glad to hear we're so similar in our thinking ...

so, our only difference appears to be on strategy rather than on policy ... let me put some words in your mouth to way overstate your case ... i do this only to tease you into clarifying your position a little further ... i understand this is NOT your position ...

you are saying that you admire the effectiveness, not the policy, of the neo-cons ... you think Democrats should "talk the talk the Red Staters need to hear, and then do whatever WE damned well please." because that works for the republicans ...

so, your position is that we should not speak out against policies (until we win) that are supported by majorities in the "red" states ... you think we should deceive voters or do whatever we have to to get more votes ... you think it's OK to just go along with bush for another 4 years of occupation because "we shouldn't criticize the president while the country's at war" (a view many conservatives hold) ... you don't care that perhaps the American body count will be over 5000 and American wounded might exceed 50,000 before the 2008 election ... you think Democrats should show that they "stand with the president" on his tough posturing against the nation of Islam ... you think we should encourage "anti-choice" candidates like Bob Casey to run for Senate in Pennsylvania ... Casey's preferred position is that abortion should be outlawed and woman should be forced by law to carry pregnancies to term even if their pregnancy resulted from rape or incest ... you think Democrats need not concern themselves with exhibiting their commitment to their deeply held beliefs ... you believe we will only win if we tell people what we think they want to hear ...

OK ... go ahead ... rip this apart ...

my point with all of this is that i believe that we can only win when we truly lead ... i think Democrats are so fearful of being labeled as "weak on defense" that they are afraid to come out strongly for PEACE ... that's crazy ... we need to make Americans understand that we believe in PEACE ... that doesn't mean we're not tough when we need to be ... it means that we believe the nation is made weaker, at tremendous cost in terms of lives, money, international respect, and American credibility, when we wage wars for immoral purposes ... we need to tell Americans that the neo-con foreign policy is for an immoral agenda ... we cannot convince people we are strong and tough when they know that we are not standing up for the things we deeply believe in ... i am deeply saddened that the Democratic Party does not understand this ... they will continue to be a minority party until they do ...

[Totally Committed]

133. "my point with all of this is that i believe that we can only win ...

when we truly lead ..."

I used to believe this -- and believed it for years. Unfortuately, Karl Rove and Diebold have driven me to a sort of political guerilla warfare position. I feel that winning my country back is now too important a position to be left to professionals. The grassroots have to be willing to get out there and fight the fight it will take to win. The "professional" in Washington are a bunch of lame-ass wimp collaborators who do just go along to get re-elected. And that's how we've gotten into this mess -- too much special-interest money has been taken for any real guts to be showm, so it is up to us to win with a a non-"politician" who has a working set, says what needs to be said, and walks the walk that makes me proud to be the "opposition" Party (that's why I support Wes Clark).

We are closer than you would ever dare to believe.

TC

[welshTerrier2]

134. well, to quote the sig line of a very wise DU'er ...

"If you don't stand for something, you stand for nothing."

Howard Dean has made a statement very similar to this one ...

i got a good chuckle out of your "lame-ass wimp collaborators" ... i totally agree that we will not win without a major grassroots effort ...

having said that, and i really hope i turn out to be wrong about this but i've become very concerned, I am not sure Dean will be the friend of the grassroots i'd been hoping for ... i heard Dean speak at the Massachusetts Democratic convention two weeks ago ... he did a great job telling us how important we all are to the Party ... he emphasized the usual "you are the foot soldiers" stuff ...

but he forgot to mention something of great importance on his way to the forum ... the grassroots should be the voice of the Party ... we should be much more than campaign pawns for him to move around on the chessboard ... we think ... we have opinions ... we should be heard ... we should be given a voice to help set the direction of policy ... Dean's pep talk could not have been more alienating ...

he's still somewhat new in the job and perhaps things will change ... but DFA Dean, the "grassroots" candidate, seems to have forgotten the words to the song he had been singing before ... let's hope he remembers them soon ...

[Totally Committed]

139. If Wes Clark had not run in the last election...

I would have been a Deaniac. He was the only other candidate out of that pack I could have supported. But, I worked hard to draft Wes, and when he ran, I was in heaven.

And, that quote "If you don't stand for something, you stand for nothing" is a direct quote from Wes.

Here's what I stand for:

Winning the '08 election and getting our country back, with or without the help of The Party. And, I stand for believing that Wes is the best candidate for that job.

TC

[Clarkie1]

114. Welsh Terrier, watch this!

It is the convocation speech Clark gave at Cornell today, and I think you will enjoy it...especially the part where Clark address the definiton of "leadership" and the bullying policies of the current administration.

http://www.cornell.edu/video/commencement2005/convocation.cfm

Edit: Clark starts speaking about halfway through the video.

[welshTerrier2]

119. will do ...

please see my RETRACTION below ...

[Tom Rinaldo]

128. You always approach these discussions honorably. Much appreciated.

Just wanted to say that. Yes the Cornell Speech has more of Clark's larger vision in it, and those themes are woven through many of his public statements. Clark was able to use the Cornell Speech to to contrast his vision of American leadership and security with Bush's, and the visions starkly differ.

The official Democratic response Memorial Day Radio comments much more confined by nature of circumstances, and not only by the fact that the stress needed to be on remembering and honoring the service provided by those who have fallen in our Armed Forces. After adequately paying respects, there was at most room for one small news bleep in that radio talk for the media to pick up on, and the Democratic Party (for whom Clark was acting as spokesman after all) decided that the "news" would be on Democratic efforts to provide for the needs of those who serve in our military and their families, with the key talking point being the National Guard. Democrats are launching a nation wide campaign targeting about a dozen Republicans who voted against extending the same Health benefits to veterans who injured while National Guard deployed rather than members of the active service.

That talk was part of the Democratic political chess match against Republicans, and they SHOULD be vilified for the callous way in which they rush men and women to war and then want to forget about them once they come home broken. The Cornell Speech contains more of Clark's personal vision.

[welshTerrier2]

136. thanks, Tom ...

appreciate your comments as well ...

i'm hoping to see the full video in the near future ...

as to the Democratic strategy of targeting those who are restricting National Guard health benefits, my frustration with the Party (i.e. Democrats) is that, while i fully support this political strategy, it's a drop in the bucket ... we're going to fight to provide better health coverage to soldiers only to vote to continue their occupation in Iraq for totally inappropriate purposes ... and then Democrats, not just republicans, are going to vote to send these "soldier pawns" into Syria and Iran ... i guess i'm glad that those who survive will hopefully get better medical coverage ... but is that the best the Democratic Party has to offer ??

are Democrats only willing to "do the right thing for people in uniform" if they think it will give them a political advantage ??

[Tom Rinaldo]

138. Well politics provides ample opportunities to feel cynical

For Clark I know it is personal. He's faced death in combat and ordered others to potentially face their own death. It isn't just about political advantage to him, it's about honor and responsibility first and foremost. And it really is the least we should do as a nation for those who risk their lives following orders that trace their origin back up to civilian command and elected leadership, take care of them in return when they suffer hardships as a result.

I hope you had the chance to listen to Clark testify before Congress a couple of months ago (along with Richard Perle, ugh). He essentially insisted that Congress recognize and deal with the fact that Bush Administration policies have us on a direct collision course for war with Syria and Iran, sooner rather than later. He spelled it out from every angle, he opposed it personally, and he was also explicit about the strains those wars would put on our military and our economy. He said it's coming if we don't stop it. I have been extremely frustrated at the lack of public debate about all of this among our so called leaders.

To be honest, I have also been frustrated by the lack of debate about this from many within the varied strands of our domestic "Peace movement". The focus it seems remains Iraq where almost all of the damage is already done and there are serious deep conflicting opinions over how best to make it right now, such that focusing on an immediate withdrawal from Iraq is, IMO, of limited possible direct impact. I will say that Debate over American conduct while troops remain in Iraq is absolutely needed, as is debate over how rebuilding funds are being channeled in Iraq, and any and all plans to put down American roots in Iraq must be exposed and condemned. However most everyone seems to be missing the ball regarding a new war against Iran in particular. Now is the time to stop movement toward another war that will be 10 times bloodier for all involved than the war in Iraq was. Not to mention that if the U.S. moves against Iran, the last shreds of patience and cooperation with our forces in Iraq from the Shiites there will evaporate, making Iraq too an even bigger hell.

[welshTerrier2]

126. oops ... can't watch the video (yet) ...

don't have and don't want the Real Player ...

any idea if there's a transcript of Clark's speech ???

someone a while back posted info about other software that is not abusive like the Real Player but can play Real Player formatted files ... i'm off to search for info on this ...

[Clark2008]

129. Here's part of the speech:

We’re embroiled in a vicious conflict in Iraq that’s consumed hundreds of American lives & threatens to undermine the strength of our all-volunteer military. And we see a terrorist leader who still defies the world & hides from the reach of American justice. And we see despotic regimes in Iran & North Korea continuing to pursue nuclear weapons. And we see hundreds of millions of people around the world who now profess to distrust our nation & dislike our foreign policy. And we see emerging economic competitors around the world who, in five years, or even tomorrow, can threaten American jobs & our standard of living.

You see, what happened is we won the Cold War but we lost our global strategy. The threats have changed, our situation’s changed, technology’s changed, our nation’s changed, & we still haven’t created a new framework for America’s engagement in the world & our actions & policies at home.

We need a framework that will preserve America’s freedom of action, our prosperity, our security, keep us & our families safe, & help us enjoy the fruits of our own labors here. And we don’t have it yet.

In the old days, we called the strategy deterrence & containment. But today, as the lone superpower in the world, we need a new strategy. We need to call it a strategy of American leadership. And we need to find it, because we haven’t found it yet. (applause).

Leadership. Gen. Eisenhower defined it this way. It was a definition we all had to memorize in military leadership at West Point. ‘Leadership,’ he said, ‘is the art of persuading the other fellow to want to do what you want them to do.’ He didn’t say it was force, manipulation, or the exercise of raw power. (applause) He said it was an art. (applause)

We need that kind of leadership today -- not the bullying kind of leadership. (applause) Not the kind of leadership…(applause)… we don’t need the kind of leadership that’s so hackneyed that even George Lucas quotes it in Star Wars. That if you’re not with us you’re against us. (applause) That’s not what we’re looking for. (applause)

We need the kind of leadership that moves nations & peoples with our ideals: steady, patient, balanced, determined…leadership that works to bring the world together to focus on the common tasks, not to divide it. And that works to build international structures, to promote development, to resolve disputes between nations, to respond to disasters, & to help advance our ideals of respect, dignity, security & health for every human being in the world. (applause) And we need that leadership at home, too. (applause).

That's the part about leadership that everyone is liking so much. :)

[welshTerrier2]

135. thanks for posting this ...

it's almost startling after so many years of hearing bush try to justify his military madness to hear someone talking about a conceptual framework for the US role in the world ... nice speech ... i greatly appreciate the wisdom in Clark's remarks ...

if i might inject a tidbit of humor here, there was a great Firesign Theatre line that stated: "If elected, I promise to use power like a drum and leadership like a violin" ...

[Clark2008]

142. That is a wonderful quote, WT.

I really like that... "If elected, I promise to use power like a drum and leadership like a violin."

Wow.

Beat the drums of power, but finesse with the intricate stringmanship of the violin. As an oboist, pianist and drummer, I get this reference more than you can imagine.

[welshTerrier2]

117. fwiw, RETRACTION of my comments on speech

the link to Clark's speech that i used to make the comments i made above was: http://www.securingamerica.com/?q=speeches/2004-05-28

in discussing the text of the speech with another DU'er, it became clear that two different versions of the speech were being reported ... my comments above were based on the text i read ... the text now provided at the same link has been changed to what i presume is the correct, final version ... i wonder if the earlier text came from a pre-release copy of the speech ...

nevertheless, i'm off for a reread and RETRACT any and all comments i previously made ...

[Adelante]

124. You're okay, welshTerrier2

:hi:

[welshTerrier2]

131. yeah, i suppose ...

where were all my buddies when i said earlier i didn't like Clark's speech ??? :hi:

i have complimented DU Clark supporters before ... i find that, overall, they are respectful of those who disagree on policy or strategy ... and i often value the analysis they provide even though i disagree with Clark's failure to call for PEACE NOW ... there are a few who are strong supporters of Kerry and Dean who are equally respectful ... they understand that my criticisms of their candidates are based on policy disagreements ... but i find that, at least on DU, many Dean and Kerry supporters are very quick to label those who disagree with them as "haters" or Nader-lovers, disruptors, freepers, nay-sayers or some other inappropriate label ... frankly, i'm sick of their little enforcement squads ...

even from a political perspective, i can't understand what these candidate supporters hope to accomplish ... if they are not going to allow others to disagree, even very strongly disagree, how do they hope to influence "new recruits" to support their candidate??? the "my guy" is always right crowd just doesn't cut it with me ...

thanks, for your comment though ... i really do appreciate it ... :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi:

[prvet]

125. I just heard the speech

The man really loves the soldiers, I could tell he was getting emotional, especially when he mentioned praying with the troops.
America needs this guy to be President.

"Especially now, with our nation at war, I'm asking each and everyone one of us to reach out to these families across America. Tell them we honor their sacrifice. Tell them we stand with them. Tell them we love them. And, if it's right, pray with them"

[Tom Rinaldo]

130. Yes, but also note this phrase...

"And, if it's right, pray with them." I can't think of any Republican who would show the sensitivity to include that qualifier, "if it's right". Clark is a Christian but he understands the separation of Church and State. He can be direct about his own convictions and still outright call the "Christian Right" the "Christian Wrong".

[Ikonoklast]

144. The time is now

and we all know it. We do not have the luxury of time to save the Republic; immediate action is warranted. Political campaigns run on money and the sooner we can get behind one candidate such as Wes Clark the stronger he will be. Hillary Clinton is quickly turning into a wannabe lifetime senator as she rapidly sheds progressive tenents to move to the middle. We do not need to accomadate, we need to kick ass and take names. I would love to see the chickenhawks go one-on-one with Wes Clark, the ensuing slaughter of flying monkeys would be terrible to behold. "In a battle of wits I find my opponents are unarmed."

[Totally Committed]

145. "We do not need to accomadate,

we need to kick ass and take names."

Thank you! Absolutely... I could not agree more. No more lame-ass campaigns from Senators who have compromised their (and our) priciples by moving to the middle so far, they serve no one's best interests but those of the special interests!

If Civil Rights, Civil Liberties, Non-Violence, and Equality are ideals that cannot be compromised, then that's that. Period. No excuses, no hemming and hawing... Run as real Democrats!

In the end, the Party that we used to be -- one where a hand up was not seen as a hand out, one where choice was an right of every person -- even women, one where Church and State were seperate, one where war was a last resort -- not an arrogant prerogative of the last great "Super Power", one where every child that is born is cherished, educated, fed, secure, and wanted... will appeal to more and more Americans who realize they are witnessing the demise of America.

TC