General Wesley Clark for Secretary of State

[BOSSHOG]

I will support the dem nominee with money, legwork and whatever I might be able to contribute but an extremely important early decision for our next President to make is to pick a Secretary of State. I do not believe there is a better candidate for that job then Wes Clark to unfuck what rice has fucked. If there is anyway that you can urge your primary candidate to consider the best man for that important job we would all benefit mightily from it.

[HockeyMom]

1. Absolutely

:thumbsup:

[Monkeyman]

2. Oh Ya or VP

[MaineProgressive]

49. YES!

VP would be perfect. He'd be a perfect balance to the argument that Obama lacks military/foreign policy experience. If Hillary is the nominee, however, I would say that her experience would not require she get someone like Clark. I think she should either pick Obama as VP or maybe a popular mayor like Gavin Newsom.

[Texas_Kat]

3. I'd rather he be President

and we may well get the chance to vote for him in 08.

[BOSSHOG]

4. I'm not counting out him running for president but

I think if his diplomatic skills were concentrated in foreign affairs his effect will be much greater. He would be an awesome SECSTATE and thats just what we will need in January 2009.

[Bucky]

18. I'm afraid you're right. He's really dropped off the radar screen.

He said some cryptic things back in December and January about needing some commitments from some money people to come thru. Since then, nada. After the Obama-Clinton green primary heated up, I'm guessing his commitments couldn't come thru. Small surprise. If Gore jumps in, I think it's over for that little fantasy that's been sustaining me for the last 2½ years.

Wes turns 63 this year and the '08 election is almost certain to be a Democratic year. This was his last shot at it. He knew this and chose to concentrate on blocking a possible Iran bombing--something I never thought possible even before the '06 elections and certainly not doable now.

But there's other ways a man can serve his country. Whatever Clark decides to do, I'll support him. He's still one in a million.

[Tom Rinaldo]

14. Me too. Of course he would also be an excellent S.o.S. but

politics has unwritten rules. There is absolutely no way to be confident that whoever gets the nomination, assuming Clark doesn't run and win, would appoint Clark to that role no matter how qualified he is. Most often a position like that goes to someone with close personal ties to the person elected President, usually someone who served as a close advisor to that person during their campaign.

We have some say as to who gets the nomination for President, through the primary process and all, but whatever influence almost all of us on this board have, microscopic as that might be, falls off dramatically regarding appointed positions, including the VP.

Clark still says he hasn't said he isn't running for President, and all the pundits think there's still plenty of time for a new Republican, like Fred Thompson, to enter the race, so I am just hanging back and waiting for now. There's plenty of time for me to get on board with someone else later if it comes to that.

[Old and In the Way]

5. Respectfully Disagree - Secretary of Defense.

I really think Wes could serve his country and us best by taking on the MIC. He has the creds and horsepower to restructure our military in a post-Iraq/post-Republican world. I think there are going to be hard budgetary choices that will be needed and I can't think of a better man who has the reputation and knowledge of the Pentagon culture to make it happen. None of the Democrats running have the background to do this and they will need to have someone like Wes as SecDef onboard.

[Texas_Kat]

6. WKC can't be SecDef

You have to have been out of the military at least 10 year. He retired in 2000.

[SharonRB]

9. You type faster than I do, I guess!

[Old and In the Way]

12. Drat! I knew he had an exclusionary period, but I thought he was out in '98

Too bad...I know why this rule is in effect, but I'd love to make an exception for this guy. Considering all of the abuses of this administration to our laws, I'd suggest ramming a bill through Congress in Jan. 08 authorizing a one-time exception for Clark. We are going to need the absolute best and brightest to repair the damage this administration has done.

[win_in_06]

35. SecState 1st Term, SecDef 2d Term

[SharonRB]

8. He is ineligible to be Sec. of Defense

He has to have been out of the military for at least 10 years in order to be Sec. of Defense. In light of that, he would make a good Sec. of State (as would Richardson or Biden).

[Zensea]

10. He's still not eligible

"By statute the secretary must be a civilian who has not served in the active component of the armed forces for at least 10 years"

"Clark commanded Operation Allied Force in the Kosovo War during his term as the Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO from 1997 to 2000"

[kimmerspixelated]

13. I agree!

[AtomicKitten]

7. I have always thought he would be brilliant in that post.

:thumbsup:

[Parche]

11. Condoloser Rice-A-Roni

Why do you hate Rice-A-Roni?????? :rofl: :rofl: :hi:

[jcrew2001]

15. If he's not VP - we lose the election

so there is no point.

[FrenchieCat]

17. But, but, but.....

voters don't vote for the bottom 1/2 of the ticket, or so I'm told.

[Bucky]

20. J Crew's being silly. He's an asset, but hardly the only Veepable Democrat

I do think that after Cheney's tenure, people are going to be looking at veep candidates a lot differently.

[jcrew2001]

29. By expecting more of the VP

or expecting less of the VP. I believe that the VP had always been a meaningless position, and makes the VP (and future presidential candidate) look like a weak Yes man. Gore and GHWB looked weak compared to Clinton and Reagan.

Conservatives love the team of Bush/Cheney and saw it as accomplishing their goals.

Democrats can do just as well with a strong VP - who can push policy initiatives.

If Clark were VP, and had a strong presence, he could easily become President afterwards.

[jcrew2001]

28. The VP IS an incredibly important asset to the ticket

I never said the VP was never important. The primary asset is to provide stability to the President and experience, and to make up for where the President is lacking. I believe that Bush would not have been elected if he had chosen a different VP. If Bush had chosen McCain or Watts, etc. his entire campaign and presidency would have been unstable and in disarray. Cheney provided the backbone of the entire Bush presidency and has helped him win the last 2 elections.

Basically, the VP is the backbone of any ticket, while the President is the face/head of the ticket.

Kerry should not have picked Edwards because it didn't help him where he was weakest - which was on Vietnam/National Security. Kerry misjudged that he needed to be more "populist" to win the Independents. Personality-wise - Edwards overshadows Kerry and this makes Kerry look weaker in comparison.

Clark would have been a great backbone for the Kerry ticket, just like he will be on a Hillary ticket.

[FrenchieCat]

16. If that happens.......

The republicans surely won't get their war on Iran, and the world would respect us again!

Damn! :sarcasm:

[MissMarple]

19. I have always supported Clark for Secretary of State.

Even when he was running for president, we could see that he is an asset in so many capacities. Clark should definitely be in the next administration. I won't quibble about exactly which department or office. :applause:

[dogman]

21. If he doesn't run for president, his present role is just fine.

Adviser to Democratic leaders and analysis in the media, OP EDS and involvement in groups getting out a message and influencing policy, are vital roles that he plays now. Just today I heard on the news that GOPers are pissed that the Dems are pushing for Intel analysis of the security threat of global warming. This is something I know he has been discussing with Dem leadership and the public. While others are busy promoting themselves he has steadfastly promoted the good of the nation. He also deserves the business successes he is enjoying after devoting a career to serve the people of the US. While others whine about the so-called smears against their heroes, he has endured smears from the RW as well as many who profess they support Dems and everyone else should stop exposing facts about their chosen one. If SOS is something he seeks, then I will support this idea.

[MasonJar]

22. Wes would be a dynamite Sec of State and I think that Hillary might

choose him, Perhaps Edwards; I am not sure about Obama and the others. Whoever gets the nomination should get the suggestion from us.

[Donna Zen]

27. Sorry, but none of the above

Hillary has said that General Jones would be in her cabinet...although, I think she has others lined up too. Edwards advisors were detailed recently by Matt Yglesias:

His chief foreign policy guru continues to be his longtime advisor Derek Chollet, at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington. Edwards also said that his views have also been shaped more recently by a reading list that includes Hard Power: The New Politics of National Security by Kurt Campbell of CSIS and Michael O'Hanlon of Brookings, and and The Good Fight: Why Liberals---and Only Liberals---Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again by Peter Beinart.


That article's from a while back and I'm open to the possibility that things have changed. I do know, however, that between then and now Edwards hired Michael Signer to be his national security policy guy for campaign purposes and that Signer falls in the same ideological neighborhood as the aforementioned crew. Except for Beinart, these names aren't well known in the progressive blogosphere, but the others aren't folks with netroots-friendly views, either. O'Hanlon, in particualr, is well to the right of the New Model Beinart and I wouldn't at all be enthusiastic about the prospect of an administration in which he was given a high-level position.

I can not expect to see Wes Clark hanging out with this group.

Finally, there is Obama's chosen team. Tony Lake is his top person. Once Clinton's NSA, Lake was considered to head the CIA before Tenet got the job. I'm betting that Lake's eyes are on State.

OMG! And then there's Biden...save us from that please.

So, no. What you desire may make sense based on merit and ability, but that isn't how Washington works.

[NCarolinawoman]

30. I've heard O'Hanlon speak, and he is in the mold of a Barney Fife "got to sound tough" type.

Sounds like "same old same old" with all of these candidates' advisers. Wes always thought out of the box and liked Dennis K's idea of a Department of Peace.

What I want to know is: Which of these candidates will take on the MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX?!!!!

[Auntie Bush]

41. Clark has already said he'd get rid of the MIC. He knows what

weapons we need and which ones we don't or are wasteful. I trust his honesty to do exactly that and not give contracts to his donors, buddies, Democrats and those following his religious preference.

[David Zephyr]

23. I can't imagine anyone more qualified for that position.

He would be superb.

[JI7]

33. are qualifications for vp higher than for President ?

[ima_sinnic]

24. I have been saying this for years! (n/t)

[Adelante]

25. WES CLARK FOR PRESIDENT!!!

If he doesn't want to run, SoS is good.

[Norrin Radd]

26. Pres!

[calteacherguy]

31. Wes Clark is well-known and respected throughout the world community.

And any future President would be foolish not to offer him the position. I can certainly think of no one more highly qualified.

[Cameron27]

32. President

[JI7]

34. this is an interesting thread

all the qualities that are brought up about Clark for why he would make a good SOS, VP, Defense Sec etc seem to be what we should be asking of Presidential Candidates.

[Adelante]

37. Ain't that a kick?

Nice to see you, J17 :hi:

[dave_p]

36. His qualifications are what,

... precisely?

[Tom Rinaldo]

38. I don't have time to do all your home work for you

But I will give you a few leads and maybe you can connect the dots yourself. No point in going over that Clark led N.A.T.O. at a time of war and met regularly with Heads of State in Europe, (and was given Head of State status in his position). You already knew that, right?

I'm going to throw some links at you, pulling them from here and there as I find them doing a minimum search. This is not comprehensive by any means nor even chronilogical, but it may give you some clues:


5/16/07 - Keynote Speaker: "Legitimacy – First Task for America’s Security”, Washington, DC @ 9AM ET
Start: May 16 2007 - 9:00am
End: May 16 2007 - 10:30am
description:
The SAIS Center on Politics & Foreign Relations, the Financial Times, and The JHU Center for the Study of American Government


Invite you to a discussion on “Legitimacy – First Task for America’s Security” featuring Keynote Speaker General Wesley Clark


With Robert Guttman Director, CPFR and Ed Luce, Washington Bureau Chief, Financial Times


Wednesday, May 16th, 2007: 9:00 a.m. – 10:30 a.m.


Space is limited. Please RSVP by telephone at 202-587-3237 or by email at [e-mail]. If you e-mail please put RSVP May 16,, 2007 in the subject line.

Location:
The Paul N. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Kenney Auditorium, 1740 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 2
______________________________________________________________________________________________


"Programme and speaker list unveiled for ASF 2006

The Organising Committee of the 4th Arab Strategy Forum (ASF), which will bring together over 600 global leaders to discuss key issues impacting the Arab world, today unveiled the programme and speaker list for this year's edition, which runs in Dubai from 4-6 December.

The impressive speaker list, which boasts a line up of 114 regional and international leaders from the government, business, political and media sectors, underpins the importance of the ASF as a holistic forum for the strategic development of the Arab world.

Nabil Al Yousuf, Vice-Chairman, ASF Organising Committee, said: 'We have assimilated top-tier decision makers, thought leaders and industry captains from the Arab world and beyond, to bring diverse perspectives to the table. The level of participants and speakers is a clear indication of how this event is viewed as an important forum for addressing some of the most challenging issues facing the Arab world today.'

Being led by seven Co-Chairs, which include personalities such as Dr. Eric Schmidt, Chairman of the Executive Committee and Chief Executive Officer of Google, and H.E. Dr. Youssef Boutros Ghali, Egyptian Minister of Finance, the speaker list is the largest to date.

Distinguished government leaders speaking at the event include Ahmed Nazaf, Prime Minister, Egypt; Sheikha Haya bint Rashid Al Khalifa, President, UN General Assembly, United Nations, New York; Lakhdar Brahimi, Former Special Advisor to the Secretary-General, United Nations, New York; Saad Hariri, Majority Leader in Lebanese Parliament and Head of Future Movement; and General Wesley Clark, Former NATO Commander.

More than 30 industry leaders from the global business community will also address the event..."
_______________________________________________________________________________________________


"Date: September 18, 2006
Contact: Judy Lin ( [e-mail] )
Phone: [phone]

Gen. Wesley Clark to Join UCLA Burkle Center

Gen. Wesley K. Clark, former supreme allied commander of NATO, will join the Burkle Center for International Relations in UCLA's International Institute this fall as a senior fellow. Clark will teach seminars, publish papers through the Burkle Center and host an annual conference on national security.

"Gen. Clark's involvement with the campus will add a unique and valuable dimension to the Burkle Center's exploration of the contemporary world and the role of the United States in global security and military, political, social and economic affairs," said Patricia O'Brien, executive dean of UCLA's College of Letters and Science, of which the Burkle Center and International Institute are part. "I am especially pleased that our students at UCLA will benefit from Gen. Clark's extraordinary experience, as well as his dynamic leadership and teaching credentials."

Clark's 40 years of military leadership, teaching, research and executive management in federal government ultimately led to his service as NATO's commander during the 1999 Kosovo conflict, for which he received the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Clark retired as one of the nation's most highly decorated military officers since Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower.

The Burkle Center's work includes research, teaching and public outreach and service on the contemporary world. The International Institute is committed to the education of global citizens through its degree programs; the people-to-people linkages it fosters among students, scholars and citizens around the globe, and its commitment to helping people everywhere become lifelong learners about their world.

"Wes Clark brings incisive and visionary analysis to questions of economic and security policy, particularly as they relate to future U.S. relations with Asia and Latin America," said professor Ronald Rogowski, interim vice-provost for international studies, dean of the International Institute and director of the Burkle Center. "All of us at the Burkle Center and the larger International Institute look forward to working with him."
________________________________________________________________________________________________


Clinton Global Initiative: General Clark's Statement on Climate Change
Clinton Global Initiative

"Promoting Prosperity with Climate Change Policy"

Climate Change Policy in the United States

Video received July 10, 2006
(Transcript begins after introduction of panel)


PRESIDENT JOSÉ MARÍA FIGUERES: General Clark, your leadership is widely recognized in many, many fields, and of course one in which you are an absolute expert is in the field of national security. What are the linkages between climate change and national security? And if we were to continue on the course on which we now are, what would be the unintended consequences in terms of a national security policy?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, thank you very much for the question, President Figueres. Let me just say how pleased I am to be here in this group and on this panel, especially with Senator Clinton. We go back to the 1980s in talking about the Mediterranean Basin. And I remember ecological discussions there...
http://securingamerica.com/node/1172
____________________________________________________________________________________________


"Business Wire 3/30/06
http://tinyurl.com/zb9ht

World Decision Makers Tackle Toughest Policy Issues at Milken Institute Global Conference

LOS ANGELES--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 30, 2006--What do the president of the Czech Republic, an astronaut, the head of Disney, a network anchor, the Tour de France winner, a leading futurist, half a dozen Nobel laureates, the FDA chief and a former NATO commander have in common? They're among 325 movers and shakers who will thrash out the world's biggest challenges as panelists at the Milken Institute Global Conference in Los Angeles next month.

An annual gathering, held this year at the Beverly Hilton April 24-26, the Global Conference is unlike the typical gathering of VIPs. The trade publication Conferenza described it this way in a 2005 report:

"Like the World Economic Forum at Davos, it was impossible to walk away from the Global Conference without a better understanding of the problems plaguing our world. Unlike Davos, however, there was a strong focus at the event on actually trying to come up with ways that many of these problems can be solved ... The Global Conference is today a must-attend event."

This three-day gathering provides unparalleled access to senior leaders from business, finance, government, education, health care and the news media, who meet to discuss, debate and find solutions to some of the world's most pressing policy challenges.

This year's lineup of panelists includes:

-- Lance Armstrong, seven-time winner of the Tour de France

-- Edgar Bronfman, Jr., Chairman and CEO of Warner Music Group

-- Peter Chernin, President and Chief Operating Officer of News Corporation

-- Wesley Clark, General (ret.), U.S. Army, and former NATO Commander

-- Joe Hogan, Senior Vice President and CEO of GE Healthcare

-- Robert Iger, President and CEO of The Walt Disney Company

-- Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic

-- Jonathan Miller, Chairman and CEO of America Online, Inc.

-- Rod Paige, former U.S. Secretary of Education

-- Boone Pickens, entrepreneur and philanthropist

-- Sally Ride, former astronaut and President and CEO of Sally Ride Science

-- David Rubenstein, Co-Founder and Manager Director of The Carlyle Group

-- Andrew von Eschenbach, Acting Commissioner of the FDA

-- And several Nobel laureates"
___________________________________________________________________________________________
International Awards and Honors
General Wesley Clark: International Awards and Honors

General Wesley K. Clark retired as one of the nation's most highly decorated military officers since General Dwight D. Eisenhower.

His leadership experiences have taken him from Vietnam to Latin America and ultimately to the position of NATO's Supreme Allied Commander, where he led a unified force to victory in NATO's first major combat action. Clark commanded all NATO forces to success in the important Kosovo conflict, saving 1.5 million Albanians from ethnic cleansing without a single Allied casualty.

In addition to his numerous military and civilian honors and awards, Clark received more than 20 major awards from foreign governments, including honorary knighthoods from the United Kingdom and the Netherlands as well as the title of Commander of the Legion of Honor from France.

Scroll through the pages below or click one of the country names below to view details. Click here for a printable list.
http://securingamerica.com/taxonomy/term/82
_____________________________________________________________________________________________


Call to check uncontrolled immigration, say delegatesPublished: Friday, 14 April, 2006, 10:58 AM Doha Time

Staff Reporter
http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=81873&version=1&template_id=36&parent_id=16

"Speakers at a session on “The age of great immigrations” held as part of the sixth Doha Forum on Democracy, Development and Free Trade” yesterday made a call to explore immediate ways to check uncontrolled immigration from certain parts of the world, notably in North Africa, to some European countries, especially France.

Initiating discussions, Yazid Sabeg, chgairman and general director of communications and systems `in France suggested imparting education among younger generation of immigrants about the problems a migrant likely to encounter in new situations, encourage the development of countries from where emigrants come from and thus trying to reduce the immigration to the maximum, if not to the “zero” level, as he called...

...Talking later, Wesley Clark, of USA recalled that while in 1950, there were only 75 million migrants, now the number is risen to 200 million. “While it is a brain drain for the countries of emigrants, it is a brain-gain for those who receive immigrants,” he said.
____________________________________________________________________________________________


General Wes Clark will be speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations 2/10/06
Start: Feb 10 2006 - 8:00am
End: Feb 10 2006 - 5:00pm
description:

General Wes Clark will be speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations Friday, February 10, 2006.

Times to be announced.

Please check back here for updates or go to: http://www.cfr.org
Location:
Council on Foreign Relations, Washington D.C
______________________________________________________________________________________________


Qatar conference discusses NATO cooperation with Broader Middle East

/noticias.info/ A high-level conference in Doha on 1 December brought together top NATO officials, civil society representatives and officials from the six Gulf States party to the Alliance’s Istanbul Cooperation Initiative.

The Secretary General of NATO, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, the Crown Prince and Heir Apparent of Qatar, His Highness Sheikh Tamin bin Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, The Foreign Minister and First Deputy Prime Minister of Qatar, His Highness Sheik Hamad bin Jasim bin Jabr Al-Thani, opened the conference on NATO and Gulf Security, co-sponsored by the Government of Qatar, the NATO's Public Diplomacy Division and the RAND Corporation.

Exploring avenues for cooperation

The discussions focused on security developments in the Gulf region and the way forward for NATO’s Istanbul Cooperation Initiative with countries in the broader Middle East region.

Other distinguished speakers included: the Secretary General of the Gulf Cooperation Council , Abdurrahman bin Hamad Al Al-Attiyah, NATO Assistant Secretary General for Public Diplomacy Jean Fournet, the Assistant Foreign Minister of Qatar , Mohammed Abdullah Al-Rumaini, former NATO Supreme Allied Commader Europe General Wesley K. Clark.

This was the first visit by a Secretary General of NATO to Quatar. In addtion to the conference, Mr. De Hoop Scheffer met for talks with the Heir Apparent, the First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs as well as the Chief Head of Defence, Lt-Gen Hamad Bin Ali Al-Attiah.

http://www.noticias.info/asp/aspComunicados.asp?nid=124121&src=0
__________________________________________________________________________________________


General Clark is speaking at The Brookings Institution today
"SEMINAR ON U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY ISSUES"
WASHINGTON, D.C.
DECEMBER 14, 2005

Topic: "U.S. National Security Strategy"
11:15 – 12:15 p.m. (EST) A U.S. National Security Strategy
_____________________________________________________________________________________________


"UPI 9/6/05
http://about.upi.com/products/perspectives/UPI-20050906-052721-6898R


Fallujah and New Orleans, new twin towns
By MARTIN WALKER

WASHINGTON, Sept. 6 (UPI) -- It was pure happenstance that the first big bi-partisan conference in Washington on terrorism and U.S. security policies, timed for the 4th anniversary of the original Sept. 11 attacks, should have coincided with the devastation of New Orleans by Hurricane Katrina...


...Clark was one of the stars of the conference, titled 'Terrorism, Security and America's Purpose,' which attracted over 1,000 people in downtown Washington Tuesday.

It was organized by the New America Foundation as a bi-partisan event that brought former Attorney General John Ashcroft and Republican Sen. Chuck Hegel together with senior Democrats like Sen. Biden and senior security and anti-terrorism officials. Also participating were public intellectuals like Francis Fukuyama, to consider a more coherent U.S. strategy."
___________________________________________________________________________________________


In the Event of a Crisis, the U.S. Will Independently Evacuate Americans in Korea
SEPTEMBER 08, 2005 07:28
by Jung-Ahn Kim Young-A Soh ([e-mail] [e-mail])
http://english.donga.com/srv/service.php3?bicode=050000&biid=2005090871988

Several high ranking officials from the U.S. Defense Department and the State Department participated in the recent Ulji-Focus Lens, a joint military drill of South Korea and the U.S., and actively discussed rescue and relief operations in the event of a crisis on the Korean peninsula.

They reportedly reviewed an independent evacuation plan for Americans residing in Korea, which now attracts much attention to its background.

The attending officials to visit South Korea for the drill (Aug 22-Sep 2) include 10 experts from the U.S. Defense Department and the State Department, including Wesley Clark, the former NATO Commander, according to a source on September 7.

In particular, relief experts from the U.S. Defense Department held an intensive meeting with South Korea on matters related to rescue and relief operations in the event of a crisis on the Korean peninsula and also were known to have mentioned an independent evacuation plan for Americans living on the peninsula.
______________________________________________________________________________________________

[dave_p]

39. Unpersuaded

"Clark led N.A.T.O. at a time of war and met regularly with Heads of State in Europe"

No, nobody leads Nato. It's an alliance. It has a command and a secretariat, but policy's determined by the Council. Clark's preference for quick air strikes and an early land operation was in fact overruled.

Hmm, the rest's a bit of fluff, really - sorry, I really don't see anything of substance there.

Clark is a military commander. I appreciate that his recent service complicates a cabinet role, but I have to repeat, while it might be nice for those who hold him in high regard to see him at State, what are his qualifications? I honestly don't know of any. A few meetings with foreign leaders with nothing much to show for it really isn't sufficient. Bono's done that.

[Tom Rinaldo]

40. Your effort to trivialize amuses me

We could get into discussing your qualifications to evaluate potential Secretary's of State, but I somehow doubt we would get close to agreement on that one either. Before you forget, best drop UCLA a line and warn them that they hired a fraud.

[dave_p]

42. I'm not trivializing anything

Perhaps you've misunderstood "qualifications". I mean not formal tenures and appearances, but policy insights. Where are they? He's a military man. He delivered a military victory at minimal cost to the forces under his command and maintained liaison with the powers concerned. A good Secretary of State requires a good deal more than that.

Here's what I mean, from Gen Clark in The Times, 10 Apr 2003, the day after Baghdad's fall:

American and Brits, working together, produced a lean plan, using only about a third of the ground combat power of the Gulf War. If the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they certainly made the right call... As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt.

There he's not only applauding the Iraq invasion after the event, but welcoming the decision to use fewer troops than might have been available a month later. There's no inkling there of Iraq's imminent domestic meltdown, of the invading army's insufficiency as an occupying force, or of the fact that the whole venture was founded on lies.

That's not good enough for a Secretary of State. He or she must have the background knowledge, insight and geopolitical understanding to see through the misinformation and identify the complications before they've ripped momentary success apart. I don't see any of that in Clark.

[FrenchieCat]

43. There is nothing in that "snipet" that isn't correct.......

Clark was a retired General, not in politics in April of 2003. The article you cite is as much about the logistics of the battlefield at the time than anything else.

The plan was "lean"........
IF the alternative was ......then. Late April would have been the start of summer in Iraq, and so in terms of military strategy, it was the right call. Doesn't mean it was the right policy.

In reference to Bush and Blair, they were "resolved", and there was much doubt.

Most journalists and columnists, at the point that Clark wrote the article in April of 2003, very shortly after the fall of Bagdad, were bragging up and down the media that Mission had been accomplished; that Bush was brave and bold to have persevered under so much pressure, etc., etc...
{read such articles... http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030410-25191517.htm , http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030407-usia07.htm , http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030410-whitehouse-2.htm, http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030410-usia13.htm , http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030410-usia09.htm ,

Clark's article was clearly stating ..... Sure, it may appear that we are victorious in Bagdad, but hold on for just a minute now! Maybe it will be said that said that Bush and Blair stuck to their guns in the face of much opposition, and maybe Baghdad has fallen, but winning this war would take a much more than this.
(Clark's article was reminiscent of this one.... http://www.counterpunch.org/grossman04102003.html dated the same day)

Clark warned about the looting, the mayhem and stated what needed to be done from a strategic point in order to keep Chaos from breaking out. He points out that the Weapons of Mass destructions had not been found, and any goals set by Bush and Blair, i.e., Democracy in Iraq; and stability of the ME hadn't yet happen...and basically stating that we were NOT to yet REJOICE, cause the shit wasn't over......

The article you quote goes on to say.....

"there’s the matter of returning order and security. The looting has to be stopped. The institutions of order have been shattered. And there are scant few American and British forces to maintain order, resolve disputes and prevent the kind of revenge killings that always mark the fall of autocratic regimes. The interim US commander must quickly deliver humanitarian relief and re-establish government for a country of 24 million people the size of California. Already, the acrimony has begun between the Iraqi exile groups, the US and Britain, and local people.

and here....same article (of which you quoted two sentences), he gives full credit to the military for the fall of bagdad....

It’s to the men and women who fought it out on the arid highways, teeming city streets and crowded skies that we owe the greatest gratitude. All volunteers, they risked their lives as free men and women, because they believed in their countries and answered their calls. They left families and friends behind for a mission uncertain. They didn’t do it for the glory or the pittance of combat pay. Sadly, some won’t return — and they, most of all, need to be honored and remembered.

In the following paragraph, he is providing possibilities as to what will occur.....(one happened; the strive by Al-Qaeda to mobilize their recruiting efforts, as well as the lasting humilitation of Iraq....the other options did not).....but does NOT give credit for the policy that got us into Iraq, nor does he paint the future as very rosy....

The real questions revolve around two issues: the War on Terror and the Arab-Israeli dispute. And these questions are still quite open. Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and others will strive to mobilize their recruiting to offset the Arab defeat in Baghdad. Whether they will succeed depends partly on whether what seems to be an intense surge of joy travels uncontaminated elsewhere in the Arab world. And it also depends on the dexterity of the occupation effort.

The following passage found at the end of same article summarizes the main point that Clark was articulating in this article written at a time when many thought that Iraq was a "mission accomplished"....

"But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven’t yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed."--

[dave_p]

45. Interesting

Fair point as to the succeeding paragraphs: I didn't have them available, otherwise I wouldn't have stated (quite incorrectly) that he didn't discuss the security problem.

I still think he was entirely wrong, though, to praise the decision to go in early and light. We're still living with the consequences of that choice (which was out of his hands). His concerns do seem difficult to reconcile with those comments.

I find it very difficult too to read into his comments about the operation the caution that you suggest: "they certainly made the right call.... Bush & Blair should be proud of their resolve". To me that's a pretty unflinching thumbs-up, when many believed the call was wrong and the resolve a matter for shame.

On WMD, Clark seems to have gone out of his way to cover every possible outcome: only a few months erarlier, he'd declared "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time". He had no such knowledge. We now know nobody did.

To me the problem is this rather unfocused, often seemingly contradictory manner of covering all the bases. I still find him a somewhat slippery character.

But I thank you for digging out the paragraphs I missed (not intentionally; I don't deliberately distort quotes, as it makes discussing them quite pointless). He did foresee trouble: I'm reassured on that point though still unconvinced on the others.

[FrenchieCat]

47. Again, you are taking things out of context, and if you haven't read the entire article.....

then what can I say? :shrug:

In terms of this " "they certainly made the right call.... Bush & Blair should be proud of their resolve".

The three dots indicate what exactly? Do you know how many paragraphs do the three dots represent?

"the right call" was on logistically going in March as opposed to waiting for summer. In speaking of Bush and Blair's resolve, he also states......"As for the diplomacy, the best that can be said is that strong convictions often carry a high price. Despite the virtually tireless energy of their Foreign Offices, Britain and the US have probably never been so isolated in recent times."

Resolve in the face of doubt, if it is a virtue at all, is a virtue even when one has undertaken an enterprise in error. Again, Clark is apparently simply giving credit where credit is due. But saying "you stuck to that project with admirable resolve" obviously does not mean the same thing as "boy, you sure were smart to undertake that project."

And note that Clark continues:
"And especially Mr Blair, who skillfully managed tough internal politics, an incredibly powerful and sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally, and concerns within Europe."
So even (approximately) the resolve Clark has just praised he now characterizes as "almost irrational." So if these two components taken together constitute a compliment, it is (re: Blair at least) a highly attenuated one at best. Hardly unalloyed approval.
And I think that the end of the essay provides reasonably strong confirmation of my reading:

"Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced. And more tough questions remain to be answered.
-------------------
I terms of WMDs, there were two kind that were discussed adnauseum, if you were paying attention. There were the Chemical and biological WMDs, that no one doubted Saddam certainly could have, and the Nuclear WMDs/Program, which was the issue that the Bush admin pushed in calling Iraq an imminent threat, and the reason they gave for going to war.

Wes Clark noted that Saddam wouldn't have Nuclear capabilities for 5 to 10 years, if everything worked out just right for Saddam. He stated that in his testimony to congress.

Gore, Dean, Kennedy, Obama and most Anti-Iraq War Dems stated the same thing at some point or another. They even have multiple websites dedicated to those non contexted quotes!
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
http://rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php
http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004.shtml

If you really want to know what Clark was saying in September of 2002, go here, and watch YouTubes video of his interview on Charlie Rose:
http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2007/01/wes_clark_on_charlie_rose_on_s.html

[dave_p]

50. Interesting again

I'm trying to narrow the gap that I saw here, and you've actually mellowed my feelings considerably. More good points, accepted but for the WMDs. I recognize furthermore that as a recent army man he may not have felt so free to criticize the operations as others were.

On WMDs I still find flat statements of their existence indefensible. I agree that plenty of other top Democrats were saying the same thing, and I've questioned their suitability on the same grounds. And I appreciate the distinction between made in the quote between nuclear and other WMDs - a distinction obscured as we know by the Administration, and too often overlooked by others.

But "Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time" (sorry to quote again) seems to speak for itself. Those are the kind of words that leap out at the listener in tense times. Those alleged weapons were a key component of the White House's war drive along with the less credible nukes. He was plain wrong when he made that particular statement. So were others.

Having been pointed to them I've appreciated some of Clark's observations on the wider Middle East context. On Iran he seems preferable to the main Presidential front-runners, and that's a big plus for me. I asked people to say what insights might qualify him for State, and now I've actually read some. So this has been a useful discussion for me. I'd prefer someone who'd been clearly and consistently right from the start, but I get the impression he's learned key lessons since 2003.

[Tom Rinaldo]

51. It has been useful, and I retract my earlier tone toward you

Your initial comment on this thread was narrow in scope, asking only about why Clark was "qualified", not about his views on issues. Of course the two are related, but most people think that experience is the basis for qualifications, while insights are the basis of wisdom. Technically few denied that George Bush the Elder was "qualified" to be President, whether the American people should have trusted him with that office however is another matter. So I initially took it that you wanted to know what experience on the world stage Wesley Clark had other than running a military operation, and that is why I answered you the way I did the first time.

There is a reason why Middle Eastern leaders, for example, consistently choose to invite General Clark to regional conferences that they organize. Clark is seen as an honest broker by them, with a far better appreciation for concerns of consequence to the Arab World than most American leaders. For me, by the way, the fact that Clark assumed Hussein still had some chemical weapons when he didn't is a trivial matter. Almost all of the world had the same wrong impression. But chemical weapons are not an important issue in the grand scheme. The U.S. knows and/or assumes that dozens of nations have chemical weapons. Americans would not have gone to war with Iraq over chemical weapons and George Bush knew that which is why the the "smoking gun mushroom cloud" was pushed on the public. Clark, in his congressional testimony, rejected the rational for needing to attack Iraq over WMD's that posed no immediate threat to the U.S., and that was the correct bottom line.

SecuringAmerica.com has a wealth of information available on it's home page linking extensively to General Clark's speeches, interviews, position papers and published Op-Eds on a broad range of issues. It is one of the things I respect about Wes Clark. His web site is serious, it has substance, and it is user friendly in terms of providing full transcripts for dozens upon dozens of important statements Wes Clark has made on important issues in multiple venues. I urge you to spend some time over there doing some research on Clark. The public effort he is involved in now trying to back America away from the threshold of war with Iran is truly important.

[dave_p]

52. It's been useful for me too

I've learned some things that I wasn't previously aware of, and I too regret what may have seemed my over-adversarial tone - but it got some good answers.

I can see now that there's much to be said in Clark's favor: I think whether he'd be the right SoS depends very much on who gets the Presidency. But I'm not nearly so sceptical of his policy credentials as I was yesterday.

I do worry though at his readiness to see Nato intervention in emergencies as an alternative to more broadly international or regional initiatives - even though he's couched such action in terms of UN authorization. He rightly criticized the "hair-trigger" mentality of the right after 911. I hope recollections of the Rwanda failure don't lead him into over-reaction where diplomatic action can make a difference. His stance on Iran is somewhat reassuring on that score.

[Tinksrival]

44. One of the most highly decorated military officer since Eisenhower

"A few meetings with foreign leaders with nothing much to show for it really isn't sufficient. Bono's done that."

......Your joking right? I mean about Bono? Your heading into rightwing talking points land.




lbania
The Skanderbeg Medal



Argentina
Order of Merit



Belgium
The Grand Cordon of the Order of Leopold



Bulgaria
Order of the Madara Horseman, First Class with Swords



Canada
The Meritorious Service Cross



Croatia
Grade of Prince Branimir with Ribbon and Star



Czech Republic
Cross of Merit of the Minister of Defense First Class



England
Honorary Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire



Estonia
Order of the Cross of the Eagle



France
Commander of the Legion of Honor



Germany
Grand Cross of the Order of Merit



Hungary
Order of Merit of the Hungarian Republic



Italy
Grand Officer of the Order of Merit



Lithuania
First Class Order of Lithuanian Grand Duke Gediminas



Luxembourg
Grand Officer of the Order of Merit of the Grand Duchy



Morocco
Grand Cordon of the Ouissam Alaoui



Netherlands
Knight Grand Cross in the Order of Orange-Nassau, with Swords



Poland
The Commander's Cross with Star of the Order of Merit



Portugal
Grand Cross of the Medal of Military Merit



Slovakia
Commemorative Medal of the Minister of Defence of the Slovak Republic First Class



Slovenia
Commander's Cross, The Silver Order of Freedom



Spain
Grand Medal of Military Merit (White Band)




Republic of Vietnam VIETNAM
Republic of Vietnam Combat Medal

This is just International Awards. There are many more civilian and military awards like this:



Defense Distinguished Service Medal (with 4 Oak Leaf Clusters)




The Defense Distinguished Service Medal (DDSM) is a United States military award presented for exceptionally distinguished performance of duty contributing to national security or defense of the United States. The decoration is awarded only at the highest levels of the military while assigned to a joint activity. The DDSM may also be awarded to other senior officers whose direct and individual contributions to national security or defense are recognized as being so exceptional in scope and value as to be equivalent to contributions normally associated with positions encompassing broader responsibilities. General Clark received this award on five separate occasions.

It is the United States's highest peacetime defense award.

The Wes Clark websight, securingamerica.com, has been completely updated, looks beautiful! I found a link to all his awards, all five pages!There is complete decriptions of the awards and the circumstances in witch they were awarded.:
http://securingamerica.com/taxonomy/term/76

His latest was May 25, 2006 from Latvia

[dave_p]

46. That's all very well, but ....

We're talking State, not Defense. I don't care if he freed Eurasia singlehanded, it's his foreign policy statements I was asking about.

But I should have been clearer about that to begin with.

[FrenchieCat]

48. But it appears that you have only picked up on the mud that stuck.....

not truly Clark's stance on various geopolitical issues over the years.

He worked with the State Department in getting the Dayton Peace Accords signed.....and he advocated intervention in Rwanda by his lonesome. http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2007/02/rwanda_general_clarks_involvem.html

and his opEd 3 days after 9/11 speak volume as to what Wes Clark believes about using force, and going after states.....
http://wesleyclark.h1.ru/usa_attack1.htm#A%20Long,%20Tough%20Job

[bobbie]

53. Ideally president

At the very least Sect of Defense or State.

But anything less than president is a waste of the best candidate we've had in 47 years.

[IA_Seth]

54. I'd prefer President..

But barring that, any position that put his talents to good use would be great.