Kerry finally listens to General Clark and will start hitting Bush on Iraq

[FrenchieCat]

NEWSWEEK: Kerry Intends to Repeat and Refine Critique of Iraq Through Rest of Campaign, Spending Closing Week of Election on Bush's War
Sunday September 19, 11:14 am ET
Aides Say Kerry Was Furious Over GOP Attacks Against His Character

NEW YORK, Sept. 19 /PRNewswire/ -- With a new team of advisers,
Democratic Presidential hopeful Sen. John Kerry was preparing to
accuse the president of failing to tell the truth about "the mess in
Iraq" -- part of an aggressive fall strategy to challenge George W.
Bush on the war. But first, he wanted the advice of former four-star general Wesley Clark.sweek has learned that Kerry now intends to repeat and refine his critique of Iraq through the rest of the ampaign-spending the closing week of the election on President George Bush's war.
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040919/nysu016_1.html

AND,

Kerry's New Call to Arms
Battle Plan: Kerry was to spend the fall on the economy. Then came a new team of advisers—and a fresh focus for the homestretch.

Newsweek Sept. 27 issue - Sitting in his black-leather swivel chair,
with his trusty world atlas beside him, John Kerry huddled with his
aides in the executive-style cabin at the front of his campaign jet.
Kerry was preparing to accuse the president of failing to tell the
truth about "the mess in Iraq"—part of an aggressive fall strategy
to challenge George W. Bush on the war. But before he spoke to the National Guard convention in Las Vegas, Kerry sought the advice of yet another sounding board on his plane: former four-star general
Wes Clark. Kerry knew from Vietnam what it felt like to face the
bullets without the support of the folks back home. So how, one of
his senior staff wanted to know, would Kerry's attacks go down now
with the troops in Iraq? "Look, the soldiers are debating it
themselves on the ground," Clark reassured Kerry's inner
circle. "They're coming back and they're incredibly critical. You
have to call it like it is."

After the summer's phony war over Vietnam medals and memos, the 2004
election has landed in the real-world battleground of Iraq.For Camp Kerry, it's a liberating feeling to engage in straight talk about Iraq, shaking off debate about the candidate's Senate votes. "I'm thrilled," said one of Kerry's longtime loyalists, "because it's the John Kerry I know and love." Kerry's gambit: to revive his campaign—trailing by anywhere between one and 13 points in new polls—by questioning Bush's credibility on the conflict, his management of postwar Iraq and the no-bid contracts won by his veep's old firm, Halliburton. Kerry is betting that the hard truths of Iraq will undercut Bush's soft-focus picture of a liberated nation, and ultimately the president's image as a war leader.

It's a bet that Kerry was unwilling to make until this month. Not so
long ago, Kerry's strategists planned to spend the fall talking
about the economy and health care, thinking they had proved their
candidate's national-security credentials in Boston. They also
planned to stay positive, shunning political attacks in the belief
that slime could alienate swing voters. But that was before Kerry's
August swoon, and an influx of fresh faces—a mix of Boston loyalists
and Clintonites—at the top of the Democrat's team. Their main job is
to keep Kerry on message and sharpen his attack on Bush. While Kerry
will continue to hit at the Democrats' traditional pocketbook
issues, his new strategists have embraced Clark's advice to tell it like it is.

More at: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6039833/site/newsweek/

[Catch22Dem]

1. I may or may not get flamed for this, but

Wes Clark is one of the most brilliant minds this country has produced in many years. His grasp of foreign relations, world history, foreign affairs, and domestic security are absolutely astounding. If you've never had the pleasure, read some of his writings about how world history can be seen in current events. The man is amazing, and I challenge ANYONE to say he's not a real Democrat. This man loves his country and loves his party.

[John Q. Citizen]

3. Why get flamed for that?

Clark wasn't my choice in the primaries but I'm impressed with how hard he's fighting to get Kerry elected.

[phish420]

11. Agreed...had my doubts early on

but he has shown me a true desire to change this country for the better. Go Wes! Tell Kerry how to turn this thing around!

[LittleClarkie]

20. He was my first choice

Gee, ya think?

And even I wasn't completely sure if he were a Dem in name only until I found an explanation on factcheck.org. He voted in favor of national defense, whereever that vote took him: Nixon, Reagan, Clinton and Gore.

He also liked the way, he said, that Democrats brought folks together, where the Republicans were dividing people. So I get it now. He was an independant.

Shows you how aware of the issues I was back then. I had a vague attatchment to Clark early on, but have come to love him even more now that I have ALL the facts, as well as developing an admiration for Kerry. I'm glad they've joined forces.

[cidliz2004]

63. I had the honor of meeting Wesley Clark twice!

I have a couple of pictures to prove it to.

The guy is brilliant, plain talking and isn't afraid to come back in your face if need be.

He is one of our national treasures. There are more stories about this man than I can relay in this forum.

I was truly crushed when he dropped out of the primaries. I was crushed again when Kerry chose Edwards as VP.

Wes Clark is a bright light in our time and I just hope to God that somebody over in the Kerry camp realizes that this is their gift to make use of... if they only have the wisdom.

Wes Clark is a true patriot, a true hero and someone every Democrat should be proud to have on their side.

[Dr Fate]

4. He needs to be stumping for Kerry on TV as much as possible.

n/t

[cthrumatrix]

128. he definitely is a plus

[Mr_Spock]

5. I liked what I saw of him on CSPAN last week - very refined.

If he spoke like that during the primary, Bush would be toast now as Clark would have cleaned his clock on his illegal war.

[Lefta Dissenter]

8. the funny thing is

he DID speak like that throughout his campaign (and even before - that's what attracted so many of us to him). The media chose to ignore him, and his message didn't get out except to the few who were fortunate enough to see him in person.

[aquanut]

31. Some radio commentator made a similar

comment about Clark's speech at the Democratic convention: "If Clark had made speeches like that in the primary he would have been the nominee...". Alone in my car I screamed at the radio: he did give speeches like that you $*@!% idiot!

[in_cog_ni_to]

85. NO SHIT!

He was an inspiring speaker. So sincere. Full of passion. You could see it in his eyes. The man was an AWESOME speaker. Too bad the media picked our candidate for us. Too bad the media never showed his speeches. :cry: Wes Clark is too amazing for words. Really. Now I'm getting depressed over spilled milk. :(

But, DAMN! He would have been one of the BEST Presidents we've ever had!

[texasmom]

53. I never saw him in person

but I saw him on C-Span and every other appearance I could catch. He spoke like "that" every time I heard him. He's just incredible.

[Leilani]

30. He did speak like that

but not enough people were listening.

And when we complained the media was ignoring him, we were told he wasn t a real Dem, not a professional pol, ( which was a plus, IMO)
he was a war criminal, & other stupid ideas.

[virgdem]

6. You won't find me flaming you for your analysis of Wes Clark...

I think that Clark has, until recently, been under utilized in the campaign. His character and career have been stellar and his views on military affairs are spot on. I hope that Kerry hits Bush as hard as he can on Iraq, as it is Bush's Achilles heel. This is the only way we will make the public at large truly aware of the debacle that Iraq has become.

[Lefta Dissenter]

7. flamed???

HA! You're obviously brilliant! :D

I try not to dwell on 'what could have been,' but DAMN, I am proud to have Wes Clark speaking up, as he has been since before he even began his campaign, then coming out strongly and surely for Kerry the day after he withdrew, and I know he'll continue right on through election day. This man is a treasure, and I just wish more people had listened to him from the start.

[Catch22Dem]

16. Hey, I remember the primaries here on DU

Clark was either loved or outright HATED by many DUers. I never could figure it. I had to defend every day against shit like "he's just a repuke coming to turn our party into blah blah blah..."

[pacalo]

9. I'm totally impressed with Wes Clark.

It would be a waste of valuable resources & talent if this great hero were not included in President Kerry's administration.

[Auntie Bush]

10. I love you for saying that Catch22.

Red hearts...no flames from me. I totally agree! :loveya:

[Catch22Dem]

17. Thank ya!

Love gettin' hearts!

[Arkana]

22. Why would you get flamed for that?

I was a Kerry person from the start, but I always thought that Clark's eloquence (and his electability--a war hero and a bright man) would be invaluable whether he won the nomination or not. Clark IS a true patriot, unlike those creeps in the White House who wrap the flag around everything they do.

[Catch22Dem]

37. If you were around DU during the primaries

The Dean Clark thing got pretty heated. Lots of people here hated Clark and didn't think he was a real dem.

[Arkana]

117. I wasn't, actually

I joined up directly after the primaries. Guess that means I don't have the experience to go on, but I meant what I said about Clark. :shrug:

[dennis4868]

33. why would you get flamed....

for speaking the truth?

[Catch22Dem]

38. Hey

It's happened before. LOL

[abrock]

43. After hearing all candidates speak...

Wes Clark was by far my ideal candidate for the US Presidency. He could be one of the best we've ever had. He KNOWS how things work, and he's not a pompous stuff shirt.

He's a damn good guy who I would fight for if he called me to do so, and thats saying a lot considering how anti-war I am.

[JI7]

48. no flames from me

Wes Clark IS what you say he is.

[cthrumatrix]

123. pm kick

[KT2000]

93. He also knows the Constitution

and he loves that too.

[democratreformed]

124. Here is your flame.

Bless you! Bless you! Bless you!

Fooled ya. I love Wes Clark. I miss him so much. But, I DO think he is finally being listened to. That warms my heart and continues to give me hope.

[FrenchieCat]

2. This is what the Kerry campaign

need to focus in on like a laser beam. If Bush can do sabber-rattling to scare the American people into keeping him....then Kerry needs to do some of his own to scare the American people into NOT voting for Bush!

http://digbig.com/4bsds

With fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq far from over, a
Pew Research Center Poll found that 51 percent of voters
surveyed said they do worry that Bush, if re-elected,
would lead the country into another war.

"The Bush administration is on a crusade to make the
world safe for democracy and part of that ... is
eliminating countries of anti-Western aggression,"
said Loren Thompson, a military analyst at the Lexington
Institute think tank in Washington.

"They may not like me to say that on the eve of the
election, but that's a fact," Thompson said. "It's less
likely to happen with a Kerry administration."

http://digbig.com/4bsds

[cthrumatrix]

119. he did awesome

[Adelante]

12. OK

Well, fucking hallelujah. :thumbsup:

[Jai4WKC08]

15. Sing it, sister!

Great to have you back with us, Jersey.

Like Clark with Kerry: Finally!

[annabanana]

54. Finally, indeed!

Hi Clarkies :hi:

[Lefta Dissenter]

19. Jersey!!!

I've sure missed your words of wisdom! :D

It's about time you get back online, you punk! :pals:

[LittleClarkie]

21. WesDem?

May I steal your Clarkies for Kerry sign?

[Adelante]

25. Help yourself, LittleClarkie

:D

[Leilani]

42. Hi Wes Dem!

Glad to have you back.

We need all the Clarkies here at DU.

Now that foreign policy has reared its ugly head in the campaign.

DUH!

[Tatiana]

26. Clarkie Power!

:grouphug: I miss our thoughtful analytical Clark foreign policy/domestic/economic discussions.

***Sigh*** I know, I know....

[Auntie Bush]

61. Glad to see you Wes. Missed you!

[democratreformed]

126. ROFLMAO!!!!

So well put!

[Jai4WKC08]

13. "You have to call it like it is."

When has Clark ever failed to "call it like it is." Not just about Iraq, but everything this whole flippin' administration has (so far) gotten away with. For that he was labelled a "looney" and "conspiracy theorist," even by Democrats who knew better.

Thank God Kerry seems to have finally realized what we Clarkies have been saying all along, what Clark himself said about "going toe to toe with George Bush on national security" -- it's what this election will be won or lost on. Clark threw in with Kerry so quickly, not because Kerry was leading the pack, but because he knew Kerry was the only one (other than himself) who could deliver that message.

A quote from later on in the Newsweek article:

The president's surrogates went one step further, accusing Kerry
of adopting a "defeatist" position that was weakening American
resolve in the war. Kerry's aides counter that such Bush attacks
have run their course. "The flip-flop tag has already been priced
into the market," one senior staffer said. "Bush's failure in Iraq
hasn't."

More and more, Americans are figuring out that Iraq is a disaster. They already know Kerry's the better man to handle our domestic problems. If he just keeps hitting hard on how Bush has fucked up this war, and made the terrorists stronger by doing so, he can still pull it together. There's still time and the situation in both Iraq and Afghanistan is only going to get worse.

[kaitykaity]

14. So so glad to see Wes back in the game.

McPeak is great, but Clark has true star power.

[BootinUp]

18. Excellent! Attack Bush's credibility in Iraq

Wes showed how to do it before, we can do it again. :)

[Gloria]

23. Note to Kerry: please join Wes Clark to your hip, surgically if necessary,

for the next 6 weeks!!!

Bush told us his damned campaign would be about national security, Wes said it would be...but no.....we couldn't go that way....

If we can't have Wes as VP, we can at least have him campaigning as if he is the nominee from now on to save this sorry ass campaign...

And let's hope we get a 527 ad campaign showing pictures of Bush holding hands with Bandar and throw in a few of Bob Graham's observations on 911 from the jacket of his book for good measure....

Blow these creeps to smithereens.

[Tatiana]

24. We need Wes in our government.

He also had a fantastic analysis of the Iraq situation on Randi's show. Something I really liked was his idea of sitting down with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Jordan, Saudia Arabia, Kuwait, etc. and having a dialogue with the Middle Eastern region to let them know we want stability in the region.

Check it out. It's on the right column under Randi's interviews on Wednesday, September 15th.

http://www.randirhodesarchives.com/

[Mz Pip]

27. 'bout time.

Clark has the amazing ability to take the complexities of the geopolitics of the mid east and explain them in a way that make sense to anyone who would bother to listen.

I'm glad Kerry is finally getting it that Clark is a valuable asset to the campaign.

MzPip
:dem:

[Leilani]

28. Kerry should have picked Wes Clark for Veep!

There, I have said it, & I believed it all along.

The Shrum wuss wing of the Kerry campaign wanted to play happy, smiley face campaign. You cannot do that against Karl Rove.

So many people said, don t run on national security; run on the economy, run on health care.

Kerry was getting his clock cleaned; the new advisors said hit back,
talk honestly about Iraq. So who did he call? Wes Clark.

Wes accompanied him to the National Guard Speech, & then went on to campaign with him, & from a personal report here at DU, he was {treated like a rock star.}

Before Kerry made his Veep decision, I said he should announce Wes Clark & announce, { as soon as I become Prez, I will send my Veep Wes Clark to Iraq to meet with the military people on the ground. Wes knows all these people personally, he has worked with them. And Wes will report back to me with honest analysis of the situation. We will also convene a meeting with the heads of Mideast countries, our allies like Jordan, etc. & we WILL fix this mess that Bush has wrought.}

If he had done that, today no one would be able to say Kerry has no Iraq strategy.

[Bongo Prophet]

110. Yeah, I thought a Kerry/Clark ticket would have been the ultimate

But also swore I would support whatever JK chose with no looking back.
Held my breath that it wouldn't be...well x or y or z...(no names)
and breathed a sigh of relief that Edward's, my next favorite strategic pick, was chosen. He is kickin A through the swing states - I saw his speech in Ohio on c-span earlier tonight. He's drawing great crowds, and the people love him.

A good team can have many star players, and I like it that way.
In any team effort, no matter who the "captain" is, you can't win without good shortstop, outfield, defense and offense, etc. Tortured sports analogies, but apt!
It irritates me to see the negativity so many still display.
Fighting and carping at each other in the dugout, rather than getting behind the one up at bat. But it's still better than GOP groupthink anyday!
Herding cats, as the saying goes...

BUT
One of the smartest minds in politics I have ever seen, with a heart that screams pragmatic progressive, I want him in the cabinet sooo bad.
(I prefer Sec. of State)
The more I see of Clark, the happier I will be!

[Leilani]

29. Frenchie, thanks for posting this!

Forgot to thank you during my rant!

[Aussie_expat]

32. Is this an example of Kerry's rebuild relationships Iraq policy? WTF

US 'endangers Australians'
Roy Eccleston, Washington correspondent
September 18, 2004
JOHN Kerry's campaign has warned Australians that the Howard
Government's support for the US in Iraq has made them a
bigger target for international terrorists.

Diana Kerry, younger sister of the Democrat presidential
candidate, told The Weekend Australian that the Bali bombing
and the recent attack on the Australian embassy in Jakarta
clearly showed the danger to Australians had increased.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,10797507%255E2703,00.html

This doesn't sound like away to start re-building
international support.

Kerry's his own worst enemy.

[BootinUp]

34. She is not an official of the Kerry campaign AFAIK

In other words, the article printed a falsehood.

She was expressing her opinion. It was not a position of the Kerry campaign. New here aren't you?

[Aussie_expat]

35. It's J.K.'s perception in Australia that I'm worried about.

I've been here since 2001. Lurking and learning.

This struck me close to home so I registered and posted.

Is that a problem?

[BootinUp]

39. I thought it important to correct the error.

It should be clear that Kerry would not encourage allies to knuckle under to terrorist threats. At the same time it is also clear that allies are targets, so what she said wasn't really news anyways IMHO.

[Leilani]

40. I read the story, & remember, she is a private citizen.

But Dems believe that Bush s reckless foreign policy has created more problems than it has solved.

By going to war in Iraq, how many terrorists have we created?

If Kerry is elected, allies, like Australia will have more of a working partnership. With Bush, its my way or the highway.

I would think that would please Aussies.

All of Western Europe & Canada is hoping Kerry wins.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[Aussie_expat]

45. Call me what you will.

I cannot see any value in pointing out to the Australians that they have been penalized via a strong relationship with the US.(period)

The Howard, who is a 'L'iberal, has been a strong supporter of the US during both the Clinton and Bush presidencies.

[BootinUp]

46. Howard is a liberal??

Isn't he in the conservative party down there?

[Aussie_expat]

47. He's a Big 'L' liberal which is the Aussie version of conservative.

That put's him left of Kerry.

The Australian Labour Party is 'more' liberal of the two parties.

[Jai4WKC08]

50. You mean to the right of Kerry, don't you?

If "Labour is the 'more' liberal"?

Not sure how it pertains, tho. Blair is Labour, or whatever it's called, and he's supported the war as well. This is not a strict left/right issue, altho in this country it's been turned into one. Just as Kosovo was when it should not have been.

But I still have to wonder why you only cited what the reporter said, not what Ms. Kerry herself said, which was 100% supportive of our alliance with Australia. The war in Iraq is endangering us all and it is NOT fighting the terrorists. Bin Laden walks free (so far as we know), al Qaeda is killing people all over the world, and recruitment of new terrorists has never been higher. Both Kerrys are just telling it like it is, and it in no way is a slight to Australia or any other ally.

Besides, do you really think Australia will be less inclined to support the US if/when Kerry is the US commander-in-chief? Either it's a worthwhile effort or it isn't. Having a sensible policy that deals with the larger regional context, brings in international institutions, and is based on some vision of where we need to be in the future (a "success strategy" as Clark calls it) will help the armed forces of both countries in the long run.

So why even bring it up?

[Aussie_expat]

56. In a nutshell.

The Liberal Party in Australia is to the left of US Democratic Party.
As an example the current 'L'iberal (conservative) government has passed very strong anti-gun legislation. Banning all semi-automatic weapons period and the registering of every gun and owner period. The vast majority of people in Australia would not have a gun nor would they know someone who did. The government has bought most of the back from the population.

I sited the article as a whole and that's why I posted the link. I just cut and pasted what was there first. This is irrelevant to the discussion.

You continue to miss the whole point of my dismay. The Australian people supported the US and it didn't matter to the citizens of Australia who the President was at the time. You are the United States of America regardless of who the president in the eyes of the Australian public. The averge Aussie couldn't care less who is the president of USA. Now you have Kerry's clan over there telling them they are now in trouble because they supported the "United States of America".

How in the world does this fit with Kerry's plan to strenghten international support in Iraq? If anything it would lean towards driving away a country that will support the US as they need it down the track.

That is my question.

[BootinUp]

57. Start your own thread

This is thread hi-jacking.

It should already be obvious to Australians that they are in danger, just as we are. Your point is a non-point.

[Jai4WKC08]

66. Good point, Jim

Sorry I have played into it. I will stop.

[Jai4WKC08]

65. Whatever you say...

I'll accept that you just happened to paste in the first two paragraphs and stopped short of the meat of the article.

So are you saying that both of the main parties in Australia then are to the left of the Democratic Party in America? Wow, that seems odd--I don't tend to think of Australia as such a left-wing nation. I mean, they are with us in Iraq, and were in Vietnam as well. But, I will admit that the only Australians I have known well were military officers (whom I worked with in my own career) and so probably not representative of the overall population. They seemed pretty middle-of-the-road.

But I still think you're off-base to claim Kerry's sister said anything to alienate Australians when you are citing only what the person who wrote the article said, not what she said herself. I am not familiar with the source, but I would be surprised if Australia doesn't have media problems similar to ours and that most people over there must realize that.

I'm also not sure I accept that Australians don't care who the president of the US is. That would make them different from every other "western" nation with which I am familiar, and I've lived in several. Oh, the majority may not care--most days, I don't think the majority of Americans care either. But the politically aware usually do. And it's only the politically aware in any democracy who influence policy.

As for your "dismay," no, I just don't see the basis for it. Kerry is (finally) telling Americans that their support of Bush's war has made us less safe. It IS the truth. Why shouldn't his surrogate tell our allies the same thing? Would you prefer she lie to them?

That said, from the context of the article, she was speaking more to Americans residing in Australia, not to Australian citizens. You can argue that her remarks were reported to the Australians, but so what? It's not like Australians can't read what's being said here just as easily and it's the same. She certainly is not in a position to speak for potential US-Australian relations under a Kerry administration and if anyone takes her comments that way, they're really out to lunch.

In other words, this is a tempest in a teapot. If you are dismayed, it's because you choose to be.

[RafterMan]

109. Dismay?

Do you dispute that it does, in fact, seem like Australia has paid a price for supporting the US? Does the average Australian not see it that way?

Acknowledging that our blunders can have an unpleasant effect on our friends seems like a positive step to me.

[AmerDem]

101. I don't know of any Dems that use the term Big L....

when describing those that are within their party. Why did you use it?

[Aussie_expat]

104. See links

http://www.alp.org.au/

http://www.liberal.org.au/

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/pol/polparti.htm

[Auntie Bush]

58. Me thinks you did more lurking than learning. That's the problem .n/t

[FrenchieCat]

120. Your profile info

tells a different tale. You became a member of DU on September 19, 2004? This does not jive with your dates. Try another story. Thank you.

[Aussie_expat]

121. You could have saved yourself some time Frenchie

by reading my post.

Here it is again.

Aussie_expat (7 posts) Sun Sep-19-04 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #34

35. It's J.K.'s perception in Australia that I'm worried about.

I've been here since 2001. Lurking and learning.

This struck me close to home so I registered and posted.

Is that a problem?

[DancingBear]

36. Finally!!!

Dear John,

He tried to tell you after he left the race that it would be all war, all the time in the GE.

He's telling you again.

For the sake of all us, listen to him now.

edit: When a Four Star General says attack - you attack.

Hi WesDem! :hi:

[elcondor]

49. Dear John

What DancingBear said! ;-)

Love;
elcondor

[WI_DEM]

41. I think many great democrats have been saying this

including Wes Clark and Howard Dean.

[FrenchieCat]

55. So maybe what it is....

is that when General Wes Clark says it....it actually means something. I notice that it's not only what one says, but how it is said and who says it that counts. General Clark just happens to have gravitas when it comes to War and Peace. Kerry should utilize his advise for what it's worth.

Most who follow Clark knows that he is a sage....going back quite some time now.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

51. Woo-Hoo! Go General Clark!

And a :hi: to all my fellow Clarkies!

:toast:

DTH

[bigtree]

52. start?

sigh.

[robbedvoter]

59. Unless the 2 Americas people prevail again.

Good news - for now.

[shivaji]

60. Brilliant! Now Kerry is taking advice from a zero political experience

person, gen Clark. Instead listen to Bill Clinton's advisors,
who have PROVEN success on their records. They helped Clinton
get elected twice. Clark finished near last in the nomination
process, and now he is the source of advice? Gimme a break.

[Auntie Bush]

62. Why do I

remember what Cheney said?

[Sparkly]

64. He's a four-star general.

He came in second in more states than Edwards before he dropped.

He knows politics from within the Pentagon, within international halls of diplomacy, and academic halls as a teacher at West Point (and if you don't think politics happens in every school, as well as every federal agency, you've never been a teacher).

He knows military strategy from first-hand experience of what actually works.

He knows what's going on with the soldiers, with the generals, with the politics in the region, and what the possibilities and pitfalls are.

He may not be "framing" the words for the retail campaign trail, but he's a superb advisor on substance and our party is blessed to have him working for Kerry, imo.

[Auntie Bush]

67. IMHO too! Thanks for putting that into words.

[cidliz2004]

68. GW's weak spot is Iraq

He uses it as his strength, but it is his weakness IF Kerry goes after it.

Clinton backed Clark for Pres. race.

Clinton didn't get elected while we were at war. If we were at war when Clinton ran, he may not have been elected.

The 2004 election is a TOTALLY different election than was the 92'
election.

There have only been 4 elections in our recent history while this country was at war. People may not be voting as strongly on Domestic as they typically would be if we were not at war.

The only thing that GWB is dominating Kerry is on terrorism and Iraq, SO, THAT is where we have to attack him.

The same strategy that Rove has, go after their strength and flatten it. If we could do that, we have WON! What better way then to utilize a brilliant 4 star General that won a war in Kosovo without the loss of 1 American life and led a coalition of 15,16,17(?) countries while he fought that war (and has a chest full of awards and honors from those countries for the brilliance that he had shown.

Lastly, he didn't finish LAST in the Primaries, he was actually running neck and neck with Edwards, arguably stronger.....GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT BEFORE YOU ATTACK WES CLARK WITH STUPID INACCURACIES.

[Sparkly]

72. Good points

This election is SO much about Chimp's "War President" persona, and their ability to wield Fear as a tool.

But I guess it's just not enough to have a 34-year career in the military; one has to have been in Congress simultaneously for those 34 years to have any credibility on military matters in the election. :eyes:

Personally, I still feel puzzled by the puzzle: we had space for a specific shape, with certain angles and attributes, and General Clark was the exact fit for the puzzle shape of this election -- more perfect than any candidate for any election of any time. But oh well. If it couldn't be Clark, it had to be Kerry solely because he had a military background -- absolutely essential in this election, and I have never considered it an important factor before.

Kerry's smart. He knows the General's voice is one worth listening to.

[girl gone mad]

69. Sorry, but..

if the Clinton people are telling Kerry to focus on the economy instead of Iraq and National Security, they are just plain wrong.

This election has always been primarily about the war in Iraq and terrorism. Iraq is just too big of a fuck-up to ignore. Clark was right all along. What's more, he has absolutely proven his loyalty to Kerry, and Kerry would be wise to take Clark's advice.

Personally, I think Kerry should greet Clinton's people with a healthy degree of skepticism.

[BootinUp]

71. Just wanted to point out

That some of the Clinton advisers are agreeing with Clark according to the article. It is Kerry's longer serving advisors who advised staying low on Iraq.

[girl gone mad]

82. Thanks.

I know Clark is an FOB. :)

[DoveTurnedHawk]

70. Still Grinding That Axe, eh Shivaji?

:eyes:

DTH

[JI7]

73. he is getting advice on national security not on political strategy

just as clinton got advice from clark on national security/military/foreign policy type issues.

[Jai4WKC08]

74. Ummm...

In case you hadn't figured it out...

IT'S THE CLINTON PEOPLE WHO ARE PUTTING CLARK BACK OUT FRONT!

It's precisely because they know what wins elections, and because they know Clark knows Iraq, and terrorism, and foreign policy, and national defense, and intelligence, and the list goes on.

He knows a lot of domestic stuff too, but that's not relevant now.

As for "finished near last," that's just not true and I think you know it. In fact, it's so far from the obvious truth, it's pretty much laughable.

[Disturbed]

77. Clarke for VP

Yes, he should have been picked because the major weakness that Kerry has is the War On Terror. Of course, Terror is a tactic and al Q. is the org. that the US is up against. This is the Bush strong suit, perpetuated by propaganda. This is why the Dems went with Kerry as War Hero at the convention but that got mangled by the SB Liars and the complicit Mass Media, controlled by Right Wing Corps. A VP, strong on US Defense would have been the wiser choice.

[Crunchy Frog]

114. It's so far from the obvious truth...

It almost seems like the sort of thing a Republican would say. It's got that same level of regard for truthfulness.

[Leilani]

78. Obviously, it is the Clinton people running things now

& are smart enough to utilize Wes Clark s talents. They are the FIGHT BACK wing of the Dems.

The Shrum WUSS wing has been relegated to the side; they weren t getting the job done with smiley faces.

Your vast political insight boggles the mind, NOT!

[JPJones]

86. Hit and run turd drop n/t

[Bongo Prophet]

111. His lack of "political experience" notwithstanding

his tactical and strategic experience, cultural eclecticism, and economics background give him quite a lot of weight in my book.
All of this is transferable to some degree to politics, but even MORE to governing...

The fact that JK is taking advice and working with Gen. Clark reflects well on both of them. If either turned back on the other, I would be very disappointed and surprised. Class acts. not ego driven politicos, either of them.

Finally, I think K/E and the other Dems should be hitting on domestic AND international issues. After all, it's Bush that can't walk and eat pretzels at the same time...

[Crunchy Frog]

112. Oh, shivaji!

[BootinUp]

113. Hey

gave him a kiss!!??

You shoulda taken him to the woodshed! :spank: lol.

[Crunchy Frog]

115. Hey, what are you doing up

this time of morning. Well, I guess it's later where you are.

I'm familiar with the poster. I'm treating it like the joke that it is.

[democratreformed]

127. Oh, nevermind.

Some people will NEVER get it.

[Bread and Circus]

75. He should have picked Clark for VP.....

I know his "advisors" told him to pick Edwards but if he had picked Clark he wouldn't be in near as much trouble as he is in now. For these times, Clark would have been a much better choice.

There, I said it....many here were thinking it, I'm sure.

[Tom Rinaldo]

79. and I'll make the complimentary comment...

I was one of those who argued for Clark for President and then Vice President. I think he was the better choice, for the latter especially, but no matter anymore. I wish John Edwards only the best now in his role as the Democratic Party's VP designate. I hope JE charms whoever can be charmed and stirs to action all those who identify with him. This is not about Clark vs Edwards any longer. This is about electing Kerry Edwards in November, and Wes Clark has a great deal to offer in that regard. Clark is a true team player, Thank God he is on our team. He is exactly who we need now coming in off the bench.

[cidliz2004]

80. You got it!

I said the same thing. Clark was/is better suited for these times. The Edward's backers kept saying that people would vote on Domestic Issues.

As much debate as there was about who would be best suited for Kerry's VP, we now know that the sunny smile, good looks, staying above the fray - occasional great zingers aren't quite doing it.
The elephant in the Democratic Strategy Room is IRAQ - and it always has been. Kerry could easily tie Iraq, Iran, Korea and the war on terrorism together in one word describing Bush's policies on them INEPT....OR W RONG!

Clark could have and would have put a much stronger message out about Bush's attempt at being a non combat war hero. Come on it is so obvious. Iraq is in shambles and NOBODY IS MAKING THAT THE CAMPAIGN ISSUE???????? WTF!??!!

WHO WANTS TO BE THE LAST SOLDIER KILLED IN IRAQ?

[Leilani]

81. Hey family doctor, I m with you!

See my post #28.

And yes, many here are thinking it.

[Bread and Circus]

83. It's not just about window dressing/electibility either....If Kerry has...

to go to Clark for advice as to what to say/think - he should have put him on the ticket. It's just that fucking simple.

If you gotta broken arm, go to the ER.
If you gotta take a crap, go to the bathroom.
If you gotta win an Election during a major military conflict/war, get someone with Foreign Policy experience to run with you.
If you gotta lead a divided nation during war, get someone who knows how to unite and lead during a major military conflict to be your Vice President.

It's not fucking rocket science.

Kerry beats Bush on domestic stuff, he doesn't need any help there. But right now, Four Stars vs. Five Deferments would have been really nice to see.

Edwards is a fine choice, Clark just would have been better.

Fuck Kerry's advisors. Stupid assholes.

[Leilani]

89. Family Doctor, you have won my heart!

Before the Veep selection, I said { We are at war...if you go to war, do you take a General or a Trial Attorney?}

Also, I warned that Rove & Co. would wage a scorched earth policy, & smiley faces would not cut it.

Well, charisma & charm won out over war-hardened, international policy genius.

Like Wes, I have tried to be a good soldier, but I could not bite my tongue any longer.

[Tatiana]

95. LOL, remember the "Perfumed Prince" smear?

Could they have been any more wrong?

[Leilani]

105. Unfortunately, many people were SO wrong

about So many things.

[Crunchy Frog]

116. The really sad thing

is that Wes has oodles of charisma and charm. He just also happens to have substance as well. It's a pity the Democratic party wasn't willing to see it.

[BootinUp]

90. pretty damn simple is right

:thumbsup:

[Bread and Circus]

76. P.S. Many of us "Chicken Littles" have been proven right...

Thank god, Kerry is changing his tactic.

It's Bush's incompetence on the War with Terrorists (the right ones), stupid.

[bigtree]

84. Thank God you are at last paying attention to what Kerry says

[Bread and Circus]

87. I've closely followed Kerry for over a year so I'm not sure what

you mean.

[bigtree]

91. These things have been said by Kerry before

I'm always amazed when someone pops up to tell folks that Kerry is 'finally speaking up' about one thing or another. You act like Clark had to lead Kerry here. Kerry lead the way on this. Kerry has made more statements and more speeches on these issues than Clark. This is not the first time Kerry has spoken up about Bush's war.

But I'm glad you heard him this time.

Remarks on Bush’s Wrong Choices in Iraq That Have Left Us Without the Resources We Need at Home- September 8, 2004
Remarks of John Kerry

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0908.html

Cincinnati, OH - Yesterday in Iraq, we marked the most incalculable loss of all. Yesterday, we reached a tragic milestone. More than 1,000 of America’s sons and daughters gave their lives in service to our country. More than 1,000 sons and daughters, husbands and wives, brothers and sisters who will never come home to live the lives they dreamed of. We honor them, we pray for them and for their families, and we owe it to their memory and all our troops to do what’s right in Iraq.


I also want to speak directly to the more than 150,000 troops currently risking their lives as far away as Iraq and Afghanistan. Your country is proud of you. You are the most dedicated, capable military we’ve ever had. We are united as a nation in our support for you. We pledge to stand with your families as you stand on the front lines for ours. You are the best of America. And you perform magnificently every day. We thank you for your service and your sacrifice.

Twenty-three months ago, President Bush came here to ask the American people for our support. And he promised then to make the right choices when it came to sending young Americans to Iraq.

Here in Cincinnati, he said that if Congress approved the resolution giving him the authority to use force, it did not mean that military action would be “unavoidable”. But he chose not to give the weapons inspectors the time they needed to get the job done and give meaning to the words, going to war as a last resort.

Here in Cincinnati, he promised “to lead a coalition.” But he failed to build a broad, strong coalition of allies and he rushed to war without a plan to win the peace.

Here in Cincinnati, from this hall, on that night, he spoke to the nation, and promised: “If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully. We will act with the full power of the United States military. We will act with allies at our side and we will prevail.”

But then, George W. Bush made the wrong choices. He himself now admits he miscalculated in Iraq. In truth, his miscalculation was ignoring the advice that was given to him, including the best advice of America’s own military. When he didn’t like what he was hearing, he even fired the Army Chief of Staff. His miscalculation was going to war without taking every precaution and without giving the inspectors time. His miscalculation was going to war without planning carefully and without the allies we should have had. As a result, America has paid nearly 90% of the bill in Iraq. Contrast that with the Gulf War, where our allies paid 95% of the costs.

George W. Bush’s wrong choices have led America in the wrong direction in Iraq and left America without the resources we need here at home. The cost of the President’s go-it-alone policy in Iraq is now $200 billion and counting. $200 billion for Iraq, but they tell us we can’t afford after-school programs for our children. $200 billion for Iraq, but they tell us we can’t afford health care for our veterans. $200 billion for Iraq, but they tell us we can’t afford to keep the 100,000 new police we put on the streets during the 1990s.

Well we’re here today to tell them: they’re wrong. And it’s time to lead America in a new direction.

When it comes to Iraq, it’s not that I would have done one thing differently from the President, I would’ve done almost everything differently. I would have given the inspectors the time they needed before rushing to war. I would have built a genuine coalition of our allies around the world. I would’ve made sure that every soldier put in harm’s way had the equipment and body armor they needed. I would’ve listened to the senior military leaders of this country and the bipartisan advice of Congress. And, if there’s one thing I learned from my own service, I would never have gone to war without a plan to win the peace.

I would not have made the wrong choices that are forcing us to pay nearly the entire cost of this war – $200 billion that we’re not investing in education, health care, and job creation here at home.

$200 billion for going-it-alone in Iraq. That’s the wrong choice; that’s the wrong direction; and that’s the wrong leadership for America.

While we’re spending that $200 billion in Iraq, 8 million Americans are looking for work – 2 million more than when George W. Bush took office – and we’re told that we can’t afford to invest in job training and job creation here at home.

But for the Bush administration, helping Americans find a good job has never been the priority. The first time we’ve heard much about it at all was during this campaign. And at that convention in New York last week, they actually told us that outsourcing jobs was good for America. That shouldn’t be a surprise because that’s what they’ve been doing for four years – and if they get another chance, that’s exactly what they will do for four more years. That’s the wrong choice; that’s the wrong direction; and that’s the wrong leadership for America.

As president, I will set a new direction. I will close the tax loopholes that reward companies for shipping jobs overseas. Instead, we’re going to reward companies that create and keep good jobs here in the United States of America.

Because of this President’s wrong choices, we’re spending $200 billion in Iraq while the costs of health care have gone through the roof and we’re told we don’t have the resources to make health care affordable and available for all Americans. Today, 45 million Americans have no health insurance at all – 5 million more than the day George W. Bush took office.

And after four years of no action, no concern, and hardly a mention of those struggling to afford health care, the President finally told us last week that he actually had a plan. Well, we only had to wait twenty-four hours to find out what that was. Because the very next day he raised Medicare premiums 17 percent – the biggest increase in Medicare premiums in the history of that program. And here’s the kicker – a lot of that money is nothing more than a windfall to the insurance companies and HMOs. They’re charging 17% more for Medicare while making America pay $200 billion for a go-it-alone policy in Iraq. That’s the wrong choice; that’s the wrong direction; and that’s the wrong leadership for America.

As President, I will set a new direction. George W. Bush believes when it comes to health care, the big drug companies come first, the insurance companies come second, and you come last. Well, I’m going to put you first. Our plan will take on the waste and greed in the health care system and save the average family up to $1000 a year on their premiums. Our plan will help small businesses deal with the most expensive cases. Our plan will cover all children. When I am president, America will stop being the only advanced nation in the world which fails to understand that health care is not a privilege for the wealthy, the connected, and the elected, it is a right for all Americans.

Because of George W. Bush’s wrong choices, we’re spending $200 billion in Iraq while we’re running up deficits that threaten Social Security. In fact, they’re raiding the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for their mistakes in Iraq. At that convention in New York last week, George Bush said that he actually had a new idea. And you know what it was? The bad, old idea of privatizing social security -- and cutting your benefits. That’s the wrong choice; that’s the wrong direction; and that’s the wrong leadership for America.

As President, I will not privatize Social Security. I will not cut benefits. I will not raise the retirement age. Because when you’ve worked for a lifetime, America owes you what you’ve earned.

And because of this President’s wrong choices, we’re spending $200 billion in Iraq instead of investing in making America energy independent. George W. Bush’s energy policy is to trust the big oil companies and the Saudis. In fact, a national news magazine just reported that a senior member of the Saudi Royal family said that as far as they??re concerned, in the U.S. Presidential election, “It’s Bush all the way.” I want an America that relies on its own ingenuity and innovation, not the Saudi Royal Family.

We’re going to invest in technology and the vehicles of the future, so that no young American will ever be held hostage to our dependence on oil from the Middle East. That’s the right choice; that’s the right direction; and that’s the right leadership for America.

Because of this President’s wrong choices, we’re spending $200 billion in Iraq while we’re told that we can’t afford to do everything that we should for homeland security. I believe it’s wrong to be opening firehouses in Baghdad and closing them down in the United States of America. It’s wrong to cut money for our first responders. It’s wrong to let 95% of the cargo that comes into this country get by without ever being physically inspected. That’s the wrong choice; that’s the wrong direction; and that’s the wrong leadership for America.

As President, I will set a new direction. We’re going to defend this country here at home. We’re going to do all we possibly can to protect it from another terrorist attack. And we’re going to make homeland security a priority, not a political slogan.

My friends, today we are bearing the cost of the war in Iraq almost alone – $200 billion and counting.

Nearly two years after George W. Bush spoke to the nation from this very place, we know how wrong his choices were. He says he “miscalculated.” He calls Iraq a “catastrophic success.” But a glance at the front pages or a look at the nightly news shows the hard reality: Rising instability. Spreading violence. Growing extremism. Havens for terrorists that weren’t there before. And today, even the Pentagon admits, Entire regions of Iraq are controlled by insurgents and terrorists.

I call this course a catastrophic choice that has cost us $200 billion because we went it alone, and we’ve paid an even more unbearable price in young American lives.

We need a new direction. I know what we need to do in Iraq. We need to bring our allies to our side, share the burdens, reduce the cost to American taxpayers, and reduce the risk to American soldiers. We need to train Iraqi military and police – we need to train them more rapidly, more effectively, and in greater numbers to take over the job of protecting their own country. That's what I’ll do as Commander-in-Chief – because that’s the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home.

You know, the President said one thing in his convention speech that’s true. He said we all need to challenge the soft bigotry of low expectations. But you know, it’s George W. Bush who has set low expectations -- and met them. He doesn’t believe that America can be strong in the world while we also make progress here at home. He believes we have to choose one or the other. That’s a false choice – and I reject it. I believe we can lead in the world and lead America to greater progress and prosperity than we’ve ever known before.

Half a century ago, from here in Union Terminal, thousands of soldiers waved one last goodbye to their families before heading off to the Second World War. In that war, their bravery, and leaders who made the right choices, brought victory over tyranny and prosperity here at home.

When I’m president, America will once again stand up to our enemies without destroying or denying our best hopes here at home. We will strengthen our military to meet new threats and we will build and lead strong alliances. We will build a stronger America, with good jobs, better wages, health care for all, and energy independence. With the right choices and the right leadership, we will set a new direction for America. We will build an America stronger at home and respected in the world. As Franklin Roosevelt once said, “The only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts of today.” Well, I believe there are no limits for tomorrow. But we need to make the right choices today. With your help, we will restore the true greatness of our nation and set a new direction for our future.


March 18, 2004
John Kerry for President - Kerry Criticizes Bush's Iraq Policy
...Kerry Criticizes Bush's Iraq Policy Associated Press By Mike Glover Washington, DC - Democrat John Kerry assailed President Bush on Wednesday for clinging to a failed policy that leaves Americans mired in Iraq "with the target...
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/news/news_2004_0318.html


April 13, 2004
John Kerry for President - Kerry: The President Needs to Address How He’s Going to Fix the Instability in Iraq
...in Iraq Will Bush Lay Out A Detailed Strategy for Iraq Tonight? For Immediate Release Boston, MA - This morning in Providence, RI, Democratic Candidate for President John Kerry gave a brief statement on the Bush...
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0413b.html

March 17, 2004
John Kerry for President - U.S. in Iraq - One Year Later
U.S. in Iraq - One Year Later For Immediate Release NO IMMINENT THREAT: Weapons of Mass Destruction Not Found. "MR. RUSSERT: The night you took the country to war, March 17th, you said this: "Intelligence gathered by this and...
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0317b.html

More: Kerry page-Keywords Bush Iraq:
http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-i=1&sp-q=bush+iraq&sp-a=sp1001847f&sp-p=any&sp-n=11&sp-f=ISO-8859-1&x=11&y=5

[BootinUp]

92. Au contraire (edited)

Kerry has slammed Bush on Iraq and on the WOT, but usually it was only in a couple sentences before he tried to connect it to the economy. His last speech before the National Guard was much tougher. He got personal when said Bush was living in a fantasty world. Plus Kerry touted strongly his plans for adding 2 divisions, doubling special forces and using the National Guard for Homeland Security. All that is stuff he could have been pushing harder and longer before.

I know there was the other speech where he said he would have done everything different. But it still didn't give me the feeling he was being straight, it was like he was dancing around the rhetoric.

Anyways, I noticed a difference, and I have been listening.

ON EDIT:
Do you not believe the Newsweek article? You think it is just spin?

[bigtree]

96. He pushed it in April and repeated it many times afterward

This Moment in Iraq is a Moment of Truth
Remarks of John Kerry - April 30, 2004

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0430.html


Like the world that Churchill saw in 1946, today’s world requires that we recast old assumptions and turn to new approaches if we are to prevail in our historic charge to defend our nation and build a new era of alliances. The common foe we face today is different in every way, but fully as dangerous, as the one that Churchill so famously described here.

Yet Churchill’s grand theme is still valid and relevant: The United States, he said, stood “at the pinnacle of power” with “an awe-inspiring accountability to the future.” He called for a strengthening of the United Nations, and stronger alliances. Talking of the Soviet Union, Churchill spoke words that are still true, in this different time and against a different adversary: “What they desire is the…indefinite expansion of their power and doctrines…I am convinced that there is nothing they admire so much as strength, and there is nothing for which they have less respect than for weakness, especially military weakness.”

Of course, not everyone agreed with Churchill. Rejecting his call for closer ties even with Great Britain, The Wall Street Journal said that “the United States wants no alliance or anything that resembles an alliance with any nation.” Well, some things never change.

What was true in 1946 is still true today. America must lead a broad coalition against our adversaries, and we must be a beacon of values as well as strength to succeed. This is our duty, and our obligation to those great leaders of a half century ago who set us on a course to victory in the Cold War, starting here at Fulton.

So you don’t come to Fulton to give a speech; you come to Fulton to honor a tradition and give the country and the world the gift of hard truths and a sense of hope.

Both are needed today as we stand on the eve of an anniversary in this country—the day that major combat operations were declared over in Iraq and the President declared, “mission accomplished.”

I don’t think there’s anyone in this room today or 6,000 miles away who doesn’t wish that those words had been true. But we’ve seen the news. We’ve seen the pictures. And we know we are living through days of great danger.

What anniversaries give us is the time to reflect—not about where we have been—but about what might be possible—possible for our men and women in the military, the Iraqi people and our allies around the world.

This anniversary is not a time to shout. It is not a time for blame. It is a time for a new direction in Iraq and for America to work together so that once again this nation leads in a way that brings the world to us and with us in our efforts.

In the end, America is safer and stronger when it is respected around the world, not feared. To move to that place of promise and possibility, we must all see and share in the hard truths all around us.

We know that there is no harder truth than when an American pays the ultimate sacrifice for our country. At this moment, 722 men and women have fallen. Eulogies and rifle salutes and the last lone note of taps have echoed across our towns. The sacrifice is profound, the grief beyond measure, and the country’s gratitude is eternal.

The hard truth is that we know that more lives will be lost until the mission is truly accomplished, and our duty is to make sure that parents, families, and friends who lost loved ones will know that they did not die in vain.

We also know that for more than 135,000 families the ongoing burden of this mission is something they feel every day. The truth is there’s an empty seat in the church pew on Sunday, an extra car in the driveway, and one less friend to phone for a movie on Friday night.

And the reasons that summoned Americans to service vary. It might be the story of a young man or woman called to duty in the wake of September 11th or by a family tradition of service to country. Or it may be a small businessperson who is called to Reserve or National Guard duty, first for a few weeks and now indefinitely.

They answered the call of service, they did their duty. But we now know that our military was sent into battle without the right equipment. Helicopter pilots have flown battlefield missions without the best available anti-missile systems.

We now know that roughly one-fourth of coalition deaths have occurred as a result of attacks on unarmored vehicles because we don’t have enough armed vehicles to go around. We now know that our failure to forge and lead a true coalition has forced thousands in the National Guard and Reserves to be away from families and jobs for more than a year with no end in sight. And we now know that civilians from half a dozen allied countries have been kidnapped. Hundreds of Iraqi civilians have been murdered in terrorist attacks.

In addition, many of the Iraqi military and police, whom we trained, have refused to fight. Extremists in major cities are rallying, challenging our resolve, and vowing to drive us out.

This moment in Iraq is a moment of truth. Not just for this administration, the country, the Iraqi people, but for the world. This may be our last chance to get this right. We need to put pride aside to build a stable Iraq.

We must reclaim our country’s standing in the world by doing what has kept America safe and made it more secure before—leading in a way that brings others to us so that we are respected, not simply feared, around the globe.

This will not be easy, a hard truth that sometimes fails to get through the news papers and daily reports. But we can accomplish the mission. And we must. Because I can tell you from personal experience, we owe it to the brave men and women who stand in harm’s way at this moment.

In America, we’re blessed. When you stop and think about what it takes for those individuals who risk their lives, say good-bye to their families, and go so far away to serve their country— it is a profound gesture of honor.

It symbolizes the spirit of America—that there are men and women who are ready to do what it takes to live and lead by our values. I met so many of them when I fought in Vietnam and I have met them since from Desert Storm, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Iraqi Freedom. Their love of country and sense of duty, is special. You carry it with you always. And it is because of them and those who carry on today, that together we have got to do what it takes to get this done right.

We have got to come together as never before to build a stable Iraq. Not just to finish the mission, but to remind the world that a shared endeavor can bring the world closer toward peace.

As complicated as Iraq seems, there are really only three basic options: One, we can continue to do this largely by ourselves and hope more of the same works; Two, we can conclude it’s not doable, pull out and hope against hope that the worst doesn’t happen in Iraq; Or three, we can get the Iraqi people and the world’s major powers invested with us in building Iraq’s future.

Mistakes have complicated our mission and jeopardized our objective of a stable free Iraq with a representative government, secure in its borders. We may have differences about how we went into Iraq, but we do not have the choice just to pick up and leave—and leave behind a failed state and a new haven for terrorists.

I believe that failure is not an option in Iraq. But it is also true that failure is not an excuse for more of the same.

Here is how we must proceed.

First, we must create a stable and secure environment in Iraq. That will require a level of forces equal to the demands of the mission. To do this right, we have to truly internationalize both politically and militarily: we cannot depend on a US-only presence. In the short-term, however, if our commanders believe they need more American troops, they should say so and they should get them.

But more and more American soldiers cannot be the only solution. Other nations have a vital interest in the outcome and they must be brought in.

To accomplish this, we must do the hard work to get the world’s major political powers to join in this mission. To do so, the President must lead. He must build a political coalition of key countries, including the UK, France, Russia and China, the other permanent members of the UN Security Council, to share the political and military responsibilities and burdens of Iraq with the United States.

The coalition should endorse the Brahimi plan for an interim Iraqi government, it should propose an international High Commissioner to work with the Iraqi authorities on the political transition, and it should organize an expanded international security force, preferably with NATO, but clearly under US command.

Once these elements are in place, the coalition would then go to the UN for a resolution to ratify the agreement. The UN would provide the necessary legitimacy. The UN is not the total solution but it is a key that opens the door to participation by others.

In parallel, the President must also go to NATO members and others to contribute the additional military forces and to NATO to take on an organizing role. NATO is now a global security organization and Iraq must be one of its global missions.

To bring NATO members and others in, the President must immediately and personally reach out and convince them that Iraqi security and stability is a global interest that all must contribute to. He must also convince NATO as an organization that Iraq should be a NATO mission—a mission consistent with the principles of collective security that have formed the basis of the alliance’s remarkable history in the pursuit of peace and security.

To bring others in it is imperative we share responsibility and authority. When NATO members have been treated with respect, they have always – always – answered the call of duty. So too with other key contributors. Every one has a huge stake in whether Iraq survives its trial by fire or is consumed by fire and becomes a breeding ground for terror, intolerance and fear.

I know that some will say that this is an impossible task, but I believe it is doable with the right approach. We must lead but we must listen. We must use every tool of diplomacy and persuasion to bring others along.

I also understand that perhaps NATO cannot undertake the entire Iraq mission right away. But it could possibly take control of Iraq’s borders, take responsibility for Northern Iraq and/or the Polish sector, and train Iraq’s army. If NATO did this, it would free up as many as 20,000 American troops, and open the door for other countries outside of NATO to participate.

The immediate goal is to internationalize the transformation of Iraq, to get more foreign forces on the ground to share the risk and reduce the burden on our own forces. That is the only way to succeed in the mission while ending the sense of an American occupation.

We must take these steps because there is greater strength in greater numbers and stronger alliances. And failure to move forward will be seen as a failure of American leadership.


Second:

The second key element is the High Commissioner. Backed by a newly broadened security coalition, he should be charged with overseeing elections, the drafting of a constitution and coordinating reconstruction. The Commissioner should be highly regarded by the international community and have the credibility to talk to all the Iraqi people.

This Commissioner should be directed to work with Iraq’s interim government, the new US Ambassador, and the international community after June 30 to ensure a process that continues to move forward on the path toward sovereignty, while focusing on the immediate needs of the Iraqis themselves.

The Iraqi people desperately need financial and technical assistance that is not swallowed up by bureaucracy and no-bid contracts, but instead goes directly into the hands of grassroots organizations. They need to see the tangible benefits of reconstruction in the form of jobs, infrastructure, and services. And they need to be able to communicate their concerns to international authorities without feeling they are being insulted and disrespected in their own country.

Third:

We need a massive training effort to build Iraqi security forces that can actually provide security for the Iraqi people. We must accept that the effort to date has failed: it must be rethought and reformed. Training cannot be hurried. It must be done in the field and on the job as well as in the classroom. Units cannot be put on the street without backup from international security forces. They cannot be rushed into battle before they are ready.

This is a task to do in partnership with other nations, not just on our own. This is a task which must be successful. If we fail to create viable Iraqi security forces – military and police – there is no successful exit for us and other nations.

But why would others join a cause that they did not support in the first place? For one simple reason: it’s in their self-interest. For the Europeans, Iraq’s failure could endanger the security of their oil supplies, further radicalize their large Muslim populations, threaten destabilizing refugee flows, and seed a huge new source of terrorism.

And for Iraq’s neighbors, a civil war in Iraq could draw them in, put moderates in the region on the defensive and radicals on the rise. And a civil war could threaten the regimes in Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.

These compelling interests have always existed and they must now be the central piece of a diplomatic effort long overdue. Will a new approach in Iraq be difficult to achieve? Yes.
Is there a guarantee of success? No.

In light of all the mistakes that have been made, no one can say that success is certain, but I can say that if we do not try, failure is all too likely.

If the President will take the needed steps to share the burden and make progress in Iraq – if he leads – then I will support him on this issue.

When Winston Churchill came to Westminster and defined the great mission of the Cold War, he called on free nations to stand together against tyranny. America’s leader in that moment of history was a tough and visionary son of Missouri named Harry Truman. President Truman could have used America’s power as an excuse to go it alone in the world. Instead, he joined with the leaders of many nations to create institutions like NATO and other alliances to preserve peace, spur economic progress and address global problems.

Much has changed since Churchill spoke. The institutions created more than half a century ago remain useful and relevant. But yesterday’s designs are not sufficient to meet today’s needs. Our institutions and alliances must adapt to new opportunities and threats. New enemies must be confronted by new strategies. America must lead in new ways.

But even as we contemplate what has changed, we must also remember what has not: Our belief in the rights and dignity of every human being. Our faith in democracy as the best form of government in all of human history. And our confidence in America’s capability to lead allies and friends to stand together and build a world more peaceful, prosperous and just than we have ever known before.

That was our mission in Churchill’s time. And for all the differences of time and circumstance, that is our urgent need in Iraq today and our enduring mission in the years ahead.

There is pride in that and honor – and if we meet the test, we can have a world that is safer because of American leadership.

[BootinUp]

103. I stand by my original opinion...thanks n/t

[democratreformed]

125. I stand by your side, Jim.

No, it's not Kerry vs. Clark anymore. And, yes, we Clarkies heard these things from Wes Clark in 2003. It was part of the reason that I joined the DraftClark movement.

To bigtree: We are on Kerry's side. I love John Kerry and think he will be a great leader. BUT, don't malign MY MAN Wes Clark.

[bigtree]

100. Newsweek?

The rag that pimped that bogus poll that showed Bush ahead by 11 points and followed with the self-serving article about disarray in the Kerry campaign? Do I think they were just trying to sell their next issue by pushing a phoney bounce by Bush?

I trust my own eyes and ears. I have heard Kerry repeatedly criticize Bush on the war, in statements and in speeches. The fact that you hear it now is encouraging.

[Bread and Circus]

94. This is not Kerry vs. Clark...rather...

This is about Kerry having a great run-up to August (following on the heels of the Primaries and the chorus of candidates lamabasting Bush) and blowing it because he's been too timid vs. Bush's disastrous neocon policies.

Yes, he's come out against the Iraq War....but not really until Dean whipped his ass for a good long while...after that, it was all "bring it on" until he got nominated... then he "ran to the center" and tried to "go positive" so as not to offend the swing voter...then he got his ass whipped in August... but he has since seen the light and is going back to what Dean taught him in the first place (for which, I'm glad).

I want Kerry to win just as much as you, but my synopsis in the paragraph above is more accurate than what you depict.

[Auntie Bush]

98. Doc, you and I see eye to eye.

[bigtree]

99. Got his ass whipped in August?

According to whom? According to what? Polls? Media hacks?

[Tatiana]

102. Forget the media hacks.

And forget most of the polls. I do tend to give Zogby a little more credence, simply because I believe he uses better samples. Let's be honest with ourselves here. Given the extent to which Bush has F---ed up this country, Kerry should be running away with this election, period. Will Kerry win? Yes. I have no doubt. This nation cannot afford four more years of Bush's Awful Adventure in Office.

But make no mistake, even among stalwart Democrats (and I am active in my state Dem party), some people are not ethused about the nominee and do not feel we fielded the best candidate. True or not, the perception put out there by the Republicans that Kerry is a flip-flopper has stuck. I've registered over 200 voters and several have told me they will not vote for Bush, but will put down the name of their child/dog/celebrity as a write-in. This saddens me. Now, we faced a similar situation in '92 when many Dem stalwarts were not pleased with Clinton getting the nomination, but eventually Clinton won those people over. I don't see the same enthusiasm now. I don't see the same fervor with the Kerry campaign, I don't see the same fighter mentality that I saw when I worked for the Clinton campaign in '92. It's a real fact that people across this nation are disgusted with Bush, yet still will not pull the lever for Kerry this November. It's a shame. But it makes me wonder why.

You'll have to excuse the nostalgia. Part of me feels that the reason why Dean and Clark enjoyed so much support was because they were fighters. I can't imagine a group like the Swift Boat Liars coming out against Clark's service and Clark not IMMEDIATELY responding in a way that shut them down. Don't get me wrong, Kerry has impeccable credentials. I'm comfortable with President Kerry. But, in terms of our national security... with events in Iraq, the nuclear threat presented by North Korea, Putin's authoritarian actions in Russia, not to mention Syria, Iran and Saudia Arabia... Clark has the credentials to employ diplomatic strategies effectively as well as the military expertise to never engage in an unnecessary war. If we did go to war, I'd feel safe knowing that Clark would have an exit strategy and plan to WIN.

Again, you'll have to excuse the nostalgia. I'm all for Kerry. But in my heart of hearts, I believe this country had a better choice.

[in_cog_ni_to]

88. He needs to travel with Wes from here on out

until the election. Have Wes introduce him at EVERY rally. Have him by his side. THEN, LEAK it to the press that Wes Clark is going to be his SOS! People need to know Wes Clark is going to be a BIG part of Kerry's foreign policies. PLEASE! If people know Wes Clark, Supreme Allied Commander of Nato, 4 Star General, Rhodes Scholar and West Point graduate is going to be helping Kerry, HE WILL WIN THIS THING! They need to know that Kerry is strong on foreign policy. Wes Clark will show them he IS.

Thanks for the post, Frenchie. It's nice to know Kerry is not letting the brain of Wes Clark go to waste.

I love that man. :loveya:

[LandOLincoln]

122. Yes, Yes, Yes!

Forget Holbrooke--and if Holbrooke's a true patriot he'll tell Kerry the same thing. He's a good man, but Wes is everything you list PLUS he's at least as much of a rock star as Edwards. They both need to be out there constantly--both with and without Kerry--until the election.

Incidentally, I had a fantasy yesterday while watching a re-run of Clint Eastwood's appearance on Inside the Actors Studio:

If Clint (and Stormin' Norman) both came out and endorsed Kerry, it would be all over. Dubya's fake macho, fake cowboy image would be in the toilet where it belongs.

Clint could wait until just before the election, so the Slime Machine wouldn't have time to gear up.

Schwartzkopf has made it pretty clear that he won't be endorsing or voting for Bush this time around; sure wish he'd just take the next obvious step...

[AmerDem]

97. That is a wise move!

Clark knows what the current soldiers are thinking!

[FrenchieCat]

106. Finally,

a move I can agree with. Bout time! Hope it is not too late. I was starting to worry a bit. It's not just Kerry vs. Bush/Cheney...it's Kerry vs. Bush/Cheney and the media mafia and the poll pushers. Kerry better put out some whispers that Clark will be SOS (Screw Hollbrooke!) Let me see Kerry do something daring and bold. Take a daredevil risk in the right direction, old man.....it will be alright. Tired of the 1/2 *ss tiptoeing around everything shit. We need to kicks some bootey the good old fashion way. Hel-lo?

Damn! Why did he blow it and not put Clark on the ticket? That was supposed to be the most important decision that he was to make....and look what we ended up with. A small high pitched bark when we could have been kicking ass and taking numbers with a sophisticated pitbull, attracting those Security moms and those Nascar Dads! Damn, damn, and triple damn! Even women are fleeing in droves......I am trying to figure out how Edwards is helping. Either I just don't see it....or it ain't there.

And Senator Kerry....when you are going to be on TV in the future...please say what you have to say right away...you can thank everyone at the end of the speech. The broacast media films you for the first 5 minutes....and then talks over you and then tells the audience that if anything important is said....they will let us know. So save the "Local" flavor story for next to last....and thank all of your buddies dead last...and for heavens sake find a camera or two and look at the American viewing public. They need to see that you mean what you say! Thank you.

[NV1962]

107. Dunno about Kerry "finally" listening to Wes, but...

...give 'em hell anyway, Wes! :)

Kerry and Clark have enough in common, appeal-wise, for "Clark's approach" to work much more to Kerry's advantage.

With all due respect to their different personalities, both appeal basically to people's brains, common sense, rational arguments...

I think that "telling like it is" is a very good and effective strategy for Kerry.

Heck, listening to John Kerry's testimony in 1971* (that's a 34.8MB Windows Media file, based on C-SPAN's recent re-broadcast; if that's too big, here's the text version of it) I think he should get back to that "eloquent but straight from the heart stuff." The Senate is a very different theater; running for the Presidency, I think showing a bit more of the "young John Kerry" would do him an awful lot of good.

But... Who am I.

Ahem... Never woulda guessed I'm a Clarkie too eh! Wes Clark just rocks. ;)

_____

*Note: give that file about 20-25 minutes after the time of this post to finish uploading...

[Bongo Prophet]

108. This reflects well on both of them

Both Kerry and Clark are brilliant, each in their ways.
Mature people who can work together for the common good.

No bitter aftertaste from the primaries here.
We must hang together, or we'll all hang seperately...right?
:toast: :toast:
Here's hoping for continued partnership!

[cthrumatrix]

118. good call