WE NEED TO TAKE THE FIGHT RIGHT TO THEM! Wes Clark's Winning 06 Strategy

[FrenchieCat]

To preface--
Cause we can't run away from the GOP Trump Card....coz it can and does trump just about any and every issue that the Democrats attempt to make on just about everything else wrong with America!

Look at the news! National Security is used as an excuse and as a PR shield in response to just about every damn thing this President and his Republican Minions are doing to destroy our Nation and our Democracy!

From Poster Reality Bites back at a Clark Blogger's conference in LA this Week-end.....

Reality Bites Bites Back reports.....

"I made the point that a proportion of the electorate was wired, through conditioning, so that any attack or threat to the nation would default them into the Republicans' hands. His response was quick, and deliberate: 'the Democrats need to get out there and engage the Republicans head to head on national security! We need to take the fight right to them! The Democrats need to make that the focus of their being; that the Republicans, who have so completely sacrificed the security of this nation through incompetence and willful indifference have not only failed to secure America, they have unified our enemies, depleted our resources and stretched our military to the brink. All before the watchful eyes of the world and our enemies. Enemies that will now see America as more vulnerable in the inability of our leadership to succeed.'

His (Clark's) passion was clear and real. `If the Democrats were in power,' he strenuously argued, `we would have gone after Bin Laden, we would never have wasted over $200 billion of the nation's wealth, we would never have ignored the threats of North Korea and Iran, we would never have ignored Putin's power grabs and suppression of Russian Democracy, we would never have completely ignored China's growing economic threat, and we would never have undertaken a policy of such ill repute that it creates more enemies in the world than friends. Only by directly engaging the Republicans on national security,' he stressed, `can the Democratic Party hope to win.
MUCH MORE.....
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/5/154255/4964

-------------
Unfortunately, some may not want to hear this....but the General is right! It is not poverty, health care, nor corruption issues that will win us the day in a long run.....cause those very important issues can AND are drowned out everyday with "breaking News Stories"....and "Just In" headlines, and this is done conveniently just about anytime the Republicans so choose (that what happens when the media is in your back pocket)!

If we avoid the issue that is really the only "strong" point to "their" majority, we cannot win! As noted....All they have to do is "find" a Bin laden Tape, issue an Alert, or Bomb Iran....and all other issues become Moot.

National Security is the Republicans' excuse for doing all that they do against the American people. We must see that and attack them on their territory!

We are fighting for our Democracy, and we must, we must confront the enemy on their lying bullshit of them "keeping us safe".....cause they ain't!

If we articulate our passion in this belief that we are not being kept safe, and understand with conviction that the Dems have the real (not perceived) strength on National Security .....we have a chance!

We need to contact and call the fucking Corporate media on this BS that they are selling us on who's who and who's done what, and our elected Dems surely need to tick off all of the Bush failures in National Security to date over and over again...even when they aren't being asked a question in relations to it when they are facing the media...... Otherwise, issue after issue will continue to quickly disappear right before our very eyes with the GOP's use of propaganda and media distraction!

[AX10]

1. KICK

[mike_c]

2. "national security" is repig speak for "American empire...."

It's not at all surprising that Clark would go down that path. I don't want anything to do with it.

[FrenchieCat]

3. Keep you head buried then.......

and enjoy the short length of time our Democracy remains! :hi:

Thanks for the perfect example of what I'm talking about! (deny, deny, deny!)

National Security is in America's lexicon and the "perceived" notion that allowed many to rationalize voting for Bush that Bush voters voted for Bush....so it's not just Repig speak....

Watch the Teevee and see what happens to our hopes for retaking anything in 2006 with the attitude you are demonstrating!

duh and Peace!

[mike_c]

4. a challenge for Clark supporters....

How many of you have read Chalmers Johnson's history of the role of post-WWII militarism in American foreign policy and international conduct, The Sorrows of Empire? I challenge you to read it and then explain why on earth you'd want someone who's spent a career supporting that empire in the Pentagon running the country. Or if you've already read it, please explain how you could possibly support an army general from the modern military for President.

National security as a political issue is a bald-faced euphemism for the maintenance of U.S. empire. It is relevant only in a global environment where the U.S. inspires hatred and fear, and exports oppression in the guise of "democracy." Liberals shouldn't abandon the issue of national security-- they should address it openly and honestly, starting with a call to dismantle the instruments of "national security" that are in fact instruments of militarist and corporatist imperialism. They should expose the lie of the "war on terror," not join the liars.

[FrenchieCat]

6. I don't need a damn book to understand what I'm seeing.......

Thank goodness for that!

The key players currently supporting the American Empire, the opression to Democracy, and taking advantage of National Security were never Generals, and in fact most didn't even serve!

So, whatever National Security means, to either you or Chalmer....makes no difference in the big picture, cause this post ain't about an intellectual discourse on what one author has to say....but rather this is about the reality on the ground and on the television (cause that's what the millions of voters see and how they are being manipulated).

you say, "They should expose the lie of the "war on terror," not join the liars."

It is evident by that statement that you just don't get it....and obviously we will have to agree to disagree on your entire rebuttal concerning a point that you are clearly and sadly totally missing!

[mike_c]

7. "I don't need to know no stinkin' history...."

:rofl:

And you accused me of having my head in the sand!

[FrenchieCat]

10. like I said, we can agree to disagree--a fairly simple concept.....

Non!

You can base your opinions on a book....and feel that you know all you need to know, and have arrived at your conclusion soundly....

[Jai4WKC08]

8. A challenge for you

Name me one politician with the actual potential to lead this country some day who hadn't spent a career supporting your so-called empire from the Senate, a governor's mansion, or wherever else you'd like to look.

If anything, a general has less direct responsibility for American empire, because he (or she) does not make the policy decisions that you find so objectionable. A Senator does. So does a representative. Most governors would like to. We don't even need to discuss the heads of corporations.

Here's another challenge. Read Clark's book, "Winning Modern War." He knows all about American empire. In fact, he argues rather effectively that the era of empire needs to be brought to a close. That the current administration is essentially trying to take us back to the 19th century.

Eh, but he's a general, so I guess you already know what he thinks and feels, right? I bet you didn't even read the OP, since you didn't address anything in it.

[mike_c]

15. I just ordered a copy from Amazon on your recommendation....

Thanks. I will read it. If Clark advocates dismantling the MIC and cutting America's committment to a military foreign policy then I'll applaud that position. My response to the OP has to do with our political obsession with "national security" in a world in which the U.S.'s own policies creates most of its national security threats. In answer to your question, I agree-- few politicians have the courage to speak truthfully about American imperialism, but that doesn't mean that we should reward their cowardice. My fear is that a general-- who HAS spent his career supporting that empire, whether he believes in it or not-- is a poor choice of revolutionary, and I think we need a genuine revolutionary to set America on a very different course. I'll read Clark's book and see what he has to say about it. I hope you'll read Johnson's if you haven't already.

[Jai4WKC08]

21. I don't think you'll find what you're looking for...

I didn't mean to mislead you.

Clark does not advocate dismantling the MIC. He believes there are real threats in the world, both to ourselves and to other peoples. He has always advocated using military power for good ends, such as the prevention of genocide. And as a stick to induce other governments not to harm people, altho he does believe that carrots should be used first--one of his rather famous stock lines is that "military force should always be the last last last resort." And in self-defense--but only when the threat is "imminent," not "gathering" or whatever other bullshit words the current administration has used. Clark does not see many people in the world who are capable of posing an imminent threat to the US, but he believes the maintenance of the military is one thing that keeps it that way. And he also believes that we should concern ourselves when there is an imminent threat to other people, such as the Kosovars in 1999, or Darfur today. Clark is not one to value human life based solely on nationality. And finally, that only in extreme emergency should military force be used unilaterally and not in concert with international instutions and alliances--real alliances, not cobbled-together "coalitions" where the US calls the shots and pays the other members to ride along.

Clark is aware of the MIC, however, and believes its power within our own government should be kept in tight check. He agrees with Eisenhower, who coined the phrase, in that respect. He might even agree with you that national security is too frequently a code-word for propping up the MIC. Altho I think mostly he sees it as how the GOP terrifies voters, wins elections, and keeps power. They portray Democrats as weak (snivelling, whining, etc) and thus unable and unwilling to protect the country.

The point I was trying to make above is that Clark does not believe in extending the US empire thru military power. He believes the time for that is long past, if it ever existed at all. That is the "bottom line" of his book.

[mike_c]

22. then I'll likely stand by my challenge, AND my belief that Clark...

...is part of the problem, not part of the solution. But I'll read his book at any rate.

[Jai4WKC08]

32. But you really didn't answer my first challenge

Which was to name a politician with might actually lead the country some day and doesn't stand for the same things that you don't happen to like about Clark.

That might be my fault, since I sort of went off in a different direction, to which you did respond.

But I really do want to know. You wrote, "...few politicians have the courage to speak truthfully about American imperialism, but that doesn't mean that we should reward their cowardice." And later to Pithy Cherub that Clark is not the only potential candidate you are opposed to. But you never say who you do support.

To be honest where I'm going with this, I truly don't think you're gonna find a mainstream Democrat, even among the more liberal ones (Feingold or Boxer, for example), and certainly not one with a prayer of being elected nationally, who does not support pretty much the same role for American military power that Clark does. You cite Clark's support for the SOA, and yet just about every senator and congressman/woman has voted to support it as well. Just as they vote for almost every military appropriations bill. None of them would gut the military.

It's not a matter of courage. At least not for most of 'em. It's a matter of good people coming to different conclusions with the same basic information. It really is possible to be against the concept of US empire, for example, and still believe the American military is a good thing when it used for good purposes, a necessary thing even when it isn't. And always a tool of elected civilians, who decide when and how to employ, and for what purpose.

That's not to say you should support Clark if you don't agree with his positions and opinions. I wonder whether you actually know what his opinions are, and aren't just basing your non-support on the stereotype of what a general must be and how they must think. I also wonder if you go into the threads about other Democratic politicians, especially those who actually have some capability to influence US policy (or did before 2002 anyway), and complain about how they support the MIC or the SOA. Why does Clark deserve your displeasure where others do not?

[druidity33]

86. how about...

Kucinich? re:

"name a politician with might actually lead the country some day and doesn't stand for the same things that you don't happen to like about Clark."

yeah, okay he's not likely to be a candidate, but he'd be better than anyone else i can think of... except maybe Robert Reich(?). I don't agree with mike_c and his assessment of generals of the MIC. People can surprise you, especially ones that have been around the block a few times. Also agree with your point about other Dems and their MIC stances... but need to add that at least with Clark, here is someone who understands the language and can make more informed and cogent decisions regarding the military and force/operations. We'd all, i think, love for there to be no MICs in this world. How can we manage that? Somehow i don't think disregarding people who've served and are candidates is the answer. Is it only Generals that mike_c would like to exclude? Only for the presidential platform? Or all Veterans in office? That would be trouble for our new crop of Dems running in 2006...

thinking peace.

[druidity33]

79. guess you're one of those...

anti-Chavez types... seeing as how he's an ex-general and all. Power to the people.

[mike_c]

82. lol-- are you not paying attention or are you just being deliberately...

...obtuse? Being an ex-general is not the main issue-- it's being an ex-general in a military that is the primary instrument of foreign policy in an imperialistic nation with a far-flung empire. Venezuala does not meet that criterion by any stretch of the imagination. But to turn your argument on its heels, if you can honestly suggest that Clark would do to the American empire what Chavez would do to it if given the opportunity, I promise you that I will become Clarks biggest fan!

[FrenchieCat]

89. and so you shall.....

and so you shall.

He's already talking Single Payer insurance plan, 2 years college education paid, or at least $6,000 for each year....and has talked about cutting the Pentagon budget, etc., etc., etc.
http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2004/02/18/opinion/myers.html

[Pithy Cherub]

18. I have read all of the books and hold Wesley Clark in the highest

possible regard. Basic fact: The miltary is under civilian control! SOFA agreements, contracts and all factors leading to military use are under civilian control. Under President Clinton direction, not a single soldier was lost in Wes Clark's U.S. Command in Bosnia.

Clark was the essence of truthfulness while wearing the uniform and a strong advocate for DIPLOMACY backed by military force. That stand is consistent with his values and his speeches. As a civilian and as president, Clark has the national security gravitas to pursue multi-level solutions and the intellect to not be trapped by the reasoning that led to this current war on a concept.

Your opinion is based on how you feel, not the facts of Clark's service and reputaion. Wes Clark has foreign policy and national credentials that are not matched elsewhere and would be necessary to coalesce an electorate around sound policy that promotes the common good.

[mike_c]

23. my opinion is based on my disdain for the military's role in U.S....

...foreign policy. Clark served the empire, helping to impose U.S. policies that have created enormous injustice throughout the world. He is certainly not alone in that respect, nor is he the only potential candidate for president that I'm opposed to for their role in maintaining U.S. hegemony wherever U.S. economic or political "interests" trump the interests of others. Clark's praise for the SOA/WHISC reflects this, as does his refusal to renounce the "war on terror" for a scam.

I'm unequivocally opposed to an American security state, and I want to see most of the Pentagon's budget redistributed to work for social justice, in America and abroad, rather than for American global dominion. I just don't see Clark taking America in a just and decent direction-- I see him going further along the path to empire. You say you've read Johnson's book on the topic, and others have said that Clark does not want to dismantle the MIC in any meaningful way-- how do you reconcile the two? The post-cold war MIC is the heart of American imperialism. How can you have any confidence that a general, who has spent his career extending the reach of the MIC, has any desire to dismantle the empire? If Johnson is correct-- and I believe he is-- the first step must be gutting the power of the Pentagon.

[DemInTX]

26. Frankly...

reading one or both of General Clark's books and then having a one-on-one discussion with him regarding the issues you are concerned about would be helpful to you.

He's not hard to find....he's traveling all over the country helping to raise funds for down-ticket candidates to help turn this country around. Sometimes, two or three of these events a day. Find one and present your concerns to him...

Send him an email....I think he would appreciate hearing your thoughts.

Watch for him on TPM....sometimes he a guest blogger.

But....whatever you do, Mike...don't close your mind to this man.

He's the closest thing we have going in this day and age to a true patriot.

[Pithy Cherub]

28. That is a opinion leap of emotion that strategically overlooks

the facts. Military power and how it is used is determined by civilians in America. Clark, as a civilian and who is a highly decorated military general officer, would be in a position to re-establish the authority and credibility of civilian control.

Your opinion is based on fear, not Hope. Clark has excellent credentials, credibility and leadership experience in the American system both diplomatically and militarily. Johnson is a fan of Roman history and the rulers there were both military experienced and political powerhouses as civilians. Clark defends the American way of life of values for Liberty, Justice and the Pursuit of Happiness. Clark embodies the necessary and required traits of a president that I would be proud to campaign for and have elected.

C. Johnson agrees with me - focus on the civilian leadership, hire people to uphold the people and hold the elected representatives accountable.

From Sorrows of Empire, page 312 the very last paragraph, "There is one development that could conceivably stop this process of overreaching: the people could take control of Congress, reform it along with the corrupted election laws that have made it into a forum of for special interests, turn it into a genuine assembly of democratic representatives, and cut off the money supply to the pentagon and the secret intelligence agencies. We have a strong civil society that could, in theory, overcome the the entrenched interests of the armed forces and the military industrial complex. At this late date, however, it is difficult to imagine how Congress, much like the Roman senate in the last days of the republic, could be brought back to life and cleansed of its endemic corruption."

[mike_c]

43. I agree wholeheartedly with that quote....

Just for the record.

Peace.

[FrenchieCat]

5. Kick!

LET'S NOT GO THERE....

I'M JUST SAYING! :shrug:

[Catchawave]

9. When Clark leaves Faux News, I'll take him seriously....

Are you even watching the Gonzales hearings?

[FrenchieCat]

11. Yes, I am watching ......On C-Span.....

Why do you ask?

PS: We know that you don't appreciate anything that Clark has to say for the sake of Edwards....but that's ok. No need in ever having anything to say based on the substance of the OP - :shrug: It's not like I would ever expect it. I mean....2006 just isn't all that important, now is it?

....if one can just attempt to tear an idea down based on who said it....instead of the substance of the content...why not? riiiiight? :shrug:

[Catchawave]

16. I missed you on Viva's threads....

I think they're up to 15 or 16 now. Your input would be important :hi:

[FrenchieCat]

17. ?

can you spare a Hint or should I just "know"?

[Catchawave]

20. Here ya go....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=338224&mesg_id=338224

Join us !

[lukasahero]

12. Of course - we should only speak to those who already believe in our cause

end sarcasm

I think Clark being on Faux is a stroke of genius. Someone strong and clear representing our perspectives to a large portion of the nation who would otherwise not hear it. Works for me.

[Sparkly]

41. Preaching to the choir is easier

and I guess some of the choir thinks it's more effective. :shrug:

[CarolNYC]

80. It is true...

that not everyone has the courage and guts -- and the skill to take the fight to the belly of the beast, “the lion’s den” as Wes Clark likes to call it….And for those who don’t possess those qualities, maybe some whom you take seriously, it is good that they don’t attempt to do it because they would only make matters worse. How fortunate we are, though, to have someone with the courage, guts and skill...and willingness to do it. Lord knows, someone’s got to do it, however distasteful it may be, if we’re ever going to get out of the mess that we’re in. Someone's got to think of something beyond what makes them themselves look or feel good.

BTW, Martin Frost, although I don’t think he appears on air, has done some nice work writing on the Fox News site also….Kudos to him too for taking the fight right to the “enemy” in a way that may actually accomplish something.

[iconoclastNYC]

13. He's right on.

Rove knows that you have to attacks your opponent on thier strengths! That's why they swiftboated Kerry.

[AtomicKitten]

14. Wes has balls and a brain.

nice combo

[calimary]

19. I appreciate what Clark says here. He's correct. Why CAN'T we do

what the bad guys do - that always beats us? Go after their strength. That's what rove does. And look how far it's gotten him. Why can't we do that? Hit 'em where they think they're strongest. Because what they think is their strength is nothing more than a house of cards.

Besides, voters seem to like gutsy candidates who are willing to fight like crazy. After all, it can very legitimately be said - how can we count on Democrats to stand up to bin Laden if they can't stand up to bush?

[mikebailey2000]

24. Wes Clark is the man...

I do wish he was more charismatic so the bubbas would get how great he is...

[FrenchieCat]

27. Welcome to DU!

I believe personally that Wes Clark has plenty charisma......and I believe that Bubbas will too...when Bubbas finds out who he is beyond seeing the General on Fox.

Time will tell all!

But it's his approach on fighting for 2006 that I am more concerned about.....and what I was looking for comments in reference of....

[Clark2008]

50. Actually, he does have loads of charisma

but the media won't let you see it and, when they slip up and it slips out, then they lie to you and tell you that he has none.

Believe me, bubbas - both the Republican and Democratic variety - who attended his events when he was campaigning in Tennessee saw that charisma. He swayed many a disgruntled Republican. Heck, even our local media did a story on that.

[Auntie Bush]

62. Welcome aboard! Even if I disagree with you.

Unless you followed Clark with interest during the 2004 election...you didn't get an opportunity to see the real Clark up close an personal. If you watched him campaign in NH you would have seen a VERY CHARISMATIC politician/human being.

If you had been on this board/site/forum in 2004 and read all the SEXY comments from all his fans...you wouldn't say he lacks charisma. You probably only see him on Fox news in those video appearances giving all those Fundies a lesson in truthfulness. That's kind of a difficult situation to show your charisma. Just wait...you'll see...when he starts running ...he'll boll you over so be warned and don't say we didn't tell you.

[Texas_Kat]

25. The Democratic Party's functional inability to deal with National Security

... issues is part and parcel of why purple states go red.

To hide from the idea that it's an issue is a losing strategem.

[wiley]

29. Thanks for that

purple states go red and people's eyes cross when a well articulated 70's statement on the evils of the military-industrial complex gurgles out of a Democrat's mouth. People don't even understand what that means anymore. All they hear is a Democrat who sounds like a Communist, if they even know anything other than they were the bad guys in history. This is not aimed at you, Kat. I know you know how to communicate with people. Democrats need to learn how to talk to people about things that are immediately relevant to their existence. Introduce one concept at a time. Rebuild the shattered Democracy brick by brick, word by word. No one is buying the military-industrial complex argument because they don't have a clue what it means.

[inthebrain]

31. I think it's a ridiculous argument

The direction some take it.

We have a choice;

We can claim to be the tougher party on this issue. Offer up more warfare but in the "right" countries.

or

We can offer to be smarter on national security. We can fix our economic system in the direction of fairness and equality; All citizens have a RIGHT to housing, food and healthcare w/o being a slave to the free market.

This way we can be a real beacon for hope and a country that others would like to emulate.

We can also put our heads together and offer a real alternative to war. This war on terror only seeks to punish and kill the powerless. Depsite the fact that the concept of a "War on Terror" is absolutely ridiculous. Those are terms for an endless war.

Not to mention that it is a war on a verb. It does'nt seek to solve the causes of terrorism. The model set forth by Israel/Palestine is one we are following. It should be avoided at all costs.

[Texas_Kat]

75. I'm not even sure I can understand your point

and frankly, I'm spending the time trying to.

I didn't suggest that the Democratic party needs to be 'tougher' on National Security. We need "Tougher" Democrats.

Democrats that don't shrink from any discussion of national security and retreat to the 'safer' subjects that they think demonstrate their "democraticness".

I agree, we need a much smarter national security strategy. The refusal to discuss it at all will continue to lose elections to republicans.

I'm tired of Democrats who think that by changing the subject, the problem will go away. Stock Demcratic answers "....but what about...." then listing a litany of domestic problems that need solving TOO (I agree) is not an answer. It's a retreat from reality.

[FrenchieCat]

33. Problem lies to some extent w/t those who would want to remake the world

over again and prefer to gripe about the undoable (wanting to come up with a Utopian government of America like yesterday) without realizing that we are in no position to do as they advocate...which in effect renders their rants ineffective in combatting the reality of just exactly what we do have to deal with here on the ground.

"One who is not party to a doable realistic solution, is part of the overall continuing problem" -- FrenchieCat 2/06/06

[inthebrain]

34. Is there something that I mentioned

that you find undoable or Utopian?

[FrenchieCat]

36. Nope....

coz you agree....as you point out in your post.... "We can offer to be smarter on national security."

[radio4progressives]

30. We'll know it when it happens. Wake me if it ever does.

there's no point in promulgating how "cool" or how "right" Wes Clark is here.

if he intends to lead, if he intends to fight, we'll all know all about it on our tv's before it's ever announced here.

[FrenchieCat]

35. Wes Clark is fighting..

However, if I have to wait on my teevee to say so, then I would have to pretend that he isn't.

I thought the Internet was an alternative, when the Corporate media won't play...Non?

But this is much more about strategy!

[DemInTX]

37. That's the point....

he IS leading and he IS fighting...Now. Every day. For the democracy of this country.

"WE NEED TO TAKE THE FIGHT RIGHT TO THEM! Wes Clark's Winning 06 Strategy"

[FrenchieCat]

38. self delete

[FrenchieCat]

39. Certainly Wes Clark is fighting for victory in 2006 as well as general

leadership for our disastrous foreign affairs policies!

Clark calls for dialogue on Iran
By KATHERINE GYPSON AND PHILLIP TURNER
Monday, January 30, 2006
UPI Correspondents
http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060130-035202-1930r

General Wes Clark will be speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations Friday, February 10, 2006.
Start: Feb 10 2006 - 8:00am
End: Feb 10 2006 - 5:00pm
description:
http://www.cfr.org/

THE REAL STATE OF THE UNION 2006
THE NEW AMERICA FOUNDATION
Monday, January 30, 2006
General Wesley K. Clark Addresses New America Foundation Audience (1/30/06) on Capitol Hill: "The Real State of the Union 2006"

Clark Met with Bloggers in L.A. for a 1 hour session 2/4/06 including Arianna Huffington, Kos, Alysheba, Shockwave, Reality Bites Back, Kevin Drum.

Reality Bites Back's diary :: ::

I, and Kossacks Hekebolos, Alysheba, and Shockwave who were also there, can say with conviction, that not only is Clark no DLC shill, you will be amazed by how truly progressive his policies are.

Now let me just start by making one thing perfectly clear - General Clark is hell bent on the Democrats winning back at least one house of Congress - at stake he says - American democracy itself. `We all warned,' stated Clark `that if Bush won the presidency we would lose the court. Bush won. We lost the court. But if we lose in 2006, losing the courts will seem insignificant.' Democracy itself, freedom and liberty, our way of life, the very brotherhood that binds America together as a nation, that is what General Clark passionately urged those present to defend. That, he made crystal clear in somber tone, was on the verge of vanishing from the face of this earth; brought to this point by a power-crazed Republican leadership that seeks nothing less than total domination.

Now here's where the General earns his pension. I asked him straight up how the Democrats, prone to reason and debate, could compete with a Republican machine that exploits fear and crafts strategies to manipulate the instincts of our reptilian brain. I made the point that a proportion of the electorate was wired, through conditioning, so that any attack or threat to the nation would default them into the Republicans' hands. His response was quick, and deliberate: 'the Democrats need to get out there and engage the Republicans head to head on national security! We need to take the fight right to them! The Democrats need to make that the focus of their being; that the Republicans, who have so completely sacrificed the security of this nation through incompetence and willful indifference have not only failed to secure America, they have unified our enemies, depleted our resources and stretched our military to the brink. All before the watchful eyes of the world and our enemies. Enemies that will now see America as more vulnerable in the inability of our leadership to succeed.'
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/5/154255/4964

More reviews by National Bloggers on 2/4/06 meeting-
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/5/14345/52746
http://subintsoc.net/situationroom/?p=974


Wes Clark, Of course is fighting for a Dem victory in '06 by supporting congressional and governorial candidates:
http://www.iavapac.org/
http://www.texaspopulists.com/node/704
http://www.houstondemocrats.com/archives/2006/01/wesley_clark_in_1.html
http://www.offthekuff.com/mt/archives/006695.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=180x25263
http://www.thenewpolitics.com/2006/01/lets_be_gratefu.html

On ABC World News and on the TV in reference to Privacy and cell phone information JUST TODAY!
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Business/story?id=1585840


There is so much more....
A letter to Bush
Petitions to congress
Op Eds
Fox appearances for some smackdowns
Radio interviews.....
etc, etc, etc,


Plus the man actually has to make a living. He's not getting a congressional salary, and doesn't have a personal fortune.

[democrank]

40. Wes Clark is my

number one choice for `08.

[dubya_dubya_III]

42. National Insecurity is totally and completely unpatriotic!

Welcome to George W Bush's cowardly, fearful and paralyzed so-called 'republican' Imperial Christian fascist America where we are now all cowering in abject fear of T Shirts!

What ever happened to the unbeatable bold, brash, self-assured, genuinely peaceful and brave nation who's post Pearl Harbor motto was:

The only thing we HAVE to fear, is FEAR itself!

GOP/CIA Mafia neo-Christian Conservatist Fascism is so easy to beat it would be childs play, except that our Democratic Party leaderhip seems to be every bit as militarily-industrially corrupted and deeply in the pockets of that pervasive unconstitutional and criminal CIA Mafia dictatorhip as well! (apologies Howard but call a spade a spade)

I think that only a third party commited to Republican Liberty will give America any chance to overthrow the chains of CIA Mafia tyranny we adopted after throwing back in with our Imperial British Anglican/Episcopal Fascist 'ally' to embargo and bankrupt the Imperial Soviets.

[FrenchieCat]

44. Pssst....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2441747&mesg_id=2442164

[Mark E. Smith]

45. The Idea That GW Bush Is Indispensable To Our National Security

... is absurd.

If we were really serious about fighting terrorism we'd cashier the little idiot and get an adult in there.

[nancyharris]

46. Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda

General Clark isn’t in office, he’s running for office. Methinks his call to arms is a little too tailor-made for his own ambitions. Focus on National Security – who’ya gonna call? – Why the General, of course.

I would much rather see the Democrats formally submit to Congress a Democrat budget (short on military spending and long on domestic spending and increased taxes – formally submit to Congress a plan for Universal Health Care – formally submit a Constitutional Amendment for same sex marriage – formally submit a Congressional new Lobbying bill – formally submit a extended Campaign Finance Reform bill – formally submit a Voter Security bill – formally submit a tough National Automobile Gas Consumption Bill ...... – And actually lead the fight for those bills!

Don’t look now but Bush isn’t running for office in 06 or in 08. Democrats need to be seen as leaders in SOLVING our domestic problems. The last thing we need to do is re-fight the war in Iraq and the search for Bib Laden

[FrenchieCat]

47. Who's talking about Bush? All Republicans will be running on NS.....

in 2006.....If you didn't know.

If you haven't gotten wind of what is going on in the news, check again. Because what you will see won't be about any of those things you are listing.....it will be about Iran, Iraq, Wiretapping in the name of security, etc, etc......

Wes Clark ain't the one making National Security an issue.

Wake the fuck up! :eyes:

PS. Foreign policy directly affects DOMESTIC Policy. Find that 300 Billion dollars spent on the war and trace where it came from. Then check out what's been cut in the budget. Go ahead, Look it up!

[nancyharris]

48. All Politics are local

Words from a wise Democrat Speaker of the House....
You are dead wrong. The 06 elections will take place far from the Washington Beltway. It will be in the Districts and States and there; DOMESTIC issues will win the day. Ignore that at your peril.

[FrenchieCat]

49. Please know that Political insight ain't a monopoly.....

But if I seem to remember the 2002 election, we got our asses whooped....and it was all about National Security, dba Homeland security...and considering that this was the last congressional election, you proclaiming me "dead wrong" on what the 2006 election will be about may not mean as much as you hoped.....

Example....Peter McCloskey, a retired Republican congressman, is challenging Pompos (the Republican incumbent) in a California congressional run....and it ain't over no farm bill. McCloskey is running as a Republican in a (R) primary because of this administration.

There are 55 in the "Band of Brothers"....and they are all Democratic Veterans....the group was put together for a specific reason....and it ain't to argue about a farm bill.

So maybe it's your peril that you need to look out for.....cause I wouldn't want you to be caught "Dead" wrong.

The problem is that you want to call someone "Opportunistic" in your own way. It won't wash, and what you said in reference to it didn't even make sense.

[nancyharris]

53. Good Luck

Don't be surprised if you wake up some morning in November scratching your head over yet another loss because Democrats refused to fight the battle they are best at fighting.... Oh, theres always 08 ...they'll be beggin' for the General by then.

[Clark2008]

51. Not when the media and the Republicans make

"local" elections a national effort.

That's what they did in 2002 and won.

That's what they're going to do in 2006.

And, what did they run on? National Security because they know the Dems already beat them on domestic issues.

[Sparkly]

52. Polls say otherwise, and it IS a domestic issue.

National security is the leverage the GOP used to go into Iraq and to stay there. Iraq is very much on people's minds.

National security is the leverage they're using to justify violations of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, along with the Geneva Convention. Spying on American citizens without warrants is definitely a domestic issue, and if you heard Gonzales today, the spin is all about national security.

National security is the leverage they're using to justify massive social spending cuts. That hits home on a domestic level, even at local levels at it comes down to states. Hundreds of billions of dollars spent in Iraq, explained as necessary to prevent "another 9/11," is resulting in cuts in all sorts of services, but again, it's defended as "that or another 9/11" -- and people cower and say "okay."

The two are not separable. And General Clark couldn't be more right that Democrats should take this battle right TO them -- not just current and retired military personnel, but the Democrats in Congress as well.

[Donna Zen]

57. All politics is local?

Tell that to the people who are having their jobs out sourced, their kids shot at, or maybe the multinational corporations who are currently turning us all into serfs. Foreign policy is now domestic policy. Our environment, our health care, our kids education, our future as a democracy is now part of the world economy. In a shrinking world, we must rethink the definition of local.

[nancyharris]

58. Most people

haven't had their jobs outsourced, their kids aren't being shot at and don't consider themselves "serfs to multinational corporations".

Get a grip.

Most people want to be able to pay for rent/mortgage, want a good education for their kids, want to feel secure about paying for their health care, want their vote to be counted, want their gay and lesbian friends to be treated equally in the eyes of the law and want financial security for their aging parents.

[Sparkly]

61. Don't you think...

... that Democrats could continue their stances on those issues (education, healthcare, civil rights, etc.) while ALSO cutting off the GOP's constant mischaracterization of them as weak on national security??

The rub among many Chimp-voters seems to be, "Well none of that will matter if we aren't SAFE first."

I think Democrats can do BOTH -- maintain the upper hand on domestic issues AND throw the GOP failures in national security in their faces!! Take THAT fight to them and the other fight will be a much easier win.

[Texas_Kat]

76. You must live in a blue state ... eom

[Capn Sunshine]

54. Yes, the General is RIGHT

but why isn't he strangling O'Reilly then? Seriously? Why is he even ON Fox news? If he's intent and serious about his speech, why not lead by example?

It's not just Clark. It's EVERY SINGLE politician out there right now. No one is willing to go straight up against these fascist pigs.
It's like Chamberlain never existed. We have learned NOTHING.

[FrenchieCat]

55. I think that Clark is doing just fine on Fox....

So he strangles O'reilly.....and then what, exactly? They replace O'Reilly with another fool, they drag all Democrats into the mud for Clark's behavior... and things keep going downhill that much faster....

[Cosmocat]

63. He whips their butts every time ...

The fact is, part of what the Rs and MSM do is make the Ds who lose their cool out to be nutjobs ... Witness Howard Dean ... Dean is one of the good guys, he TRULY cares about this country and the people of this country, and he speaks truth to power ...

He lost it ONCE, and he is now forever painted as a nutjob ... THAT is how they marginalize us ...

I couldn't do Fox, cause I WOULD take a chair over Hannity or whoevers head ... But, Clark goes on, does a 2 minute clip, wins the debate without even raising his pulse ...

We need MORE people who can do that ...

[CarolNYC]

65. He is leading by example...

He's always telling us that we need to take it right to the enemy...go on these right wing radio talk shows and challenge their lies and their version of the truth and get the other side out there....Me, I could never handle it but, bless him, he's not going to ask us to do something he's not willing to do himself.

So if he strangles Bill O'Reilly, what purpose does it serve? Maybe it makes him feel good...although I bet he'd feel even better strangling Hannity...but what good does it do in this fight for our very lives that we're in here....I would think he's accomplishing more by intelligently and calmly challenging these yahoos and showing the Fox viewers (some of which are reachable no matter how good it makes us feel to say they're all hopeless cases) that the Dems do have something to offer.

We are in such dire straits now...Desperate times calls for despearate measures....We can't always just do what makes us feel good. If you don't think he's accomplishing something with what he's doing, you're just not paying attention.

[Tom Rinaldo]

73. Clark on FOX is contributing to the turning of the worm

He is reaching a lot of people who have mindlessly assumed that Republicans know what they are talking about when it comes to National Security. He's injecting doubts where once there was only resignation and a reluctant sense of duty to support our President. Clark is making sense to a lot of FOX viewers, which proves that Democrats can make sense on the very issues that Republicans use to scare a lot of people into voting against their own economic self interests.

And it is making Republicans uneasy. In my opinion it is the reason why the Swiftboating of Clark Round II has already begun, as revealed on this DU thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=321522&mesg_id=321522

Clark is focused on taking the message that Republicans have hurt our National Security all across the country in support of Democrats running in the 2006 Congressional elections. That's why they have to knock Clark down now. His time on FOX has increased Clark's credibility with many swing voters and former "Reagan Democrats", which helps him campaign for Democrats in races and districts where Republicans currently hold office. We have to win some of those races to retake Congress. Clark is following a strategy focused on retaking at least one house of Congress in 2006. If it's the House, Conyers will become Chair of the Judiciary Committee.

[Sparkly]

74. And he does it in such an effective way!

I too often want to strangle the Fox asshats -- and I am amazed at how the General is able to be forceful in his points, yet civil in his manner. That is important, considering the bias of the average Fox viewer.

Imagine if you'd become committed to a point of view and irate at those who differ. If someone who challenges your view appears hostile or irrational or emotional or combative, it's easy to dismiss. But when someone -- a teacher, for example -- presents a different idea in a way that isn't threatening, that respects you despite your current view, that aims to correct a false impression with facts, that disengages any inclination to oppose them based on stereotypes, THAT is effective; THAT can enable people to maintain their self-respect, let down their guards, and change their perceptions of facts, ideas, policies, etc...

I think the General is becoming a master at this.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

56. EXACTLY

You better believe those Nam Vet Dems would have hit the ground running in Afghanistan instead of allowing Bin Laden to become like some Bloody Messiah to te Muslin world. They wouldn't have hit Iraq but might be ready for the real trouble brewing in Iran and Western Europe.

[banana republican]

59. Any one here won a battle without fighting????? n/t

[CarolNYC]

60. This is not exactly on the topic of the OP here but....

I really liked this comment about Wes Clark that Reality Bites Back makes further down the Kos thread:

Anyway, when you have someone who is in a position to actually rally the rest of the party - to change people's minds - to inspire and set in motion, I believe they deserve our full support. It's not about Clark. It's about what Clark is willing and able to do for the Democratic Party. I didn't write this diary to get Clark on the ticket - I wrote it to get every Democrat I can on every ticket I can across the country. And of all the voices I've heard in this process, only Clark is willing to grab the bull by the horns and pull the party off its feet. He's the only one I've seen who is urging other candidates EVEN HIS POSSIBLE COMPETITORS to get out there and take the fight to the Republicans. For that, I have to give him my highest respect! What he does is selfless. It would have been the easy thing for him to just become a Republican and give in to the machine.

Furthermore, in our Democratic society, leaders only rise with the will of the people, and that takes inspiration and action. We need to find those we feel are the best of the best and elevate them with all our might through the clutter of deception so that they can rise above the slime of Republican politics and into positions of leadership where they can actually effect change. If at that time, they prove to be just another politician, they lose our confidence and eventually their power.

The odds are against us here. We are Seabiscuit with a broken leg going up against War Admiral. We are Rocky versus the Russian. In this uphill battle against rigged voting, fear mongering, biased media, the bully pulpit, and a Republican party able to use the US Treasury as a campaign fund, we as Americans need to give those who fight in the face of such nefarious odds the will and support to fight for us. That is why I am willing to fight for Clark - because he is not only willing to fight for us, but he is willing to help us all fight for ourselves.

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2006/2/5/154255/4964/256#256

[rucky]

64. Why does this not make me feel better?

making the arguement about all of the international issues we haven't gotten embroiled in isn't exactly the direction we need to be going.

we've got a United Nations. I say we use it to its full potential. No more cowboy shit.

[Sparkly]

66. "cowboy shit"

General Clark doesn't do "cowboy shit."

It's another bad sign when BushCo have made the notions of SOUND foreign policy, international alliances, responsibility, and national security all just "cowboy shit" in anyone's mind.

[rucky]

69. yeah, that was a little harsh

I'm just sick of all of our misadventures into foreign lands - dating back to when Bushie I was CIA director.

[Sparkly]

70. I'm right there with you on that.

And I dare say, so are most Democrats.

So are most military brass, and the retired ones are vocal about it.

So are most veterans who've shed blood on battlefields.

Take a Vietnam vet, retired brass Democrat who was vocally against the Iraq invasion and continues to speak about the importance of talking to people and engaged diplomacy... I trust him.

[FrenchieCat]

67. I certainly wish were could control the directions of things....

but apparently, the only way to get control is to fight for it.....

And that is something that I am willing to do.

And so is Wes Clark, apparently!

[Tom Rinaldo]

68. Clark just said the United States has to move toward Single Payer

Health Insurance. He called for making College affordable for all students, expanding pre school education, moving toward energy independence by becoming the world leader in emerging technologies for renewable energy. Renewing the Labor movement, protecting our environment, progressive taxation...

Clark is NOT suggesting Democrats stop pushing for our traditional issues any more than Republicans stop lining the pockets of their special interest constituencies while they posture about "National Security".

But Clark IS saying we have to hit Republicans where they are strong, not just where they are weak. We've seen what they do to us time and time again. It's a classic case of "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me" if we don't learn the lesson. Clark is NOT saying out macho the Republicans, he is saying "out" the Republicans as frauds. Make the case, strongly, that we live in a more dangerous world because of THEIR misguided policies. Hammer them on their record of National Security failures. Hold them accountable for depleting our nation of hundreds of billions of dollars by fixating on, as Clark calls it, "The Two Foot Rattlesnake in a Box" (Iraq) while more legitimate threats to our security were left unattended.

Throw the Republicans OFF their game because we know they will LOSE if forced to play ours.

[HootieMcBoob]

71. I hope we're smart enough to elect Wes Clark in 2008

He's the strongest candidate. He will wipe the floor with any Republican candidate they can throw at him. We would be fools to let the opportunity of a Wes Clark candidacy slip through our fingers again.

[FrenchieCat]

72. Hey HootieMcBoob......Have you seen this lately?

http://a471.g.akamai.net/7/471/9997/v0001/clark.download.akamai.com/9997/preview/AmericanSon_med.wmv
(edited to correct original bad link)

I hadn't in a while, but I just did.....

I'm wiping the tears out of my eyes as I type this....

PS. Check it out.....to the very end.

[HootieMcBoob]

81. Yes, I've seen it a few times

and have recommended it to friends and family. It's a great introduction.

[MrSlayer]

77. Why this party doesn't make Clark their head spokesman is beyond me.

He's brilliant, down to earth and knows just how to fight these bastards. You do not rise to four star status without understanding strategy and tactics.

[FrenchieCat]

78. And studying and understanding

The enemy!

[Jeffersons Ghost]

83. repukes are doing damage control right now

Say "weapons of mass destruction" are a "dead" issue... I wonder if sen. inhofe (R) knows how punny he sounds... He's sucking Rummy butt now... More later... i gotta go get sick!

[JudyM]

84. K&R. Hit 'em where they live. n/t

[Totally Committed]

85. Late to this discussion, but I'd just like to say...

I have long felt Wes Clark was the only person I could trust as POTUS. His honesty and integrity, for the few years I've "known" him have been impeccable. He tells it like it is. His intelligence and his wisdom have been proved unimpeachable time and again, as each issue he's spoken out against has come to the fore. And, the Wes Clark I have t=come to know as the long-time supporter that I have been is a good, decent, family man... openly spiritual, generous, and respectful of all opinions brought before him. He's a thinker, he's a do-er, and above all of that, he's is someone who feels the pain of those less powerful, less well-off, less educated. He sympathizes with the common person. He's angered by the mistreatment of the poor and minorities and genuinely feels that all people are equal and should be treated that way.

This is the Wes Clark I know. This is the candidate that will take the fight to the Bushies and righteously rain down all manner of truth on their heads. He's the person to do it. And, he's the ONLY DEMOCRAT I TRUST 100% TO BE WHO HE SAYS HE IS AND DO WHAT HE SAYS HE WILL DO. I TRUST WES CLARK.

TC

[FrenchieCat]

87. Kick....

So we can all understand the art of warfare as it relates to our own country and taking back our Democracy.

Bottomline --They ain't gonna hand it back to us Folks....we have to go and snatch it out of their hands! :patriot:

[Jeffersons Ghost]

88. good point frenchie

:kick:

[Hidden Stillness]

90. A More General Attitude of Fighting Republicans on All Issues; Clearly

I think there are a couple of aspects to this issue: 1) the refusal of official Democrats to fight back against Republican lies and incompetance, and this bizarre, "D"LC "strategy" of agreeing with everything Republicans say, and 2) the real issue of the lingering opinion against Democrats that we don't like "regular" Americans, would not fight for this country, and take any other country's side before agreeing with America.

Not just on this issue, but every issue, for so many years, Democrats have been under orders to sabotage themselves. Republicans run up the biggest debt in the history of the country, then go on the floor of the House or Senate and jeer at Democrats for "being partisan" and "not working together," that "we have to get spending under control," as if Republicans are trying to restrain the spending of Democrats (!), and what do Democrats do? Nothing--they critcize nothing. Like the "D"LC's "advice" to John Kerry not to refer to the Swift Boat Liars, who then seemed like they were exposing something real, this endless "D"LC "strategy" of never responding to Republican lies and attacks, can only make us seem not only like crooks, but idiots. Republicans, meanwhile, never get angry and reveal themselves as liars or bullies, etc., because no one ever confronts them with anything. Democrats make floor speeches where they "prove" what "good little Democrats" they are by attacking Democrats whenever they need an example of somebody doing something "bad": If I hear one more "Democrat" attack Franklin Roosevelt for "trying to pack the Supreme Court," while not explaining why that was necessary (to try to head off the Republicans from killing parts of the New Deal by taking it to a Republican-packed Supreme Court), or one more "Democrat" blithely say, "Nobody likes taxes" or that fiscal responsibility is "conservative" (funny, I thought it was liberal and Democratic; the only times the economy and the budget have ever been on track), I am going to scream. Why, you would "almost" think that "D"LC, Inc. wants Democrats to lose.

The other part, that of the suspicion that some people hold for us on national security, supporting the troops and any war effort, you know that this is the result of a media slander campaign that has been going on for some 30 years now. The overrated "angry white males" of the '80s and '90s, when "only the Republican Party would stand up for them," when really they were angry about downsizing and union-busting, which was censored; the stay-at-home Moms, which "only the Republican Party defended," when really only feminists demanded any real, tangible respect for all women and their choices in life--Republicans have been playing this game, and usurping somebody else's cause or achievement for many years now, by way of their media. One of the stereotypes they built up about us, still believed, is that we would take the side of any other country rather than defend America, or are the type of people who spell the word America with a "k," (or three "k"s), and will not admit anything good about it, etc. This created a hatred for us among some people, so strong that whenever we talk about some of these issues, they wait, getting madder and madder, for us to make a snide, anti-American remark they "know" is coming. This is an actual attitude, which was how a campaign to pretend that John Kerry was a "Euro" style snob too good for the middle class people, actually worked. There are unexpressed stereotypical attitudes about us, affecting people's responses to what we say, and sometimes you have to counter something you didn't even know was there, first, or they will not even listen.

After all the years of "extremist liberal" propaganda against us, we may not even seem like normal people to anyone who has received no other message, and no exposure to a real Democrat, and all made incalculably worse by the "D"LC spitting the same message, so that there was no other. I don't even think the issue matters that much, only that they, by their media monopoly, have invented a stereotype of us, that makes many people hate us. This then makes their attacks against us seem not like mean-spirited abuse, but as either funny--that the "horrible America-hating liberals" are getting theirs; good--or as "fighting for America" against those who would rip it apart, "us." This means that to a degree we need to get back to showing a respectful love of country, etc., as used to be typical, and also, as Wes Clark has shown, give easy, low key responses that destroy them. I believe this is all part of the increasing movement away from the corporate lobbyists of "D"LC, Inc. and "framing" consultants, who did nothing to solve the problems of the poor and middle class, and who therefore totally killed the once-commonplace sense of goodwill toward the Democratic Party, as the ones who will help us, and were on our side. Remember, the biggest issues, where the people themselves rose up against what Republicans were doing and stopped them, were domestic: the attempt to kill and commercialize Social Security (which "D"LC, Inc. wants), and the Terri Schiavo tragedy, where people favor the right to die. The increasing anger and panic over the commercialized ("Medicare") drug disaster is another one ongoing. There are many issues we should be attacking hard, not just as a strategy, but as the answer. We should have been attacking these bastards as frauds and criminals for a long time now, we might have been further along on dismantling them by now, and for God's sake, quit telling us what Karl Rove would do! Tell us what Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt would do.

[dolstein]

91. Of course, it helps that Wes Clark is a general

When Wes Clark makes these arguments, people are much more likely to take them seriously, because he's a former four star general. But someone like Howard Dean or Nancy Pelosi simply isn't going to get any traction out of these arguments.

[Time for change]

92. Go Clark!