Soldiering on for Wesley Clark

Short answer: Of course he can. Anyone can.

Long answer: The better question is, can Clark be swiftboated like Kerry was? Quickly followed by, will the result be as bad?

And the answer to both is NO.

More importantly, America won!

Out with the chickenhawks from Congressional leadership. In with war hero Charlie Rangel at House Ways & Means, war hero Jack Murtha at Defense Appropriations, war hero Dan Akaka at Senate Veterans Affairs, veteran Jeff Bingaman at Energy, war hero (and Medal of Honor winner) Daniel Inouye at Commerce & Science, and others to important leadership roles too many to name. Welcome to a new generaltion of veterans, the Fighting Dems, most of whom ran and won in districts where they were told they didn't have a change against entrenched Republican incumbents, many of whom came closer to winning than anyone thought they had a right to expect and will be strong candidates in 2008 and leaders in their communities for years to come.

And speaking of 2008...

Wes Clark posted this to his blog today:

A short article from New York Magazine about some of the real heros of the mid-terms. Let's hope the DNC and other Dems can learn a lesson about playing offense instead of defense and not being afraid to hit hard.

Swift-Boat Revenge
How one New Yorker beat Republicans at the attack-ad game. by Geoffrey Gray

(Photo: Todd Selby)

They weren’t as famous as the stem-cell ads with Michael J. Fox, but the anti-Republican spots created by Jon Soltz (who served in Iraq as a captain in the Army), and his New York–based group VoteVets.org, also seemed to have hit their targets.

And it looks like we got us horse race.

Two polls taken by Research 2000, one for Iowa, the next for NH, both conducted in mid December (before Bayh dropped out, but no factor), both with about a 4% margin of error, and here's what we get:

What's the big hurry?

Why was Saddam Hussein executed so quickly?

Let's see... here was a guy who murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people, who started two wars, one with Iran and one with Kuwait, resulting in the deaths of many hundreds of thousands more (to include at least 148 Americans and maybe more thanks to Gulf War Syndrome), and who provided support and encouragement to Palestinian terrorists responsible for the deaths of.hundreds of Israelis, most frequently targeting children, the elderly, the working poor.

Wouldn't you think it might be worth making him testify publicly about ALL of those crimes? Wouldn't you think ALL of the victims might deserve a day in court? Don't you suppose that those still loyal to Saddam could stand to hear a little more about why so many Iraqis, other Arabs, and people around the world are glad to see him dead?

Imagine that.

Rassmussen conducted a national poll of voters from both parties (as well as none and other, presumably) to assess what percentage view favorably or unfavorably the various potential 2008 candidates. Of the ten Democrats on whom they collected data (Biden, Clark, Clinton, Edwards, Gore, Kerry, Kucinich, Obama, Richardson, Vilsack), only THREE were viewed favorably by a significantly larger number of voters, statistically speaking, than viewed them unfavorably. In other words, only THREE had more people like 'em than not.

Care to guess who those three are?

Well, I won't keep you in suspenders. But I will withhold some detail until I can apply a little analysis. So in alphabetical order, the only three with more to the good than to the bad, in numbers large enough to matter, are Clark, Edwards and Obama.

UPDATE: New data from Rassmussen, as of 1/4/07. Hang on for a new blog entry after I get a chance to take a look.

In my last post, I took a close look at Rassmussen's favorability ratings for the three (and only three) potential Democratic 2008 contenders whose favorability is statistically higher than their unfavorability: Clark, Edwards, and Obama. Since that time, Rassmussen has new data on Edwards and Obama (but alas, not on General Clark).

The new polling data are dated January 4, 2007, and were most likely collected since New Years.

Briefly, Obama's numbers changed only one point in each direction -- both to his benefit, but with no effect on my prior analysis and, statistically speaking, not significant at all. And for what it's worth (since I didn't report on her before), they must have also done another poll on Hillary Clinton, as she gained a point in the unfavorable column -- likewise an insignificant change.

But Edwards is another story. His new numbers are 54% favorable, 37% unfavorable. That's a bump of 7 points in the good column, a loss of 4 points in the bad, and (obviously) an increase of 11 points in the difference between them.

Just a quick note here. Published my first dKos diary, even tho I've been a registered member there since Jesus was a corporal. The subject is, "Flood the WH with letters; Tell Bush NO SURGE!" and it's a plea for Kossacks to respond to General Clark's letter campaign.

My dear friend Gordon Suber writes this insightful analysis of how the battlelines are being drawn over escalation in Iraq:

2007: It’s Clark versus McCain By Gordon Suber January 9, 2007

President George W. Bush will tell the American people why it is necessary to escalate the Iraq war, adding 20,000 American troops.

Writing in the Washington Post last Sunday, former presidential candidate (2000), Senator John McCain wrote that a small, short surge is a terrible idea. He advocates a larger number, for a longer period.

Writing in the Washington Post last Monday, former presidential candidate (2004) and former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, Wesley K. Clark set forth why he believes a surge in troops in Baghdad is a terrible idea. He advocates diplomacy.

None of us knows who will be battling for the presidency in 2008, but what I know now is that when it comes to finding a solution in Iraq in 2007, it's Clark versus McCain.

Wes Clark was a guest on Hannity & Colmes the evening after Bush's State of the Union address. And soft pudgy too-good-to-enlist Sean Hannity presumes to lecture the four-star general and decorated combat veteran on military strategy?

Un-effin'-believable.

There's a video of the relevant piece at Crooks & Liars, or you can watch the whole interview at WesPAC's website. But here's what Hannity said:

Last weekend, the Democratic National Committee held its annual Winter Meeting and, as frequently happens in election years (even tho 2007 is not technically not), it included a "cattle call" of all the presidential candidates for 2008, to include, as party chairman Dean called him, the imminent candidate General Wesley Clark.

One by one, the presidential wannabes took the podium, in randomly assigned order, and extolled the audience as to why Democrats should nominate them to the highest office in the land (and a house worth I dare say more than even John Edwards').

But only one seized upon the platform as an opportunity to once again remind Democrats, as well as an expected TV audience (pre-empted by tornadoes in Florida), of those the aspirants would seek to lead, when he began the meat of his speech with:

But before I say anything else, I want you to take just a moment and reflect quietly, on the sacrifices that are being made by our troops in uniform and their families. [moment of silence]

You could have heard a pin drop in that room.

...before it starts?

We are on the verge of war with Iran, and most of America doesn't even know it.

But make no mistake. George W. Bush wants to attack Iran.

Kudos to the folks who put this together:

Directed by John Bruder, Written by John Kramer
Produced by Mike Conway, Music by Chad Krueger, Starring Matt Craig, Andy St. Clair and Alex Fendrich

The Sunday Times of London reports:

SOME of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources.

Yesterday I wrote,

There is no doubt at all that many many people who could have made a difference [during the Vietnam era], chose not to, and lived to regret it.
I only hope the generals in the Pentagon today won't look back in ten or twenty years and feel the same way.

How ironic that just this morning on C-SPAN's Washington Journal, I hear David Margolick, the author of a new article in Vanity Fair about the generals who spoke out to call for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation in April 2006.

Particularly striking is a quote from Lieutenant General Greg Newbold, who was the Director for Operations on the Joint Staff in 2002. Describing a pre-invasion planning meeting where Rumsfeld had "summarily dismissed [a 500,000 troop estimate because s]urely 125,000 would suffice," Newbold now says,

"I should have had the gumption to confront him. The right thing to do was to confront, and I didn't. It's something I'll have to live with for a long time."

In an interview on Democracy Now! last week, General Clark spoke about closing the prison at Guantanamo and repealing the Military Commissions Act:

AMY GOODMAN: General Clark, do you think Guantanamo Bay should be closed?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Absolutely.

AMY GOODMAN: If Congress cut off funds for the prison there, it would be closed. Should they?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, I think the first thing Congress should do is repeal the Military Commissions Act. I’m very disturbed that a number of people who are looking at the highest office in the land have supported an act which advertently or inadvertently authorizes the admission into evidence of information gained through torture. That's not the America that I believe in. And the America that I believe in doesn't detain people indefinitely without charges. So I’d start with the Military Commissions Act.

Spooks. Intelligence collectors. Agents and handlers. Interceptors and radar operators. Long range reconnaissance. First in and last out of any war zone, potential or actual. Out in front of friendly defenses. Sometimes under cover, without uniforms and therefore, without Geneva Convention protection.

But even when they don't wear uniforms, they serve our country and protect our freedoms. They do it for little pay, often no recognition at all, and sometimes at risk of making the ultimate sacrifice in the performance of their duty.

The first American casualty in the War on Terror was CIA operative Mike Spann. And over forty years before, the first American to die in Vietnam was Army Specialist James T. Davis a signal intercept operator working under cover for the National Security Agency.

So no one, NO ONE, can claim to support "the troops" and not give a damn about the men and women who collect the intelligence that lets the rest of the troops do their jobs.

But that's exactly what I heard from Republicans on the House Oversight Committee last week as they questioned witnesses concerning the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson.

Ok, not really,

But last night (and a good seven hours after I posted "Spooks are troops too"), I was taken by surprise to hear Maher deliver a scathing denouncement of Bush, Cheney and Rove for what they have done to Valerie Plame Wilson, and of all the Republicans who don't seem to think it matters.

Maher specifically said, "CIA agents are troops," and described just some of the sacrifices and contributions Plame has made for this country.

He called Bush and Cheney traitors.

Update: Thanks to "SundayTalk" at YouTube for this clip, which is slightly better quality than the one first available from "joriet2" used earlier. Both are greatly appreciated.

Richard Power writes in his "Hard Rain Journal 3-30-07"

A Call to Conscience and Common Sense from Gen. Wes Clark, and an Update on the War OF, BY and FOR Terrorism By Richard Power

In 2002 and 2003, during the ramp up to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, I wrote that although it was immoral (i.e., in violation of the principles of just war) and illegal (i.e., in violation of the UN Charter), it was something even worse, it was stupid. For the last two years, I have been writing that a preemptive, unilateral attack on Iran would be something worse than stupid, it would be insane.

Yes, the danger of a regional war in the Middle East, or even all out World War, is high. No one is doing more to prevent this potential catastrophe than retired Gen. Wesley Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander, who like Al Gore, has grasped that there is something more important than the business of politics as usual.

I invite you to continue reading Power's commentary at his "Words of Power" blog.

I was watching a forum on C-SPAN about presidential campaign politics. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and former New York governor Mario Cuomo each spoke at Cooper Union, followed by a question and answer session led by Tim Russert of Meet the Press.

I learned I've been giving Newt Gingrich WAY too much credit.

(Steve Sack/Minneapolis Star-Tribune)

When John McCain wants to find out how things are going over in Iraq, he flies over in a military aircraft on the taxpayers' dime, walks around the Green Zone with a maximum of US military protection, also on the taxpayers' dime, and talks to soldiers and marines hand-picked by the chain of command to answer his questions. One wonders what he expects to hear, and whether it isn't something like what he wants to hear, but I guess it's hard to fault him for not knowing any real GIs up close and personal.

Democratic congressman Patrick Murphy, on the other hand, can talk to the very real soldiers he served with in Iraq, some of whom are still there. According to an op/ed by Francis Clines in last Sunday's New York Times, one of those soldiers is Sergeant Juan Santiago of the 82nd Airborne. Hooah SGT Santiago.

Another "Fighting Dem," Congressman (and retired Colonel) Jack Murtha nails it:

Interesting to hear the gentleman say 'we,' 'we fight,' 'we aren't gonna give up,' 'we aren't gonna surrender.' Let me tell you something. We aren't fighting this war. It's the troops overseas... Don't tell me we're fighting in this air conditioned office. We're not fighting this war; they're fighting it! And I'm proud of every one of them!"

(C-SPAN, by way of BradBlog.com)

A tag cloud displays the 50 words used most often by a single speaker in a speech or interview, but with the font size of each word varied according to the frequency of usage. That is, the larger the word's size, the more often it was used. Common words like "and," "of," "the," and "new" are omitted. Thus, the tag cloud gives a visual depiction of those things the speaker considers most important, at least at the time and/or within the context of the particular speech or interview.

Sure, Americans would love to see their political leaders come together in a spirit of bipartisanship and compromise. BUT that doesn't mean we want you folks in Congress to roll over and give the President whatever he wants.

In a recent poll conducted by the Pew Research Center, a whopping 70% of respondents, garnered from all political parties, as well as no party at all, said that Democratic leaders in Congress are either "not going far enough" or are "handling it about right" in "challenging George W.Bush’s policies in Iraq." This compares to a mere 23% who thought Reid and Pelosi are "going too far." Moreover, the same poll found that a full 78% think Congress should have "some" or "a lot" of influence over the direction of U.S. policy in Iraq, compared to only 18% who responded either "not much" or "none at all."

So hang in there, Democrats. Be strong, show some starch, and do what you know is right. That's all any of us can ask, and usually all we ever do.

Once more mega-kudos are in order to VoteVets, one of the few veterans organizations that puts the welfare of the troops ahead of partisan politics.

Jon Soltz -- Iraq War Veteran, Co-Founder and Chairman of VoteVets -- writes:

The first in the series of three ads features VoteVets.org Advisory Board Member, Major General (ret.) John Batiste, who was commanding general of the 1st Infantry Division from August 2002-June 2005. During this time frame, he conducted combat operations in Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Batiste twice voted for President Bush and is a lifelong Republican. If you like this ad, then you're going to love what we have coming up in about a week, from Major General Paul Eaton. And, then the ad featuring General Clark after that. That's fitting, because it is General Clark who paved the way for other retired brass to speak out.

Now watch the video....

Don't the Republicans complain that if the American public could hear about the good stuff going on in Iraq, we would be more supportive of the president's war policy? That it is Democrats who have led the American people to believe the war is a lost cause by making sure the liberal media only tells us when bad stuff happens?

So how come the Bush administration is now prohibiting enlisted soldiers, "junior" officers (05 and below!), and even career DoD civilians -- in other words, anyone who's not a political appointee -- from testifying before Congress?

According to yesterday's Boston Globe,

Robert L. Wilkie , a former Bush administration national security official who left the White House to become assistant secretary of defense for legislative affairs last year, has outlined a half-dozen guidelines that prohibit most officers below the rank of colonel from appearing in hearings, restricting testimony to high-ranking officers and civilians appointed by President Bush.

The guidelines, described in an April 19 memo to the staff director of the House Armed Services Committee, adds that all field-level officers and enlisted personnel must be "deemed appropriate" by the Department of Defense before they can participate in personal briefings for members of Congress or their staffs; in addition, according to the memo, the proceedings must not be recorded.

Too bad, C-SPAN viewers. No more first hand accounts from regular folks. From now on, you only get the sanitized version of events that the White House wants you to see.

Actually, it's worse than that.

After you read the editorial that follows, please join General Clark's campaign to remove Rush from the Armed Forces Radio Network, where our tax dollars provide him unfettered access to a captive audience of soldiers and sailors stationed overseas.

Limbaugh’s Cowardly Smear

by Joe Conason
Published on October 2, 2007, in the October 8, 2007, edition of The New York Observer

The controversy over what Rush Limbaugh meant when he uttered the phrase “phony soldiers” last week isn’t just another broadcast sideshow. As the political power of conservatism declines, the symbolic authority of figures such as Mr. Limbaugh is likewise shrinking. That is why he backs away from his own words, rips them from context by selectively editing his program’s transcript and insists he didn’t demean soldiers and veterans who dissent from the Bush White House war policy—as he and his fellow partisans have done so many times before.

I have come to the conclusion that Hillary Clinton is the presidential candidate most capable and most likely to withdraw our forces from Iraq in a manner that maximizes their safety and minimizes the long-term threat both to the region and to our national interests.

Apparently, these distinguished men and women have reached a similar conclusion.

Or listen to this conference call from the campaign, courtesy of Taylor Marsh's blog.

Flag Officers Endorsing Hillary Clinton for President and Commander-in-Chief, according to a press release dated March 1, 2008.

* General Wesley Clark
* General John M. Shalikashvili
* General Henry Hugh Shelton
* General Johnnie E. Wilson
* Admiral William Owens
* Lt. Gen. Joe Ballard
* Lt. Gen. Robert Gard
* Lt. Gen. Claudia J. Kennedy
* Lt. Gen. Donald L. Kerrick
* Lt. Gen. Frederick E. Vollrath
* Vice Admiral Joseph A. Sestak
* Major General Roger R. Blunt
* Major General George A. Buskirk, Jr.
* Major General Edward L. Correa, Jr.
* Major General Paul D. Eaton
* Major General Paul D. Monroe, Jr.
* Major General Antonio M. Taguba
* Rear Admiral Connie Mariano
* Rear Admiral Alan M. Steinman
* Rear Admiral David Stone
* Brigadier General Michael Dunn
* Brigadier General Belisario Flores
* Brigadier General Evelyn "Pat" Foote
* Brigadier General Keith H. Kerr
* Brigadier General Virgil A. Richard
* Brigadier General Preston Taylor
* Brigadier General John M. Watkins, Jr.
* Brigadier General Jack Yeager