Blogging Wes Clark for President 2008

DU Clarkies is a group of supporters of General Wesley Clark, who frequent Democratic Underground (DU). Some of our members are bloggers promoting Clark's vision for America. "Blogging Wes Clark for President 2008" reflects a weekly newsletter our membership receives by email, reporting a selection of updated blogs. WesPac Securing America is not connected with this grassroots website, nor is any other Wesley Clark organization, website or campaign. If you would like to learn more about General Clark, please visit Securing America and join in the discussion at Clark Community Network or read the Wesley Clark Wiki.

Wes Clark and the Iraq War Resolution gets a good going-over by Rapid Fire - Silver Bullets.

There is a current resurgence by certain Democrats who would like to believe that Wes Clark would have voted for the Blank Check Iraq Resolution that passed back in 2002. This may be occurring partially because so many of the Dem potential Candidates for 2008 did indeed vote for it, and so it would be useful for misery to have company.

One of the items used for their “proof” is that 2002 article that I previously discussed here. But there is one additional piece of evidence that has recently been pulled out again as proof of General Clark’s intent in terms of what he might have done had he been in congress.

It’s that ditty of an article written by Adam Nagourney based on an interview with General Clark on the day that Wes announced his candidacy in September of 2003. At the time, this article actually worked quite well in its aim (to squelch the General’s candidacy in the Democratic Primaries) due to the “headline” the New York Times so kindly decided on, and based on what was billed as a 90 minute “free rolling” interview by its author, Mr. Nagourney. Here’s a reprint of the original article.

Now on first glance the article “seems” damning! However, in closely reading this article, I had more questions about Mr. Nagourney's agenda than I did on Gen. Clark’s position on the Iraq Resolution.

Read more..

Moderating the Madness points to an article of interest to moderate voters.

Aspen Daily News today has a columnist making the case for General Clark as the only Democrat who can beat John McCain in 2008, based on Clark's appeal for moderates of all parties.

If Democrats wish to win presidential cycle 2008 they have a sterling candidate, the right one at the right time, in Wesley Clark, the articulate and knowledgeable former NATO supreme commander. To nominate a candidate either unwilling or unqualified to secure Iraq and Afghanistan -- John Kerry, Al Gore, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Barack Obama -- guarantees election of Republican John McCain who can and will. If he, and not Donald Rumsfeld, had run the wars both nations would be secured democracies today.

Democrats gamble if they nominate a candidate voters view not viable as commander in chief. Las Vegas odds (17 to 1) and 60 percent of voters believe terrorists will strike the U.S. again before election 2008. If they do, an anti-war Democrat loses and McCain wins all 50 states. Only Clark facing such odds can defeat Vietnam hero McCain. Domestically, both are in the political center where the majority of America resides but Clark buries McCain as he commanded and won the Balkans War while McCain, a hero yes, was a prisoner only.

Read more..

Soldiering on for Wesley Clark takes a fresh look at some polling data and draws fresh conclusions.

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.

Read more..

Shouldn't a candidate for Chief Executive know how to actually run something?—from A Wes Clark Democrat.

The air in Clark land is all turgid and a-tingle with the clatter of fingernails driven by brain cells fraught with anticipation, tap, tap, tapping on computer desks everywhere. I hear it in the middle of the night with my blood beat: “Will he announce? When will he announce? What will he announce?”

That last one is the sleep-killer.

Since the summer of 2003, the constant in our lives has been the future Clark presidency. February 2004 might not have happened. (You left in the rain without closing the door.... We stood in the way.) November 2004 might not have happened. Except, of course, it did and the world is very much the worse for it. We wonder just how the voters, even more, how the party, you know, the professionals, could not have seen what we saw, what we still see. America needs Wes Clark's strategic brilliance, diplomatic skill, executive experience, leadership strength, and unmatched dedication to national service.

But looking at the “rock star” treatment certain candidates receive in the collaborating media and how that is reflected in polls and then how those polls determine who has the money to run a campaign and gets more and more money to keep that campaign going, very much including this, the pre-campaign, deciding for the voters who is or is not “electable” by how much “buzz” a candidate is allotted—we do see ahead of time, this time, how it happens that the leader America needs is probably the last one it will get.

Read more..

A Left Turn FOR CLARK examines the role we will be playing in the 2008 presidential election.

Part 1

There’s a phrase that seems much in vogue with political commentators currently; “suck up all the oxygen”, and its almost always preceded by these two names; Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The metaphor sort of implies that Clinton and Obama are “heavy breathers”, but the actually term used to describe them is usually “heavyweights.” The operative theory is that these two supposed political Goliaths will now so dominate the Democratic political terrain between now and the 2008 nominating convention that the resources needed to sustain political life for any other potential 2008 Democratic presidential candidates will be perilously lacking. Perhaps John Edwards can also eke out some sort of meager existence, this theory goes, but everyone else will be sucking wind.

Read more..

Part 2:

There are a few key factors regarding the 2008 race that conventional wisdom has forgotten, if it ever adequately grasped it to begin with. For example there are personal characteristics that define a genuine netroots candidate, and while those qualities can be mimicked they can not faithfully be manufactured. Stands taken on issues are of course important, but it’s not just what a candidate takes stands on, it is also how a candidate stands for their beliefs, that wins or loses netroots support. If the beltway has a current defining political cliché; “Oxygen in the Room”, then the netroots has one also; “Truth to Power.” Howard Dean wears the mantle of a Truth to Power Democrat, so too does Jim Webb. And so also does Wesley Clark, unlike the other second tier Presidential candidates.

Read more...

DU Clarkies is a group of supporters of General Wesley Clark, who frequent Democratic Underground (DU). Some of our members are bloggers promoting Clark's vision for America. "Blogging Wes Clark for President 2008" reflects a weekly newsletter our membership receives by email, reporting a selection of updated blogs. WesPac Securing America is not connected with this grassroots website, nor is any other Wesley Clark organization, website or campaign. If you would like to learn more about General Clark, please visit Securing America and join in the discussion at Clark Community Network or read the Wesley Clark Wiki.

Soldiering on for Wesley Clark takes up where she left off examining favorability ratings.

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.

McCain-Lieberman as viewed by Moderating the Madness.

For the troops to die, that is.

Tim Curry on MSNBC looks at a McCain-Lieberman ticket. Two pro-surge war hawks; (that should work in 2008).

A guy from Lieberman's 2004 primary campaign pointed out, “Joe Lieberman and John McCain's moral leadership in Congress helped make it possible for Wesley Clark to stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo.”

Well, thanks! But that was a different war in another country, you know, the one where no American soldiers died. It was war waged under a completely different policy, one with diplomacy built into the operation so that the use of military force followed diplomatic failure, not led the way to political collapse.

For an opposite, more sensible and responsible view to the surge-hawks on Bush's (s)urge to war, war and more war, read General Clark's op-ed in today's Washington Post.

Read more..

Rapid Fire - Silver Bullets tirelessly digging out the truth and burying anti-Clark spin.

Here are some of the actual statements made by Wesley Clark in September 2002, before congress-- Clark Testimony on Iraq

While politicians were busy being "misled" by Bush, Clark was predicting the future.

"The war is unpredictable and could be difficult and costly. And what is at risk in the aftermath is an open-ended American ground commitment in Iraq and an even deeper sense of humiliation in the Arab world, which could intensify our problems in the region and elsewhere."

"We're going to have chaos in that region. We may not get control of all the weapons of mass destruction, technicians, plans, capabilities; in fact, what may happen is that we'll remove a repressive regime and have it replaced with a fundamentalist regime which contributes to the strategic problem rather than helping to solve it."

A Wes Clark Democrat rounds up blogger reaction to the General's op-ed in the Washington Post.

George Sand at Arkansas Politics Blog says, "When you finish reading it, you’ll know why I think this man should be our next President of the United States and why the Decider couldn’t or wouldn’t recognize dipolmacy if it bit him in the arse."

From Cold Flute: "Ever since Wesley Clark started appearing on TV as a military analyst early in the war, he's been making a lot of sense... If Wesley Clark is going to run, let's hope he does it soon."

Arkansas radio host Clyde Clifford asks on the Beaker Street Blog, "On military matters to whom would you listen? George Bush or Wesley Clark."

Josh Marshall interprets very simply, "It's the diplomacy, stupid."

Skippy the Bush Kangaroo does the math.

Steve Clemons at Washington Note rates it a "zinger op-ed."

Garnet Donkey says, "Clark deals with the issue nicely. He points out that the surge is a foolish and downright dangerous diversionary tactic."

Down With Tyranny laments: "One military man-- one with a great deal of success behind him-- whose advice Bush would never listen to in a million years, is former NATO commander in chief, Wes Clark."

Norwegianity notes succinctly, "Wesley Clark wasted no time in responding to this 'surge' bullshit."

Evergreen Politics yearns: "Oh, what we would give to have the grown-ups, like Clark, in charge of foreign policy again!"

The Democratic Daily calls it a "a rather Kerryesque stance" on its site started and run by diehard Kerry supporters.

Great Minds Think Like Me calls it "A message from the next President of the United States."

Read more..

From A Left Turn FOR CLARK.

Smack dab in the Beltway's Morning newspaper, The Washington Post, General Wesley Clark takes it right at the Bush Administration today, in an OpEd I'm sure they don't want to read, but they still know that everyone else will. General Clark nails it with his title; "The Smart Surge: Diplomacy" in a classic example of devastating framing. If enhanced diplomacy is the "smart surge", what is a temporary steroid injection of 20,000 or 30,000 more U.S. troops into Iraq? That's just plain dumb.

I would urge all to read the full OpEd in the Washington Post, but it took Clark just three sentences to cut through Bush's military surge spin to the bottom line of predictable results:

"What the surge would do is put more American troops in harm's way, further undercut the morale of U.S. forces and risk further alienating elements of the Iraqi populace. American casualties would probably rise, at least temporarily, as more troops appeared on the streets -- as happened in the summer when a brigade from Alaska was extended and sent into Baghdad. And even if the increased troop presence initially frustrated the militias, it wouldn't be long before they found ways to work around the neighborhood searches and other obstacles, if they chose to continue the conflict."

Read more..

If somehow you've missed the General's email campaign against Bush's troop surge policy, please sign here and forward this link to friends and family.

http://ga4.org/campaign/stopthesurge

Stop the "surge!" Instead, change the strategy!

We cannot support the increase in troops unless George Bush disavows the NeoCon strategy and presents a new strategy. George Bush has been using the troops for the past four years trying to divide the country between those who support the war and those who do not.

President Bush is trying to divide us again with his expected call this week for a "surge" of up to 20,000 additional U.S. troops into Iraq.

What the surge would do is put more American troops in harm's way, further undercut the morale of U.S. forces and risk further alienating elements of the Iraqi populace.

Don't let George Bush divide us. Join me today and tell President Bush that you do not support a troop increase in Iraq.

Wes Clark

SIGN HERE

SIGN NOW

DU Clarkies is a group of supporters of General Wesley Clark, who frequent Democratic Underground (DU). Some of our members are bloggers promoting Clark's vision for America. "Blogging Wes Clark for President 2008" reflects a weekly newsletter our membership receives by email, reporting a selection of updated blogs. WesPac Securing America is not connected with this grassroots website, nor is any other Wesley Clark organization, website or campaign. If you would like to learn more about General Clark, please visit Securing America and join in the discussion at Clark Community Network or read the Wesley Clark Wiki.

Wes for Pres catches a Clark reader in his shorts.

Moderating the Madness calls attention to an Atlantic article on Unity08, and seems to think this "Surprise Party" may hold a message for Clark supporters.

Read more..

Soldiering on for Wesley Clark takes Condi to the woodshed while making an important point about the Executive branch.

I hope all the Democrats pushing a one- or two term senator to be our 2008 nominee will take a lesson here. You can't just walk in off the street and run a large organization effectively. It takes a lot of experience in running smaller organizations first. Experience may not be everything -- but it sure means something. And voters know it. That's why governors almost always beat senators, head to head. But governors usually know little to nothing about foreign policy or national defense. We can't afford that either.

Read more..

From Dead Messengers, a good collection of Wes's statements on the escalation, um, "surge."

It is seldom wise to ignore the advice of a brilliant retired general, even more so in matters military. He, and his advice, may come back and bite you in the ass…again…and again…and again…and again…and if you’re really unfortunate and named Bill O’Reilly, again…and again…

Read more..

A Left Turn FOR Clark shows who's got the goods for 2008.

It takes a very special candidate to pull off a candid campaign. In some ways spills are inevitable, since it’s a high wire act, and an ability to regain ones footing after a slip is a necessary prerequisite for success if attempted. But no act so captures the imagination of the public as a trapeze artist or high wire dancer. And the artist with the skill to perform in that arena can survive an occasional fall onto the nets with their prestige still intact, if they can leap up again to rescale those heights.

The political candor artist of 2008, should he decide to run, will be General Wesley Clark, and there is none better in my opinion. He runs intellectual circles around most of his opponents; with even the most treacherous ambush of a question not beyond his ability to Lion tame live now in any setting. Wes Clark is no longer a novice at politics, though he continues to take risks through his candor in public, and in taking those risks he will undoubtedly make some mistakes. But I sense the pendulum is swinging now to the other side, and the risks inherent in disciplined polish are weighing heavier than they have at any other time in our recent political history.

Read more..

A Scientist for Wes Clark highlights a report showing Exxon-Mobil has taken a leaf from the tobacco industry, in its response to Global Warming.

Read more..

On America Needs Wes Clark:

I understand Foxman has a job to do and a very important one, but I just don’t believe Wes Clark used code for Jew. No way in hell. He says what he means. He was reacting to a UPI article about Israeli neocons who want the US to wage a war against Iran, and the American neocons who support those aims financially and otherwise, because they are neocons, not because they are Jews. They are not largely Jews in this country, in fact, but fundamentalist, right wing, Christian Republicans; the Bush/Cheney base.

Read more..

RAPID FIRE - Silver Bullets starts a series: "HERO - What feat qualifies one for that title?"

The media currently has three high profiled “heroes” that they showcase consistently. Coincidently these “heroes” just all happen to be rumored or confirmed candidates in the quickly approaching 2008 presidential race. All have had the hero label surgically implanted by the corporate media as though it is part of their names; POW War Hero Sen. John McCain , 9/11 NY Mayor Hero Rudi Giuliani , and Common/Poor Man’s Hero John Edwards who's legendary feat in the name of poverty are still "a work in progress".

These notables' are fortunate that the media is heralding them as "special", but my questions is, are they really heroes, or are they just wearing the label gifted them by the media or bolder still, that they have crafted themselves?

Read more..

A Wes Clark Democrat spreads an exciting moment on Clark Community Network. Your lips to God's ears, ladies.

RocketCityBev:

AND THIS WAS A CAMPAIGN SPEECH FOLKS -- no if ands or buts about it -- I was sooo excited I was jumping up and down and saying YES and dancing around people thought I was NUTS!!! WES IS GOING TO RUNNNN WES IS GOING TO RUUNNN!! YES SIR GENERAL!!!

Everyone LOVED what he had to say!! Good answers to immigration, war on drugs and the Katrina mess!! And Joyce can vouch with me -- He is running!! :) :) :)

Joyce11:

Wes is going to run -- no doubt about it. He looked great tonight, khaki pants, white shirt, red tie and grey V-neck sweater.

He started off immediately talking about his bio. Where he grew up, going to West Point, X amount of years in the Army, getting wounded in Nam, etc. etc. I got the impression that he was hurt when in 04' everyone was talking about Kerry's war service and barely mentioned his record of service. And he's right, that's what happened. He definitely sounded like a candidate to me. He was passionate, funny, and he did say that "IF I RUN THIS TIME, I'LL WIN!!!

The crowd was energetic, supportive, and there were no empty seats in the house. RUN WES RUN!

Read more..

DU Clarkies is a group of supporters of General Wesley Clark, who frequent Democratic Underground (DU). Some of our members are bloggers promoting Clark's vision for America. "Blogging Wes Clark for President 2008" reflects a weekly newsletter our membership receives by email, reporting a selection of updated blogs. WesPac Securing America is not connected with this grassroots website, nor is any other Wesley Clark organization, website or campaign. If you would like to learn more about General Clark, please visit Securing America and join in the discussion at Clark Community Network or read the Wesley Clark Wiki.

The General for President notes that General Clark is working to get people displaced by Katrina back to New Orleans:

In response to a question about rebuilding New Orleans after Katrina, Clark says:

In one of my business connections, we’re working with the state of Louisiana and we’re trying to fix this. We’re also going to reach out to those people who’ve lost their homes, especially those in the 9th Ward, and try to get them BACK home to New Orleans. This is a tough challenge, now. This is a tough challenge because you’re dealing with the federal government that hadn’t exactly been competent in this. (laughter) So it’s taking a LOT of effort. (Applause)

Moderating the Madness has a post by Arkansas Politics:

He’s a brilliant tactician, decorated warrior and commander, so has the deafening silence from the Clark camp been a tactic? Has he waited until the announcements of Clinton and Obama quieted down before he made his move?

Two weeks ago Barack Obama took the leap, threw the flare out for all to see, he is running for President. The light was intense and bright; the press clambered, the cameras flashed…for a moment. Don’t get me wrong; Obama has one of the brightest political futures I have seen in my 30 years of politic watching. However, regardless of his charisma he lacks one critical attribute, experience. In 2000, America looked to an affable and comfortable Governor from Texas who assured us that his lack of experience on the international scene would be no problem. I see nowhere in the tea leafs that America will again in my lifetime elect a President that needs on the job training. If Obama is really running for a VP nod, I am in all the way.

-read more

wes for pres liked this piece by Scott Nolan:

People have been pinging me about 2008 Presidential Contenders, and while I still think it is too early (we have a 2007 election here in Virginia to get through first), I have already spent a little time on this topic. Everything I said about Wesley Clark in October is still true today. I firmly believe that he is uniquely qualified to lead the United States of America out of the quagmire that is Iraq. Furthermore as a man of integrity rather than ego, he has been waiting until the congressional elections of 2006 are completely resolved before committing to a presidential race in 2008, I completely agree with that set of priorities and heartily applaud him for holding off.

-cut

I am as excited about the prospects of Bill Richardson as anyone else, in many ways he is the perfect candidate for the office. My main reasons for supporting Wes Clark first, and Bill Richardson second are that Wes clearly has the experience needed to get us out of the mess we are in now regarding both Iraq and Afghanistan. Let the man with experience get us out, then step down after only one turn (yes, Clark has the integrity to do just that) and then let the healer and diplomat take over in 2012 and beyond.

-read more

From A Scientist for Wes Clark:

Of all the prospective candidates, only Wes Clark seems to understand the level of effort needed to remake the American economy. Our economy over the last 25 to 30 years has been transformed from one based on manufacturing to one based on the financial service industry. In the process we have neglected science and engineering training. It is going to take a major national effort and a large funding base to develop better batteries for storage, safe nuclear power, sequestration of carbon dioxide from burning coal, more efficient electrical transmission lines, etc. Wes Clark understands the profound change that is needed in this country to move forward to the future.

-read more

A Left Turn FOR CLARK argues that Wes has time:

Conventional media is owned by those who sell conventional wisdom, so it is no surprise to see them use it promote their conventional spin. Until Wes Clark actually joins the presidential race and shows through his actions that there's more than ample time from that moment until the first 2008 contest for him to build a strong and winning campaign, conventional wisdom will push a flawed rear view mirror conclusion that since Clark entered the 2004 race too late, he must be entering the 2008 race too late also. That's their conventional meme and I think they'll be sticking to it, until facts on the ground start to prove them wrong, which they will.

A Wes Clark Democrat responds to some of the reasons Clark should not run again:

A few points being offered up around the web for why Wes Clark should not run for president in 2008: He can't win because Democrats won't vote for a military guy; he can't win because he has no experience in governing; he can’t win because he’s a genuine liberal Southern general; he can’t win because the election will be about domestic policy; he can’t win because he can’t handle the bumps of a presidential campaign; and, somehow or other, he's going to ruin any chance of becoming Secretary of State.

-read more

RAPID FIRE - Silver Bullets takes measure of the field overall and finds Wes playing an interesting role:

Interestingly enough, Wes Clark is the one who could dramatically change the current dynamics of the primary race. First and foremost, the situation in Iraq/Iran makes Clark once again a relevant candidate for the times. The General’s record of military success is unmatched by any other candidate, including John Kerry, as Clark would be the only candidate who successfully planned, led and won a war, all the while negotiating with multiple heads of states. His intense knowledge of foreign policy stands to make a large dent in Richardson’s claim as the candidate best versed in the area. It is in fact Clark’s “early and often” detailed plans of reasonably securing Iraq while negotiating the U.S. out of the war that could neutralize Hillary, (as she and the Big Dog come as a pair), considering her documented hawkishness and lack of apologies on her Iraq vote.

Wesley Clark adds domestic national security to the national debate, something none of the other candidates offers. As the former director of Strategic Planning for the Joint Chiefs under Clinton, Clark as the “competent and credible national security” candidate could spotlight the issue of domestic terrorism. As an emergency preparedness expert (in partnership with former FEMA head James Lee Witt), Clark brings in disaster management (i.e., Katrina) as an important component to the national debate; an issue which would otherwise go missing and a debate unfortunately focused currently on personalities and charisma.

Wes Clark also disqualifies Obama as the only top contender who was right on Iraq. Not only did the General see the invasion as a bad idea as early as the summer of 2002, but he also foretold how events would unfold 98% accurately.

-read more

The new Iraq plan that George Bush unveiled this month can be boiled down to three words: "Stay the Course."

The President's proposed escalation of troops does nothing to change his failed strategy. Without the "carrots and sticks" that could be used in an all-out political and diplomatic effort throughout the region, the 21,500 American troops that President Bush wants to send into this cauldron of violence are unlikely to prove decisive, while risking the lives of U.S. forces as well as further alienation of the Iraqi population.

Sending more American troops now would not do anything to fix the core political problems in Iraq, as it is not so much insecurity that is driving the violence but rather the struggle for political dominance. But it is American soldiers and Marines who will suffer the consequences. That is why I am joining with the Democratic Congress, and over 70,000 other grassroots activists who have signed a petition expressing our vehement opposition to George Bush's escalation in Iraq.

The one and only way to ever get through to George Bush is to create such a massive groundswell of resistance to this plan, that he is forced to pay attention. You have already helped us to do so by sending a message to President Bush, but there is still more you can do to help us get through to him:

Click here to invite your friends and family to email President Bush as well, saying loud and clear that they are against his escalation in Iraq.

There is no magic bullet to fix Iraq, but there is a way to proceed, as I outlined in my USA Today OpEd published in November, much of which was picked up in the Iraq Study Group recommendations. We need a full court diplomatic press to force the Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish factions to resolve simmering disputes over issues such as the distribution of oil revenue, the infiltration of sectarian militias, and reconciliation with former Baath Party members.

Changing our approach in Iraq must go hand in hand with fixing a regional strategy that has been an abject failure. For three years, the Bush administration has hectored and threatened Iran and Syria, and unsurprisingly, they have both worked continuously to feed the fighting in Iraq. It's time for us to get serious about talking with our enemies. And it's time for us to redouble our efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that is at the root of so many problems in the Middle East.

To date, the Bush administration has shown no inclination to take these steps, which means that a troop surge will only cost more lives and time. This president needs to hear from every one in America that we will not stand for his escalation in Iraq.

We have to get the President to change the strategy -- and the only way to do that is for the American people to tell the President to stop his troop surge so that the Administration will bring forth a real, workable strategy.

President Bush's proposed troop escalation is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, with an iceberg fast approaching.

We need a real change in course -- and there is no time to waste. Urge your friends and family to contact President Bush today!

Sincerely,

Wes Clark