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.

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