Wesley Clark Still Thinking about Running

One thing I like about Wesley Clark is that you often get straight answers from him. Certainly more straight answers than we hear from other politicians such as Bush and Cheney.

Amy Goodman of Democracy Now had an interview with Wesley Clark the other day; here's a couple of excerpts:

AMY GOODMAN: Will you announce for president?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, I haven’t said I won’t.

AMY GOODMAN: What are you waiting for?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: I’m waiting for several different preconditions, which I’m not at liberty to discuss. But I will tell you this: I think about it every single day.


(snip)

AMY GOODMAN: Now, let’s talk about Iran. You have a whole website devoted to stopping war.

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Www.stopiranwar.com.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you see a replay in what happened in the lead-up to the war with Iraq -- the allegations of the weapons of mass destruction, the media leaping onto the bandwagon?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, in a way. But, you know, history doesn’t repeat itself exactly twice. What I did warn about when I testified in front of Congress in 2002, I said if you want to worry about a state, it shouldn’t be Iraq, it should be Iran. But this government, our administration, wanted to worry about Iraq, not Iran.

I knew why, because I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11. About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, “Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second.” I said, “Well, you’re too busy.” He said, “No, no.” He says, “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.” This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?” He said, “I don’t know.” ... ... He said, “I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.” And he said, “I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.”

So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” -- meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office -- “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.” And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?” He said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!”

It's a long interview but well worth reading. Any time General Clark is involved in a long interview or debate, you learn things you don't necessarily learn elsewhere. I hope Wesley Clark jumps all the way into the race but he's very much a straight shooter and I suspect his opponents and the media will use that against him and that would be a shame for America's future.

Wesley Clark Criticizes Bush's Iraq Policy

Of the Democrats being discussed for a run in 2008, only Al Gore and Wesley Clark have not declared and Gore keeps saying he won't. That makes Wesley Clark the last candidate if he decides to run. I suspect Clark is biding his time and if he doesn't see a good opportunity to jump all the way in, he may stay active on the issues, particularly on foreign policy.

Stephanie Veale of the Utica Observer-Dispatch has a story on Clark's recent speech at Colgate College:

The Bush Administration's strategy in Iraq is wrong because it's short on dialogue and diplomacy and heavy on violence, Retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark said Tuesday night at Colgate University.

"You cannot defeat al Qaida with military force alone," Clark said, adding that invasions, bombings and shoot-outs create terrorist-sympathizers and worsen the problem.

(snip)

"The United States must talk with nations it disagrees with," he said.

Having an ideological vice president who talks like a John Bircher and a public relations president who plays to the base is not doing the United States much good. I see no sign, with the exception of Chuck Hagel, that any of the Republican presidential hopefuls have a serious foreign policy. Newt Gingrich has moved himself so far to the right that he openly advocates World War III; yes, Newt, that should improve our lives, build a better future and enrich your cronies in the defense industry.

I like Wesley Clark, but sometimes, for a presidential candidate, he's a bit low key and yet clearly he is well informed and thoughtful. I would welcome that in a vice president or a cabinet member of a Democratic administration. Clark understands how foreign policy is supposed to work.

Wesley Clark is also associated with a veterans group that has a website called, Stop Iran War. I can see where Bush's very dangerous Iran policy may be the reason Wesley is focusing more on foreign policy issues than running for president—it's a dangerous situation and somebody like Wesley Clark has to show the way to a bit of foreign policy reality. Here's part of Wesley Clark's statement on the site:

All Americans want to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons and interfering on the ground inside Iraq. Yet President Bush’s saber rattling gives the US little additional leverage to engage and dissuade Iran, and, more than likely, simply accelerates a dangerous slide into war. The United States can do better than this.

Whatever the pace of Iran’s nuclear efforts, in the give and take of the Administration’s rhetoric and accusations, we are approaching the last moments to head off looming conflict.

(snip)

... Military force against Iran is not the solution now, and if we adopt the right strategy, perhaps it need never be. ...

Too bad the Bush adminisration ignores competent people like Wesley Clark. But Republicans in Congress can't ignore thousands of Americans who write to them objecting to Bush's slow drift towards war with Iran.

Let's hope Wesley Clark speaks up more.

Wesley Clark Speaks on Iran

General Wesley Clark hasn't announced yet that he's running again but he spoke at the DNC meeting and was well received. Here's an excerpt from an article on a speech he gave at UCLA in late January:

In his State of the Union address last month, President Bush emphasized that Iraq would be overrun by extremists if more U.S. troops were not sent there. Gen. Wesley K. Clark (Ret.), who campaigned against Bush in the run-up to the 2004 presidential election, wholeheartedly agrees.

But no amount of military intervention in Iraq can work without equal emphasis on robust diplomacy and political initiatives in the strife-torn nation, Clark said in a Jan. 22 lecture on the eve of Bush's national address.

(snip)

The bipartisan Iraq Study Group has recommended drawing down troops, Clark pointed out. But the group's recommendations are widely seen as "an admission of failure — and it's made Iraq even more triumphalist than it has already been."

Globally, he noted, the prestige and power of the United States are hanging in the balance. U.S. generals in Iraq have doubtless erred, but the Bush administration has made mistakes that are not only far more grievous but have "contributed to our continuing difficulties in our war on terror," said Clark, who commanded the 1999 NATO-led campaign in Kosovo.

The administration's biggest mistake, he elaborated, was the failure to appreciate the importance of law and the concept of legitimacy in the conduct of American affairs abroad.

Legitimacy is an issue that many Americans still do not appreciate. Launching a war on false premises does not usually lead to a nation being better appreciated by other nations. As we have seen, Bush's reckless plunge into war has damaged our foreign policy.

I was against the war in Iraq but once it was launched even most opponents of the war, myself included, hoped that it would go quickly and be done. Of course many of us did not know that the Bush Administration was seriously thinking of going after more countries after Iraq. The enormity of Bush's strategic blunder is going to take many years to fully understand.

Of course, conventional journalists like David Broder seem to have trouble catching up to the world these days or being skeptical when his right wing friends sell him a load of nonsense. Broder recently said that Democrats don't appreciate Wesley Clark. That of course is ridiculous. Along with Bill Richardson and Joe Biden, Wesley Clark is among the Democrats with the most foreign policy experience. Who wouldn't listen to Clark? Editor & Publisher has the story on Broder:

David Broder's comment about what Democrats allegedly think of the military drew an angry reaction.

"One of the losers in the [Democratic National Committee's] weekend oratorical marathon was retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who repeatedly invoked the West Point motto of 'Duty, Honor, Country,' forgetting that few in this particular audience have much experience with, or sympathy for, the military," Broder wrote in a column syndicated yesterday by the Washington Post Writers Group.

A writer for "The Carpetbagger Report" site responded: "I expect these kinds of dishonest smears from Limbaugh, Hannity, and O’Reilly, but Broder is supposed to be credible and serious. Why take such a gratuitous shot at the entire Democratic Party? Why intentionally perpetuate a right-wing lie? Why libel a political party with an observation that’s the opposite of the truth?"

The site noted that Clark's remarks were received warmly by the audience, and added: "(H)ow long will Dems have to put up with such transparent nonsense about the party not supporting the troops? How many war heroes -- Kerry, Murtha, Webb, Cleland, etc. -- have to become Democratic champions before Broder and his brethren give up on such ugly lies? How many more veterans have to come home from Iraq and Afghanistan, and then join the 'Fighting Dems,' before this myth has been debunked to Broder’s satisfaction? ... "

Republicans have nothing to run on. The biggest danger to Democrats in the next two years will be the fictions that Republicans can get people like Broder or Lou Dobbs (the fiction about Pelosi) to take seriously. When it comes to ideas, today's Republicans are bankrupt. They are desperate. Broder ought to be ashamed of himself to fall for such nonsense. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney did what they could to stay out of the war in Vietnam while Kerry and Cleland and others served. You would think Broder would understand that by now.

Wesley Clark Favors Diplomacy Over Troop Surge

Former General Wesley Clark has in article in The Washington Post (hat tip to Mahablog):

The odds are that this week President Bush will announce a "surge" of up to 20,000 additional U.S. troops into Iraq. Will this deliver a "win"? Probably not. But it will distract us from facing the deep-seated regional issues that must be resolved.

The administration views a troop surge of modest size as virtually the only remaining action in Iraq that would be a visible signal of determination. ...

(snip)

... We've never had enough troops in Iraq. In Kosovo, we had 40,000 troops for a population of 2 million. That ratio would call for at least 500,000 troops in Iraq; adding 20,000 now seems too little, too late.

(snip)

The truth is that the underlying problems are political, not military.

Vicious ethnic cleansing is underway, as various factions fight for power and survival. In this environment, security is unlikely to come from smothering the struggle with a blanket of forces -- and increasing U.S. efforts is likely to generate additional resistance, especially from Iraq's neighbors. More effective action is needed to resolve the struggle at the political level. A new U.S. ambassador might help, but the administration needs to recognize that the neoconservative vision has failed.

Well before the 2003 invasion, the Bush administration was sending signals that its intentions weren't limited to Iraq; "regime change" in Syria and Iran was often discussed in Washington. Small wonder then that both countries have worked continuously to feed the fighting in Iraq.

Dealing with meddling neighbors is an essential element of resolving the conflict in Iraq. But this requires more than border posts and threatening statements. The administration needs a new strategy for the region...

Ever since Wesley Clark started appearing on TV as a military analyst early in the war, he's been making a lot of sense. He and Joe Biden are the two Democrats with foreign policy expertise and it would be great if Wesley Clark joined the other Democrats in the 2008 race. Having Clark and Biden talk about foreign policy would sharpen the other candidates but, at the same time, they would show how little John McCain seems to understand these days, or at the very least, how disingenuous McCain has become. They would further show that the Republicans, as they currently are, have little to offer and have much rebuilding to do.

If Wesley Clark is going to run, let's hope he does it soon.

If He Runs, Wesley Clark Promises to Enter Presidential Race Earlier This Time

When Wesley Clark ran for president in 2004, he joined the marathon late in the race. For a man with almost no political experience, he did well at times but it was a steep learning curve and there were times when Clark's inexperience showed. But no one questioned his basic ability and experience.

MSNBC carries an AP story that suggests Wesley Clark may soon decide if he entering the 2008 race:

Wesley Clark said Tuesday he wants to avoid waiting too late to make a decision on whether to run for president - a mistake he made in his failed 2004 bid.

"I think it was clear that I got in too late last time," the retired general and former NATO commander told The Associated Press in an interview.

(snip)

Clark is considering running again, but he said the late start was one of the mistakes he learned from in his last attempt.

(snip)

"I think that it's more clear than ever before that the country is an era of profound national security challenges," Clark said.

Clark said Iraq will be a focus of the 2008 campaign. He disagreed with suggestions by some members of Congress that more U.S. troops should be sent to help stabilize Iraq. Neither would he begin reducing U.S. forces in Iraq within the next six months, as others have suggested.

"It's not a matter of fiddling with troop levels," Clark said. "It's a matter of politics inside Iraq and diplomacy in the region. ...

For Democrats, 2003 was a strange pre-season for the 2004 campaign. The presumed front-runner, John Kerry was slowed down by surgery early in 2003 and was slow finding his campaign voice. There was uncertainty about the strength of other candidates and Wesley Clark sounded very sharp and informed on TV, particularly when discussing the war in Iraq. Wesley Clark was urged to run while there was still time to be a factor.

I don't know how much of a chance the former general has of winning the nomination but I hope he enters the race. The American people need to hear well-informed voices and he would keep the other candidates on their toes whenever the subject of foreign policy is raised. These are critical times and it's important for the Democrats to raise the level of discussion even if Republicans continue to insist on irrelevant sideshows. Americans know we have major problems and that Bush and his fellow Republicans have made a mess, and not just in Iraq. Let's hope Wesley Clark has learned much in the last three years.