Any chance this will be picked up on C-SPAN, or webcast somewhere?... for those of us in the hinterlands...

Thanks for your note about C-Span. I will make every effort to get them there -- but they won't let us know until Friday.
best,
Steve Clemons

Thanks Steve!!! This is great news, and it's important! Thank you for hosting this forum.

President Wesley Clark....I like the sound of that.

"President Wesley Clark....I like the sound of that..."

I don't.

>"President Wesley Clark....I like the sound of >that..."

>I don't.

Why is that, Susan?

You are certainly intending to ask the right man. There's no one in the Democratic Party today that can speak with such authority and insight!

President Wesley Clark rocks.

Wes Clark in 2008 !

Wes Clark is the only one that can wipe the floor clean against ANY Republican Pres. candidate in 2008 ( all other Dems are LOSERS ! )

"No Democrat can win in 2008 unless the American people believe that they can defend them! The American people will trust the Democratic Party to defend America, when they believe that Democrats will defend other Democrats."

Wesley Clark, April 16, 2005

At least we'll get the REAL state of the union from General Clark.

Won't THAT be a refreshing change?

Oh yeah...I'll take him for a president any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

If you'd like to get a preview of what General Clark might have to say, take the time to read/watch General Clark smacking down Richard Perle in front of the House Armed Services Committee from April 6, 2005. See Wes Clark's Iraq testimony before House Armed Services Committee for details.

Thank you Steve for allowing Wes Clark to do what he does the BEST, real foreign policy !! PLEASE C-Span cover this!!

Why is Clark considered so strong for 2008? He was not impressive in 2004 as a candidate, whatever you think of his abilities.

It's about time the Dems start using some of the former military leaders that have beem speaking out against this administration. We have to remind the sheeple that it was these democrats that joined and fought in the military....while Cheney and Wolfowitz had "other priorities". Wes Clark has been very articulate on Faux news...and can present our case in a very convincing manner.

I was an early supporter of the Draft Clark campaign(s), but Democrats must ask themselves why the American people would trust them with national security in the age of Islamist terrorism (Clark's recent suggestion of more boots on the ground for Iraq was the stuff of fantasy).

In 2002 and 2004, the Ameican people had a choice between the GOP's hopeful message of democracy and liberty in the Arab-Muslim world, and a message of containment; they chose the former. I see little reason to believe that if the war in Iraq becomes a full fledged civil war they will become comfortable with the prospect of being blown to pieces in their respective places of work, and choose containment; this is not the Cold War.

I fear that the great military historian Martin Van Creveld may be right. He not only predicted failure in Iraq, but the possibility that it could do to America what Afghanistan did to the Soviet Union, which is to say lead to a general crisis of the state. We are a deeply fragmented country at the moment, and those fissures have in some sense been held in abeyance by the prospect of a unifying project abroad (even if Mr. Bush failed to unify the American people around that project).

No one should wholly underestimate the possibility that America may not exist in its current form twenty years from now. In any event, there will be no return to normal, however little indication there is that the Democratic foreign policy establishment has come to grips with this fact.

Blue,
Your analysis is interesting, but I would say that the GOP's message of "democracy and liberty" was only intended for US ears, insofar as it was articulated at all. The only ideological faction which was seriously represented in Iraq was the one which wanted to restructure the economy of Iraq to conform with the ideals of conservative utopia---flat tax, foreign "investment" (ownership of) in national resources, etc.
This was the Bremer faction, whatever you want to call it.

In fact there was a conflict between the economic idealists (thieves) and those who wanted democracy; for example, Bremer postponed early local elections because that would have interfered with the restructuring of the economy he had in mind.
Some time back, Bremer listed the institution of the flat tax in Iraq as one of his top accomplishments.
Bravo, JPB.

The above comment indicating that General Clark advocated recently for more boots on the ground needs to be questioned. If the poster is referring to the General's NYT Op Ed, then let me clarify that point, because as I added up the battalions that he enumerated, I too tried to do the math. Fortunately, General Clark was on the Diane Rheme Show the next day, and thus, I asked him about the numbers. His numbers were exactly what we have there now. Also, later that week during a session of him taking questions on his blog, he said that while he was against a date certain, his plan could actually speed up withdrawal.

Not being aware of Martin Van Creveld, I cannot comment on his remarks. I do know that General Clark testified before the IWR vote that we could be opening a Pandora's Box that we might be able to close. I would surmise that Clark, who has been consistently correct on that path this war-of-choice has taken, is also very much aware of how this may all end, and has indeed comes to grips with our foreign policy.

I do wish that General Clark would someday get to speak on domestic issues. As an educator, I was amazed by his deep understanding of the issues I face everyday.

This is wise choice for a keynoter at this event. I'll be in a far-away classroom, but listening for any hint available on what he has to say.

Clark is totally unsuited to be the President of the US.

I wrote to him after listening to the full 3 plus hours on his appearance owith Richard Perle before the House Armed Services Committee.

General Clark made several fundamental mistakes.

He said he believed that things are moving in the right direction.

That was wrong. He failed to recognise the protest that took place in Baghdad where the only chant was for the US forces to go home and statues of Bush and Blair were toppled.

1. All the Iraqi elections have been a total failures, however much the spin is put on their being successes.
2. The Bush Administration has no intention of leaving Iraq - why would anyone build 13 to 15 major bases in Iraq?
3. General Clark should stop trying to be diplomatic when it is clear that the neo-cons have no intention of doing anything diplomatically!!

However distasteful it may sound:

1. US has lost this war.
2. US should put its tail between its legs and run. (Which a proud military man like Clark will never do!)
3. US should let the Iraqi people put their own house in order but be made to pay for the chaos it had caused.
4. All war criminals belonging to occupation forces, from the pResident to the lowliest soldiers, should be put on trial before an impartial international court.

Then people will start to begin to believe in American democracy. But the recent situation reveals that American Democracy is a thing of the past! It IS a fascist state and unless Clark can state this from the podium, he is, in my mind, just hot air.

Everyone now knows the American Democratic model is a great sham. And that is what Clark has been defending time and time again.

Jacob,
Your post reminds me of a question I would like a better answer to: I would like specific reasons from Bush supporters that things are going well in Iraq---no "we paint schools" or "we brought them democracy".. "we ousted a horrible tyrant".
Of these reasons, one is a joke, and the other two do not explain why things are better now than they were 1 year ago.
If your reason is military, please break it down for the civilians among us.
Maybe your reason is economic---that would be a reasonable argument.
Is your reason that we have put pressure on the Saudis to stop funding terrorists? I hear that one a lot. Please expand on this thesis, if it is yours.

Thank you.

"The only ideological faction which was seriously represented in Iraq was the one which wanted to restructure the economy of Iraq to conform with the ideals of conservative utopia---flat tax, foreign "investment" (ownership of) in national resources, etc.
This was the Bremer faction, whatever you want to call it. "

I don't think there is any question that Mr. Bush has used the war in Iraq to help enrich some of the GOP's biggest donors, and it is rather shameful that no members of Congress (Democrat or Republican) have committed themselves to investigating war profiteering (or for that matter corporate croneyism in Louisiana). Harry S Truman clocked 26,000 miles around the country visiting worksites unannounced. There is no good reason Hillary Clinton or Russ Feingold or someone else couldn't have done the same; the American people deserve it, and their leaders - Democrat and Republican - are failing them.

On the question of democracy, I think you underestimate the neoconservative movement's commitment to democratization and liberalization in the Arab-Muslim world, even if it is a largely narcissistic, self-aggrandizing enterprise. As to whether Mr. Bush was himself committed to Iraqi democracy before the invasion, or only after Sistani demanded elections, I can't say. But even as this president's commitment to democracy in the places that matter most (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan) is more rhetorical than actual, there is some evidence that political reform is our best hope of diminshing the threat.

The trouble of course with democracy-as-grand-strategy is that successful liberal democracies tend to emerge from successful nation-states, and the process of national consolidation was perhaps never complete in Iraq, and maybe elsewhere in the Arab world as well (anymore than it was in Yugoslavia). Iraq has little reason to exist beyond the dispensation of oil revenues; it is an historical, geographical and political fiction.

The old order is clearly set to crumble in the Arab world, and I fear that a worst case scenario could be a region-wide version of Lebanon's civil war. The endgame - a loose Arab union of many smaller states, open borders, strong local governance, and weak central governance - would clearly be better than what exists today, but getting there may be quite painful for everyone. Will the world really thank Mr. Bush for opening up Pandora's box?

As a political matter, Democrats should not fool themselves into believing that containment of terrorism works, or will be acceptable to the American people. If Iraq looks worse rather than better a year from now Democrats should offer a program of enhanced border security, energy independence, and detachment from the region; there will be little more we can do in Iraq, and elsewhere. We will simply have to batton down the hatches for a period of years, and let the Arab-Muslim world sort itself out.

I have been on Clark's email list from its inception. I have not seen a single word in his postings which show the picture as it really is, neither from a military or diplomatic point of view. He is still so far from the breakdown point of Murtha.

Clark is posturing, just as Hilary Clinton is.

There is no economic or military reason for my analysis.

It is just ridiculous to allow this killing to go on and on - and NOTHING the Americans can do will stop it, EXCEPT to get out NOW. The Americans are the problem and the longer anyone fails to realise that, more fool them than me.

America has no diplomatic skills to bring to the table today (John Bolton ? ).

It has only US war criminals to put before the International Court of Justice.

And do you think Clark is going to do that?

No need to answer that.

My fear would be that the Republicans have done such a great job of vilifying Iran because of a needed international bogeyman that no Democrat could do anything less than completely condemn Iran.

Steve, do you follow Juan Cole? Do you know of any other foreign relations experts with similar views, that might not try to out soldier the Republicans?

Clearly Hillary is letting the Republicans lead on these issues, rather than leading herself. It'll be interesting to hear what the good general has to say about Iran, Syria, and some of our old soviet friends.

PS I would add one caveat to my point above about there being nothing we can do in the event of civil war in Iraq if not the wider region. There are of course some things we can do - drop relief supplies in affected civilian areas, broker truces between factions. But I think it's important to bear in mind that if Iraq does become Iraqoslavia in the coming years the fighting is unlikely to diminish, and partition will remain an impossibility, until the various parties have sorted themselves out geographically.

Mr. Clinton and the Europeans were faulted for not intervening in the former Yugoslavia earlier than they did, but the dirty secret is that until the process of ethnic cleansing was relatively advanced, and ethnic and religious minorities purged from mixed zones, there was going to be little hope for peace. What is so frightful about Iraq is that much of the country is a mixed zone, and the game of musical chairs could be much bloodier than in the former Yugoslavia.

My point is simply that if our engagment in Iraq fails we will need to seriously consider disengaging from the region, and withdrawing our support from the various despotic Arab regimes (which is one of the several chief reasons their people are willing to fly airplanes into our places of work).

To echo the first respondent...I'd really like to see/hear Clark's address, via CSPAN or any other medium.

Imagine! a cogent discussion of US foreign policy, instead of the usual hollow establishment hype.

President Bush, as you know, will be providing his own views on America's foreign and domestic policy state of affairs in his State of the Union address on Tuesday night.

His own views?! (I can only assume Steve wrote that with a straight face)

"Why is Clark considered so strong for 2008? He was not impressive in 2004 as a candidate, whatever you think of his abilities.
Posted by: marky"

I wondered that at the time. Clark is a general, one who should know something about timing. Anyone who would run in the manner that Clark did seemed to be conciously involved in a learning experiance. This did not have to be successful. But now he has experiance, contacts, better understanding of the shape of political combat, etc. Now he can be effective as a candidate. We'll see.

Steve, I hope this forum is made available streaming in a format that RealPlayer on a 56k modem Mac (OS X) can handle.

The last conference that New America Foundation (co-?) sponsored had streaming available only in a new format for Windows Media Player that got me a blank screen and no audio on my player, which was terribly disappointing.

I'm glad Gen. Clark is keynoting.

Thanks for the work you and NAF do.

I am sure Gen. Clark will give a cogent and worthwhile presentation. He is clearly one of the few who has a real understanding of the current situation, and real ideas for dealing with it. Thank you for making it possible for many more to hear him.
Best of luck on getting this covered by C-SPAN.

"It has only US war criminals to put before the International Court of Justice."

Hey Jacob, you related to Ramsey Clark by chance?

If Clark tells the truth about Iraq he will be betraying his fellow soldiers. That's what you get with a career military officer. However, a President Clark would be more in line with a Murtha position - and would have a plan to make it happen.

Out of the current field, he is the best candidate the Dems could nominate in 2008.

He jumped in the race very late in 2004 and still won one primary. (One more than Howard Dean).

He's got brains, red state appeal, and he's not a Senator.

So, Dems, do you want to be pure or do you want to get elected?

Wesley Clark understands:

The Geneva Convention.
The chain of command including the constituion as a "Commander".
Excellent health care.
A decent pension plan.
Team work.
Training.
The value of life.
Peace.
Forward planning.
New Technology.
Racial equality.
Continuing education.
How to evaluate people and situations.
The necessity of allies.

That's for starters.

Posted by Ohio at January 25, 2006 09:24 AM

"Hey Jacob, you related to Ramsey Clark by chance?"

What powers of deduction!

Is this an unique Ohio trait which Ken Blackwell and theDiebold MD so brilliantly demonstrated before the 2004 election?

Clark '08!

The good General is supposed to be on Neil Cavuto today.

Cavuto generally makes an ass of himself when he talks foreign policy, but hearing General Clark may be a good preview.

I wish there was some way that General Clark's speech could also be shown on national TV AFTER Dumbya's state of the union speech so that all Americans can see what a real president should look and sound like. The comparison would be mind-boggling. General Clark is a "class act" all the way!!!

At least I hope that you can get some video of the presentation online here or somewhere else. Is that in the works?

Steve,
If you don't hear back from C-Span I could always bring my video camera. I have a cannon GL-1 and wireless mic. The presentation could be converted to streaming video for the masses.

Let me know by Saturday night.

Wesley Clark reminds me of Gary Hart in that they both seemed to really hate campaiging. Clarks a good guy but he'll NEVER win an election because he doesn't like the game.

I'm always eager to hear from General Clark. Have written to C-Span asking for coverage of this event- fingers crossed.

Clark's smackdown of Perle was simply superb at the HSAC meeting, by the way.

What impresses me most about Wes Clark is his masterful ability to put his love of country before love of Party- a mark of a true patriot.

Clark's interview on FOXNews with Neil Cavuto, was one of the most profound discussions that he's addressed on Iraq, Iran and Syria; and the complex geopolitical considerations which faces the Bush administration. The video links are available at his website;
Wes on Fox (Neil Cavuto) 01/25/06 (23 MB)

Perhaps some indications to his RSOTU?? He also shared his views on the 2008 Presidential elections.

------------------------------------

If anyone is interested, I posted a poll at dKos,
What issue should Clark address on the real SOTU?"(Poll), ....or recommend your own views..

------------------------------------

Outstanding commentary The Blue Nomad. America has stumbled through the looking glass into an unknown unknown realm.

A somnabulant and apathetic public blindly and mindlessly succumbed to the Bush government disinformation and propaganda pimping the hollow promises and pretty patriotic platitudes ignoring all the while the terrible factbasedreality - that almost every single word issued from the Bush government is a lie, every promise hollow and moot, and every visionary hope and pipedream the work of madman and monsters full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

As for Clark, I was also a supporter and a volunteer for his team in NYC. I had the great good fortune of seeing him speak of two occasions here and found the general to be brilliant, determined, passionate, human, and funny. I disagree personally with some of his positions on Iraq, but would support him in any future campaign or post, because I believe Wesley Clark will actually represent, advance, promote, and protect the best interests of the people, unlike all the other politicians who are behold to, and primarily concerned about one or another, corporation, industry or lobby.

The general is not a politician, and so he is an easy target for the slime and disinformation warriors of theright, - but his record is sterling, and he has a truly outstanding resume' and year of sacrifice and service to the country.

I like either a Gore/Clark or a Clark/Gore ticket.