Great post Steve Clemons !

Wes Clark is LEADING the way again with razor sharp mental acuity. It's so refreshing to see how a TRUE LEADER thinks and speaks with thoughtful substance and clarity.

I'm still hopeful he'll enter the fray because Wes is definitely the right person at the right time especially after 8 yrs of Bush/Cheney.

I became a Democrat in 2004 in order to vote for General Clark in the Democratic primary. He rarely seems to be wrong in his assessments. Unfortunately, he recognizes that solutions to our problems in the world are complex and the electorate doesn't seem to want to believe that.
I hope that he ends up in a new administration. Hagel would make a good Sec. of State (and the message an administration makes by appointing Hagel to their Dem. cabinet would be good for American healing) but Clark's the better fit in other ways.

I want to know why Clark has not entered the race. It is it because he was Supreme Allied Commander of NATO under Clinton and has a freindship with him and doesnt want to run against Hillary?

Its not too late for him to get into the race. And someone should convince him that the country is more important than his freindship with Clinton. The fact is, with his credentials he would win a national election for President in a landslide.Half of the Repugnacans would vote for him.

MR
The only candidate who I believe could jump in at this point and get enough media oxygen to thrive is Gore. The democrats top four candidates are all strong for various reasons and the press isn't looking for another story.
Gore/Clark though ... a guy can dream can't he.

This is the man we must have as our next President.

I have to disagree. Clark has a resume that would set the race on its ear. As a very successful former ad exec who knows people and how they react, if Clark entered the race he's be the front runner within 30 days and he'd win Iowa going away. And how in the world would a Republican candidate attack him? On what? He successfully did in Bosnia what Bush couldnt do in Iraq -- keep two ethnic populations who have been at each others throats for centuries apart, kept the peace, deposed a brutal dictator and brought him to justice and helped establish a stable democracy. Sound familiar? He has more credibility than anyone in the country. Someone has to convince him that the country is more important that screwing up Hillary's big chance.

I predict a Hillary/Clark ticket...

Wes was shunned by the Democrats in 2004. He was the only major candidate to say he was Liberal and proud to be so.

At times he takes on a lifer's perspective, part of having been in the Army. Looking past that he still draws balance from calls to diplomacy, a background of which he did command in peaceable and active military capacities serving in Europe.

His progressive domestic policies and detailed platform were great items in the '04 race that were ignored by most of the media and even a majority of online spinsters and media sophists.

Clark realizes what Gore came to see, you hit a ceiling with running in many of these races. You can be overqualified for the job. He is.

His son was speaking on Young Turks today as well...

MR
Respectfully, because I am also a big fan of Clark's, he was expected to catch fire during the DraftClark movement in 2004 as well but it just didn't happen. There are many reasons why perhaps but jumping in late again and the press would already have their storylines: Obama/Clinton/Edwards and Richardson in Iowa. The slate is too full. It would not make a splash let alone a tidal wave. 2004 was politically probably the best chance and it didn't happen. Doesn't diminish the man though. Political races are fickle mistresses with unusual demands that rarely relate to the best person for the job - just the best campaigner.
Plus, a lot of money has already been bet and the best consultants are already engaged. He'd be underfunded and understaffed. Gore on the other hand could change the dynamic considerably but he's the only one in my opinion.

WHY are the Democrats giving us a lineup of game show hosts instead of this man? I don't trust ANY of them with my son's life. What do they know about running a large bureaucratic organization? Do military families really matter at all to Democrats? I think not.

I would vote for Clark. My second choice would be Hagel.
Ideally I would like to have a Pr-Clark-VP-Hagel administration.

Why isn't Clark running..is it the money? The money and special interest and press won't allow a man who might provide more than soundbites and make the public think rationally and unemotionally? Too dangerous, might upset the establishment's and special interest's applecart? Is that it?

The only candidate who I believe could jump in at this point and get enough media oxygen to thrive is Gore. The democrats top four candidates are all strong for various reasons and the press isn't looking for another story.
Gore/Clark though ... a guy can dream can't he.

Posted by carsick at August 3, 2007 10:52 AM
>>>>>>>>

Media oxgyen is one of the problem's for Clark but Gore isn't the answer. Gore would get the same treatment from the press he got in 2001 and I don't know how much support he would draw from the other side. Gore has niched himself in the enviromental movement and I think he is happy to stay there.

Clark I see as someone who could draw in votes from the right, left and middle. That the dem party isn't moving heaven and earth to get him to run tells me that they aren't interested in the good of the country, only in the same old what is good for the establishment politicans.

Susan Cle,
You need to do more homework. Among other things, the Democratic House passed the largest increase in veterans' health care funding in our nation's history - $6 billion more in 2008, which is $3.8 billion above the President's budget proposal. The president threatened to veto it until he realized there would be enough votes to override his veto.

There is a reason the majority of Iraq veterans running and winning elections are running as Democrats.

carsick:
Clark got off to a rough start in the 04 race, but he most certainly did begin to "catch fire," almost catching Dean in NH and leading him in many of the follow-on states. If Clark had entered the race in time to compete in Iowa, it's quite possible he'd have won the nomination. In fact, if Dean had won Iowa as expected, there's still a good chance Clark would have bested him down the road.

As for 08, Clark still has plenty of time for Iowa if he gets in soon. And yes, there's already a full slate, but the voters aren't that thrilled with the choices they have. A recent poll showed that something like 40% of Iowa Dems still want Gore to get in, and 20% want Clark to.

It's a long time to Jan 08, and a lot of things can change between now and then.

Somebody should also count how many times various technocrats including Bush, who continue to say that they "under(guess)timated" anything relating to Iraq.

They're either liars or the stupidest people in the world who should be kicked out and lose their job for that reason alone. Robert Gates used the same old, tired, lame-assed excuse today concerninbg how deeply the Sunnis and Shia hated each other.

I have a lowly religious studies degree and take home probably a sixth of what these guys do and I knew that. I guess while the FBI and Def Dept are hiring translators they should also scour the religious studies departments for the braineist graduates around to bolster the Cross-Cultural Diplomacy Department. Oh wait, there is no such department!

I'm game--I could use the raise.

Somebody should also count how many times various technocrats including Bush, who continue to say that they "under(guess)timated" anything relating to Iraq.

They're either liars or the stupidest people in the world who should be kicked out and lose their job for that reason alone. Robert Gates used the same old, tired, lame-assed excuse today concerninbg how deeply the Sunnis and Shia hated each other.

I have a lowly religious studies degree and take home probably a sixth of what these guys do and I knew that. I guess while the FBI and Def Dept are hiring translators they should also scour the religious studies departments for the braineist graduates around to bolster the Cross-Cultural Diplomacy Department. Oh wait, there is no such department!

I'm game--I could use the raise.

I could easily vote for Clark, but as I recall, last time, he wasn't a very a good speaker nor a good political tactician. He just didn't have the experience that way--but now he should be better at both. The question is, does HE want to run? The party can't make someone run and, more importantly, can't make someone effective who doesn't have the chops or the will to go through the ordeal.

Coming in as a VP candidate, though, would save him a lot of hassle and would IMMEASURABLY help a number of the candidates, especially, I think, Obama, but also Edwards.

carsick, please don't patronize me.

CLARK is the guy who should be elected president in 2008. Hands down.

Patrick to Wesley Clark: Why Should He?

What possible reason would Bush have to stop hiding behind his generals? They are the perfect deflection and our congress has proven they are unwilling to force the issue. Bush is untouchable and asking him to quit being untouchable is idiocy.

Your ire would be better directed towards Congress--remember those folks who are supposed to be reining in the president?

Why doesn't Congress kill the funding for the war? They can fund the return of the troops without funding the war. They can bring those boys home whenever they want. All they have to do is tell the president it is over and shut down Congress till the troops are home.

Plain and simple. Take Bush out of his position of power that YOU (and Congress) keep putting him in.

Dem field of current candidates would be fine in a time of peace, but not one of them can wipe out the Republic-created myth that only they can keep us safe. Not one of them.

On KO last night w/ Jonathan Alter:

OLBERMANN: Clearly what happened in the 2002 elections, the 2004 presidential election was predicated on the Republicans using the idea and hitting people over the head with the idea that they could handle terrorism and the Democrats simply could not.

Is the arithmetic of politics such that between now and the 2008 presidential election, any Democrat, Senator Obama or whoever else is the candidate, whoever else is in the run for the candidacy, could actually take that and turn it on its head and make the Democrats look like the party that would be tough and sensible, with a plan, and the Republicans as sort of scatter shot?

ALTER: They have to if the Democrats want to win. This is still a 9/11 election. It�s our second one, but the idea that we can sort of put all that behind us and talk just about health care and other domestic issues or other foreign policy issues is not going to cut it for the Democrats. They have to regain their credibility on terrorism, but they have a lot to work with because the Bush war on terror has been a failure.
~~~~
Clark is the ONLY one who can wipe this myth away once and for all.

MP -- Clark has said repeatedly for several months now how badly he wants to run, but speaks of "pre-conditions" he has set that haven't been met. I'm hanging in there until he says No. He hasn't.

Clark's speech available at UStream. Hover cursor over little UStream boxes below video and click on the "General Wesley Clark" link that's 52.16 minutes.

http://ustream.tv/channel/yearlykos-convention-2007

What are those "preconditions"--do you know?

I don't. At one point (maybe a month ago?) he had said "pre-conditions I'm not at liberty to talk about publicly."

Then on Charlie Rose last week:

Charlie Rose: You have not ruled out a candidacy this year.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: No, I haven't. No, I haven't. I think about it every day. I'd love to be able to run.

Charlie Rose: Why can't you?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: It's- There are several preconditions that have to be met, and they haven't been met. And, and I've worked with them, and I've tried to work around them, and I haven't been able to. It was a great, it was a tremendous honor and a great experience to run the first time. If you run the second time, you, you want to really have a shot at winning, and that means you've got to have the money and the organization behind you. And I've worked to, on this from several different angles and until and unless I believe that there's a genuine candidacy out there, I can't do this. I, it, it's not enough to just go out there and say, 'I'm running, because I believe in it.' There's a lot of people who want me to run, but I haven't met the preconditions I've set for myself.

http://securingamerica.com/node/2579

~~~
That's as much as we know. Wes is not a game player. If he had no intention of running, he would simply say so.

Whether the Democratic candidate turns out to be Hillary or Obama (the only 2 likely possibilities), Wesley Clark should be the candidate for Vice President.

Sounds like he doesn't yet feel he has the backing or support to run and WIN. Hopefully, that will change. I'll try to contact his "office" and urge him on, for what it's worth.

Jen,
I hadn't heard he was still possibly joining the race. Thanks for posting that.

Concerning the Olberman/Alterman meme though, a recent poll from NBC/WSJ asked "which party is more trustworthy on dealing with the “war on terrorism,” it was the only question on which Americans were divided right down the middle — 29% said Dems, 29% said Republicans, 20% said both, and 18% said neither."

"In and of itself, that’s not particularly surprising, but the trend is noteworthy. In October 2002, the GOP enjoyed a 36-point advantage on this question. But end of 2003, it had slipped to a 26-point lead. In early 2004, it slipped a few more points, and in late 2004, a few more still. By last fall, the Republicans led Dems on the question by 10 points, and now the GOP advantage has disappeared altogether."
(h/t C&Ls)

I am desperate to see Clark jump in. The problem this time is that a lot of the people helping his campaign last time are signed up with other candidates. So, he's facing an uphill battle organizationally as far as getting a serious staff together.

Another factor is money. All the candidates have essentially ruled out public financing and are sucking the pool of money dry. Without money for a serious campaign, Clark can't win.

I suspect there are a few other factors as well that I won't get into. I still give Clark a 70% chance of getting in. People who would like to see him in should try writing letters to the editor mentioning the fact that he's been waaaaaaaaay out in front on most of the important issues. They don't seem to be mentioning him much these days.

"I want to remind readers and journalists that getting a Democratic presidential contender to state that we ought to be negotiating with Iran directly used to be difficult. It was not Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or Bill Richardson or John Edwards or Joe Biden or Chris Dodd who were in that space first."

Of course you wouldn't want to point out Kucinich's longstanding opinions on this issue, would you? It might ruin your sales pitch, eh? Wouldn't wanna throw a wrench in the mass marketing machine now would we Steve? After all, how will the Washington elite continue to fuck us little people over if the Washington sales force lets some of these wacko pro-America patriots have their say on the national forum?

You know, its one thing to screw these people like Kucinich or Ron Paul out of any chance they had of attaining high office by marginalizing, ridiculing, swiftboating, or ignoring them. But it is quite another to purposely ignore the opinions and strategies they bring to the table. Both candidates have messages that America NEEDS to hear, and you and your Washington compatriot's purposeful efforts to ignore those messages say a hell of alot about your own motives and loyalties. Business as usual is DESTROYING this country, and if someone is to step forward to rescue it, you can be damned assured they will not come out of the mainstream batch of posturing traitorous assholes that are currently being marketed.

Ron Paul on Iran....

http://tinyurl.com/23apm8

http://kucinich.house.gov [1]

Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH) gave the following speech today (2006-05-25) on the House floor:

“War with Iran is not inevitable if the United States is ready to lead the way with honest, patient negotiations.

“However, this Administration seems intent on war with Iran. The Administration is ignoring any diplomatic initiatives that could set the stage for talks to end the confrontation and the escalation.

“The Administration is seeking to isolate Iran from the international community and threatens to punish nations that might intervene to prevent the crisis. The Administration is ratcheting up fears in Europe over first strike nuclear capabilities that Iran does not have.

“Dozens of Members of Congress have now signed a letter to the President urging the United States to open up talks with Iran. Foreign policy experts such as Henry Kissinger, Madeleine Albright and Zbigniew Brzezinski are urging negotiations.

“President Kennedy once said in his inaugural, we should not negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate. We must make a new beginning and begin talks with Iran. War is not inevitable, peace is inevitable if we are ready to work for it.”

Despite media black-out of Kucinich, if Clark doesn't get in the race, I will be supporting Dennis. Yes, I know he doesn't stand a chance, but none of the others speak for me or will win the GE. I believe if Dennis looked like Johnny Depp, he'd be leading the polls. Sad that appearance counts so much for many people. (Don't mean to imply this is Steve's reason for leaving out Kucinich.)

Jen, Kucinich soured for me when I saw him jump around like a goosed ape during one of his speeches. It was far more alarming than Dean's "scream" was. Besides, you're right, America just isn't ready for Alfred E. Newman to become President, even if he does have a gorgeous redhead to replace this matronly marionetress that Bush dragged into the White House.

But Dennis carries a message that America sorely needs to hear, not only about our meddling in the Middle East, but about our disastrous subservience to Israel, and about accountability, the rule of law, and impeachment as well.

But it seems that Steve is content to just base his commentary around the billboard favorites, whom I believe will plunge this nation even further into the abyss. Hillary and Obama's ongoing spat about who wears the biggest and tightest jockstrap should strike fear into any American's heart. And Obama's comment about Bush's abuses not meeting the bar for impeachment is a direct window into the abuses Obama feels he could get away with should he manage to slither under the door into the Oval Office.

God forbid, but it seems the mass marketeers are going to successfully Wal-Mart one of these two posturing asses into the White House. It can only go downhill from there.

I have a comment/question relating to the current talk about Pakistan, Al Qaeda, etc.
Isn't it possible that the next President will find it miraculously easy to find Bin Laden?
Why won't anyone mention the plain and obvious truth that Bush, far from searching for Bin laden, has done his utmost to keep from capturing him. Bin Laden as a bogeyman has been the single most potent political hammer in Bush's toolshed. There is NO way he ever wanted to capture Bin Laden after the original failure. I don't believe it.
In fact, I would not be surprised if Pakistan has assurances now that Al Qaeda and Bin Laden are safe.

Isn't it the case that the Taliban offered Bin Laden to Bush after 9/11? I"m pretty sure I've read this. Is this familiar ?

Bin Laden has been dead for some time now. It is the only logical explanation for the dated "videos" that Bin Laden has supposedly been taping, with "current" audios. If they can get an audio recorder to him, there is no reason they can't shoot an up to date video. Its my personal belief that Bin Laden was taken out just after 9/11, because he held the key to blowing the lid off this deception that the neo-cons have subjected the world to. They knew where he was, they knew he didn't do it, and he was more valuable to the deception dead than he was alive. Besides, dead, they can "kill" him any time they want to. Just prior to the Presidential elections would be a good time, doncha think? Just after another "trifecta"?

The leadership of both parties should be flushed right down the 'ol crapper.....

Dems Complicit in Bush Power Grab

August 1, 2007 By Matthew Rothschild

Unbelievably, the Democratic leadership in Congress seems about to cave in to Bush and grant him, of all things, more power to spy on Americans.

This, even as Alberto Gonzales continues to dissemble about the spying that has already been going on.

But whenever Bush lights the scare fluid, the Democrats jump back in fear.

In his Saturday radio address, Bush said, “Congress needs to act immediately to pass this bill, so that our national security professionals can close intelligence gaps and provide critical warning time for our country.”

Bush also said that “FISA was passed nearly 30 years ago, and FISA has not kept up with new technological developments.”

He conveniently failed to note that FISA has been updated 50 times over those last 30 years, and 20 times since 9/11, as the ACLU notes.

Bush’s rhetoric is designed to obscure the fact that he wants the NSA now to have the right to scoop up all our international phone and e-mail communications, without a warrant or court oversight.

That was the essence of Bush’s illegal wiretapping scandal in the first place.

“After being caught trying to steal an inch, the administration now has the gall to ask for the whole mile,” says Anthony Romero, head of the ACLU.

Yet now the Democratic leaders appear ready to give such spying their retroactive blessing.

“Under pressure from President Bush, Democratic leaders in Congress are scrambling to pass legislation this week to expand the government’s electronic wiretapping powers,” reports James Risen in the August 1 edition of The New York Times. (Risen was one of two Times reporters who broke the original story of the NSA spying.)

Not all Democrats are going along, however. Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin calls the bill “an egregious power grab.”

But that’s what Bush is best at—and Democratic leaders so complicit in.

http://www.progressive.org/mag_wx080107

Susan Cle,
You need to do more homework. Among other things, the Democratic House passed the largest increase in veterans' health care funding in our nation's history - $6 billion more in 2008, which is $3.8 billion above the President's budget proposal. The president threatened to veto it until he realized there would be enough votes to override his veto.

There is a reason the majority of Iraq veterans running and winning elections are running as Democrats.

Posted by carsick at August 3, 2007 01:35 PM
>>>>>>>

This makes no sense, it's like saying the politicans should be admired for smoking themselves into lung cancer and then spending a billion dollars to cure themselves.

Its 117 degrees in Bagdad, and there is no water, and only intermittent electricity. The Sunnis have bailed out of the Iraqi government, and Maliki is barely hanging on.

Yet, we are going to wait for the General's Sept. report on how things are going.

Well, its obvious how things are going in Iraq. We don't really need a few more months of unmittigated disaster to see the writing on the wall.

But I'm a bit curious how the next Bush/Cheney "trifecta" is going, and whether they intend to murder a batch of us on the West Coast this time, or if they think it will be more effective to hit the heartland. My bet is LA, or San Francisco. If they're gonna do it, they might was well hit where the public is the most dissilusioned with our current government.

Meanwhile, Steve can hold a few more panels, and keep us entertained while a our government experiences a coup, and a demise of the rule of law as it applies to our "leadership".

If I'm wrong, praise God. If I'm right, a few of you reading this will be dead by this time next year. We'll see.

BTW, MP, save the above post. It will be perfect to throw in my face this time next year if I'm wrong.

If I'm right, I guess you'll just have to keep throwing your old stale straw. Of course, you can always claim the next perfectly timed "trifecta" was the work of "Al Qaeda".

Wesley Clark is everything Bush, Cheney and the other hobggoblins and fascist in the Bush government dream of being. First in his class at West Point, Doctorate in Economics, true battle tested, wounded, and highly decorated war hero, numerous high level government and military appoints, 4 Star General, Supreme commander of Allied Forces in the successfull Kosovo Campaign. I have seen him speak several times, and his delivery is genuine, inspiring, humorous, tough, and eloquant. Clark is billiant and more human and genuine the any politician on the radar, because essentially, - he is NOT a politician.

The wingnutsia and the slime, propaganda, and disinformation covens in the socalled MSM point to his political inexperience with the usual sliming, so the dimsheeple and the wingnutsia truebelievers dismiss this outstanding candidate as a Clinton Mafia, amateurish, poor speaker, blah blah blah.

Have any of these idiots ever heard Bush speak? Have they compared resumes'? Clarks is impeccable, Bush' is laughable, chequered, and missing vast swaths of relevant data.

America's somnabulance and ignorance will ultimately defeat us. We are a nation of fools, swindlers, snakeoil salesmen (like the facist in the Bush government) and dimsheep who follow the fool swindlers, and snakeoil sales into the abyss simply Because Limbagh, or Bortz, or Liddy, or North, Savage, or Hannity, or O'Rielly mesmerize the dimsheep with entertainmnet that shapeshifts an Andover Cheerleader, a bully, and a dimwitted, unsophisticated pampered papa's boy into an American hero protecting the nation from evildoers, - and then slime a true American hero, whose courage and leadership is proven on the battlefield and a man with decades of public service on his resume' as, in some twisted way unqualified.

Idiots!

"Deliver us from evil.!"

I greatly enjoyed the generals speech. I believe
he was right on the money when it comes to
the sea-change needed in our approach to foreign
relations.

Only thing I would wish is to ask him if he
feels that same approach might be useful in the
Houses of our own government. I think that his
call for a new mode of communicating would
be quite useful there as well.

An example:
When Reid uses terms like "failure" in refering
to the Iraq war, he only intensifies fear
on the Republican side. It's like tribal warfare,
"counting coup" continues until somehow both tribes find some honor in the situation. There
are a lot of Republicans who do wish to find a
way out, and would be willing to lend a hand
in accomplishing this, for the good of their
party and their own hides. The Democrats should refrain from putting them in a lose-lose
situation if they wish to breach the stonewall across party lines.

Carroll.. You're exactly right... we need more funds for Veterans' care because we have more wounded. It does not mean that their care will improve in any way and I fear, was only given so Dopey wouldn't look so bad. Not that it worked, but I can't imagine Dopey doing anything without a selfish motive.

Wesley Clark is looking very good, but he's so close to the Clintons, it's not likely he'll toss his hat in the race.

Steve: I worked for Wesley Clark when he ran as a candidate in the Democratic primary. I remember the exact moment when I signed on to him as someone I could support wholeheartedly, even in the absence of 100% agreement on all the issues.

It happened during a town hall meeting in New Hampshire. A woman stood up and ask what he proposed to do about an issue on which she had personal experience - sexual harrassment in the military. He suggested that she take it up the chain of command and she said that she had done just that - her superiors appeared to be more interested in protecting the perpetrators and the institution than they were in solving the problem. Wesley Clark looked her in the eye and said, "I FAILED. We need to move on to other issues now, but come up after this is over and let's talk. I will deal with this."

My jaw dropped and I was literally speechless - something that doesn't happen often to me. I remember feeling as though I'd stepped onto totally new ground, and then I realized why - I'd never heard a political figure take responsibility for anything. (Eliot Spitzer would now be the 2nd to act at this level of integrity.)

The definition of a leader is one who gives all the credit to subordinates and takes all the blame for himself/herself. Wesley Clark is a leader, and the reason we Progressives feel so off balance around him is that we're still judging the man based on his chosen profession and not on who he is.

Maybe we should take another look?

Wellspoken Susan Kidder.

Well, yes, well spoken, Susan, however, it seems to me that what is becoming clearer and clearer with each passing day is that those who show true leadership and integrity are up against a political system -- the way we run elections...and the way we elect a president -- that is designed to make those good people sell themselves out....make a Faustian choice.

Follow the money. Follow the special interests and the PACs and the amount of money one can raise. Then be careful to say only what THEY want to hear.

Completely corrupt. The evil geniuses have cooked the system. There's only one way to win now.

Nothing....short of a revolution....can change what it takes to win. And what it takes can be soul-destroying.

Sad to say, face it, it's the American way.

And, if you disagree that it's as bad as I've just commented that it is....READ THIS....and tell me what purpose there is for all this hoopla and FACADE of "elections", "debates", primaries, etc. in the first place. Are you burying your head in the sand about what really happened in 2000....2004?

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/04/2976/

Saturday, August 4, 2007 by CommonDreams.org

The Deepening CRIMINAL COVER-UP of Ohio’s Stolen 2004 Election by Bob Fitrakis / Harvey Wasserman

"The illegal destruction of federally protected 2004 election materials by 56 of 88 Ohio counties has become a fraudulent “dog ate my homework” farce of absurd justifications and CRIMINAL COVERUPS.

The mass elimination of the critical evidence that could definitively prove or disprove the presumption that THE 2004 ELECTION WAS STOLEN has all the markings of A ROVIAN CRIME perpetrated to hide another one. Indeed, under Ohio law, that’s precisely what must be presumed here...."

snip

Okay, after this one, I promise to shut up!

But when I read this, I thought of POA! :-)

“Bush’s faith in the “surge of troops” resembles the Rabbi from Chelm’s belief in straw. When he saw the town barn afire, the rabbi ordered his flock to throw straw on the flames. He dismissed the doubters because his overriding faith in God reinforced his judgment. The straw caused the flames to abate, momentarily. The rabbi smirked. But seconds later they leaped ever higher. “More straw,” screamed the rabbi. “More troops,” screams Bush. The establishment that contributed to his campaign now wrings its collective hands and worries about its fortunes– if the US stays in Iraq or pulls out -- as the Rabbi of Chelm presides in the White house....”

With God as Bush's Co-Conspirator?
Faith-Based War
By SAUL LANDAU August 5, 2007

http://www.counterpunch.com/landau08042007.html

I've posted a partial transcription of General Clark's speech here (my own transcription).

http://www.eatbees.com/blog/clark-foreign-policy/

He is saying exactly what I want to hear from a presidential candidate.

I've posted a partial transcription of General Clark's speech here (my own transcription):

http://www.eatbees.com/blog/clark-foreign-policy/

I notice that General Clark's own site now has a complete transcript of the speech:

http://securingamerica.com/node/2601

This is exactly the sort of thing I want to hear from a presidential candidate.