Because of Iraq -video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfkqC_etID8

==============================================

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gen-wesley-c...-t_b_33048.html

We Owe it to Our Troops to Return to the Real Issue of the Election

The American public should simply accept no distractions. In our democracy, it is our duty to hold our elected leaders accountable. We do it at the ballot box. And we should do it not on the basis of personalities or stereotypes, but on the basis of results. Our men and women fighting in Iraq are held accountable for their performance and their conduct.

On duty and off, twenty-four hours a day. They're fighting for us, for our safety, our rights, and our freedoms. Surely, we owe it to them to push aside the distractions and bring the focus back to the essence of this election: Iraq.

In my short time in politics, I have learned many new clichés. One of them surely is that quote, "This is a critical election." In this case, it is dramatically true. The incumbent administration seemingly can not, or will not, make hard choices about the most important issue ever to face government officials: war and peace. The only hope for a national change of course is a Congress far more willing to play it's constitutionally required role of counter balance to a misguided executive. If citizens allow this great debate to be derailed by a momentary fracas over a mistake in a speech (by a man who has actually served in combat and does support the troops), we will have tragically missed a rare opportunity.

John Kerry made a mistake trying to joke about "getting stuck in Iraq." But this election isn't about John Kerry; he isn't running. But, for a crazy day or two, his gaffe has provided a powerful distraction to an election shaping up to be a referendum on the President's national security policy, and his mission in Iraq, in particular. We can not allow the most powerful country in the world to get sidetracked when American lives and the future of our leadership in the world is at stake.

When NATO attacked Yugoslavia to halt ethnic cleansing in 1999, a US reporter warned, 'let us do a feature article on you - the public only gets personalities, they don't get issues like this.'. It was a lesson I painfully relearned in my own Presidential campaign. So, I suppose it's to be expected that Senator Kerry's remarks - and John himself - would become the focal point of relief for a campaign that has been hard fought, and bitterly partisan.

But with just a few days to go, it's time to return to the real issue of the campaign: Iraq. It was a war of choice, a war that has defined the Bush Presidency, and captured the almost unanimous support of the Republican-led Congress. For three long years after US troops occupied Baghdad, and as the country spiraled deeper into chaos and violence, loyalty to the President and his party demanded many members of Congress to follow his motto: "Stay the course". There have hardly been any Congressional hearings on the course of the war, but those that have been held have been firmly controlled. National security seemed to require that the Congress forfeit its independent oversight role. Critics were often demonized, public accountability minimized and policy alternatives were rejected.

But by early September and through October, a combination of leaked intelligence and briefing documents and mounting American casualties has kept Iraq front and center in the minds of voters. Neither a record fall in gasoline prices at the pump nor a record rise in the DOW Industrials index seemed significant enough to distract the eye of the electorate. Even the spectacle of a Republican Congressman soliciting underage Congressional pages vanished quickly from the airwaves., to be replaced by reports of daily American casualties in Iraq, and a leaked preview of the dismal policy alternatives to be submitted by James Baker's bipartisan Iraq Study Group.

Polls show a distinct and steady decline in public support for the war effort, and, more ominously, increasingly the American public has begun to doubt that the invasion of Iraq is in any way connected to winning the war on terror. Sitting Congressmen began to distance themselves from the President, the White House signalled that its "Stay the Course" motto was being refined, and more and more Republicans began to call for Rumsfeld's resignation. The vast majority of Americans wanted to see America succeed in its mission in Iraq, and now that seems increasingly unlikely. Democrats offered a more realistic, accurate appraisal of the situation, but there are no panaceas at this point. To many, every alternative seemed simplistic, wrong-headed, or even more prone to failure.

In such a forbidding public dialogue, is it any wonder that John Kerry's blunder is being used to distract us? But how frightening and sad for America if we let this continue. How much easier to attack personalities and resurrect stereotypes than to deal with the grim realities of the Administration's national security predicament! The truth is that America's armed forces are badly overcommitted, the situation in Iraq has deteriorated beyond the ability of our best generals and bravest troops to correct, Afghanistan is sliding into a long-term insurgency which spells failure for the minimalist US commitment there, and both North Korea and Iran are ratcheting tensions. For a political party that fancies itself as the national security party, their cup runneth over with problems, many of their own making.

I actually supported Wes Clark.

What a waste of time and money. The man was far too intelligent and serious to ever be President.

A very good friend of mine served with General Clark for 4 years and had very few good things to say other than Gen. Clark was truely a brilliant man in all respects but generally used the brillaince to serve his own interests. People under and around him were considered necessary evils he tolerated and be believed himself far above any he encountered. His compassion for the soldier was worn visually because he knew it was expected. But from a leadership perspective, he was lacking because he did not nor could identify with soldiers under him and considered them nothing more than employees who made him look good or bad.

As opposed to all those other Presidential candidates who spent every single moment of every day obsessively trying to find ways to make things better for the people under them.

You do have a way of putting things into perspective though I am more crtical of military people who SHOULD place the welfare of others before their own. I expect politicians to be self serving jerks.

I do like the way you get to the meaning. Clark was a very good strategist and administrator, but failed as a general in that he had insufficient respect and concern for his underlings. That's bad in a general, but no particular flaw in a politician.

Abell, is this impression of Clark pretty widespred in the forces ?
I liked his presentation, I like his speeches (although who writes those is anybodys guess...) and I like the idea of someone with ground-level experiance running such a big Mean Green Killing machine as the USof A, because the current monkeys just give me the shits, like spoilt and arrogant kids with severe chips on their shoulders being let loose to play in school with AR-15's and swags of ammo.........

Of those who knew him or had any contact, direct or indirect...yes. But the more I think on it, Im not sure he wouldnt be better than most I see with their hats ready to throw in the ring. Oh, he does speak well and I think he was and is a brilliant man...he may have the right stuff. The military at times is a strange place and General Officers are a different breed as a rule. Watch him, see what he says, make a call. Id have to re-evaluate him out of fairness. Of the Dems I have seen, he would be the least objectionable.

There is a certain and automatic respect I get for a military man who understands the responsibility of turning loose the war machine on a whim. If he does and sticks to that...he may be fine.

I didn't work for General Clark directly, but I heard alot of things about him when I was stationed at Heidelberg, working at ODCSINT, none good. A few years later in my career, while assigned to CGSC he came to give a speech to the graduating class. In his talk he represented himself as a hard line conservative, he even went so far as to lambast the Clinton Administration for hindering his efforts in the Balkans, mainly having to do with his target selection lists. He told a story about how Clinton and some of his staff were on their hands and knees in the oval office with magnifying glasses scoping out his target array and how long it would take to get his targets approved, that by the time he got approval it was much too late to be effective. And then adding the Chinese Embassy to the bombing list (that was supposed to be funny)....

Low and behold, later, he turns up as a candidate for president running as a Democrat. At the time, that was a hanging offense in the military.

I think he is salvageable, he was among the first former generals to take an opposition view to what was then a strong Republican party, and at the time that made him unpopular within military circles. I agree with Abell9, now that we know what we know and after all we've been through I think he could get a re-look by alot of people, including those in the military.

Because of Iraq, America is less secure...............

Yes, Mr. Clark, you are absolutely right, as are the Iraq veterans who also spoke the truth with you in that political commercial for VoteVets.org . The problem is there is a fantasy based group of neoconservatives at the reigns of our military and they are killing it, literally and figuratively. Those of us in the reality based community have long greived over the actions of the boy who would be king and his handlers.

Agreed.

Even though I have liked mich of what Clark has had to say, I didn't personally support him as President.
I don't really care for the idea of a military man being in charge of the civilian America any more than I want the civilians telling the military how to run a war.

Granted, any fears I might have about this are purely my own and therefor may be considered irrational.

Eisenhower was a good President, and I do believe that with Clark you'd get decisive leadership from someone who also is very intelligent.

There is some question about his stability due to some incident in Bosnia when he ordered some mission that was later overruled, I dont remember all the details, or if they are true or not.

But I like the crednetials of someone who is both experienced in the "field" like Clark (and Powell) are, as well as someone who is both intellecutal and has a proven record of achievements like Clark.

I'd feel great casting a vote for the man.

Please, please, PLEASE let this be a lead-up to a Presidential run in '08. He is the only potential candidate I can say for sure would beat a Republican opponent.

Doesn't mean I'd vote for him or that I agree with him 100%, but I would LOVE to see Republicans try to confront him on "National Security" issues.

I will admit that I liked the noises Gen. Clark was making, because we were veing dragged deeper into the shit-hole that Bush created in Iraq. He IS real good in front of a camera, but I think HOWARD DEAN would make a FAR BETTER president. Dean is behind this Democratic upheaval, and Dean understands the modern world. Clark is from the past. Someone like Howard Dean can point us toward the future, which is where we need to be going if we are to have ANY HOPE of saving this garden planet. We need to GET OUT of our 'nation-centric' (sp?) thinking! We are far from the 'bestest, most free-est' country on the planet, and it won't make a shit when the planet is uninhabitable.

Don't get me wrong here...I am a veteran, I gave 6 years, out in 71 or so...our troops DO deserve much MUCH better treatment, respect and compensation than they are getting now.

This guy is my brother, and sometimes I do like how he thinks!


I'm a Deaniac, proud and blue!