Wes Clark's "ClarkCast" podcast now available

at the iTunes store (free) or here: http://securingamerica.com/

Enjoy!

:hi:

thanks.

It made me drag out my credit card. This is a very important race...a win no matter what else happens is huge.

really need to be doing what they are doing in Iraq right now. Enough Clark to last me a decade or so.

its going to take a political solution not a military one before you hear it? :shrug:

Wes Clark is most likely more than you could ever bare.....cause it ain't as simple as saying "out now" and poof, presto magic....done! Doh!

Remember that Pandora's box ain't closing cause you say so.....shit doesn't work quite like that! :eyes:

doesn't do any good. We are knee-deep in the big muddy.

And what the hell does this mean?
"Wes Clark is most likely more than you could ever bare."

Bare? Disrobe? Oh that is just sick.

Even if you meant "bear" as in "more than you can handle" it makes no sense. We the people who want this war to end and the troops to come home NOW (not years in the future, after fighting many more bloody battles against Iraqi people who have a right to defend themselves) are confronting Bush with all his (ill-gotten) presidential powers. we can take this freakin' loser who talks shit on Fox news.

Bet on it.

so according to your logic.....would it follow that Bush is the stronger debater and a better leader with a superior strategy at the end of it all?

would support action, winning, & not just making statements.
And he would have voted for Clark, not Kerry.

Tom does capture the talk of the non-Starbucks coffee shops of the San Francisco Bay Area, like Resistance Bookstore and Rainbow Markets, etc.

Toms!

See discussion here on the difference with Tom and me....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2537553&mesg_id=2537820

We came to the Bay Area "by choice" - and love it. But I think the "Toms" - and my "Cousin Dave" give the Bay Area its "character."

Making reference to the Bay Area may get milage on the
Bill o' Reilly show, but not so much here.

Care to address wesley's support for Bush's war strategy?

Or is this just an effort to discredit me...?

Strategy....addressing the issue (as you state) would be discussing something that isn't so.

No one is discrediting you but you by making it painfully obvious that you don't really know Wes Clark's position on Iraq nor his strategy (which differs greatly from Bush's from the beginning to the present).

In your effort to boil down a complex issue to two columns by simply announcing that Clark supports Bush's strategy, you have put Wes Clark in the wrong column....and in so doing, have revealed that you are "simply wrong".

Dissing the troops to win the hearts and minds of the average voter? Somehow I think that Wes Clark is smarter than that...much smarter.

They are following the orders given. Are you saying that no one should question the goals or the way this war is being fought?

I realise that speaking of how the war is fought is a mindfield and that there are those on the right who will spin any statement to sound anti-troops, but we can't relinguish the right to speak out. If you've noticed there are Democrats who have realized that the window of opportuity, where the US could positively impact anything (even with good leadership) is closing or has closed. I haven't heard a new Clark quote on Iraq in a month so he like Kerry, Reed, and even Biden may be less optimistic.

Here is one of his most recent comments regarding Iraq taken from a FOX commentary appearance:

"GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, the truth is that the policy that we've had in place - the president's strategy - is simply running out of gas in Iraq. Right now, 3 months after the elections were held, there's still no Iraqi government. You have feuding political leaders and it's not the fault of the men and women in uniform. This is a political strategy that the president requires, to work behind the scenes, to use maximum US leverage, to engage in dialog with Iraq's neighbors and to get help from other Arab countries to be able to pull together an Iraqi government that de-legitimizes the insurgents, that modifies the constitution so there's no need to fight. That's the principal work that has to be done. It has to be done now, in 2006. This can't be deferred to 2007 because if it is the insurgency will grow and deepen and Iraq won't hold together.


Host: Well, that sounds good, but how will the Democrats - your party - deal with the things like the car bombs and the daily violence from the insurgents?


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: This is a problem that has to be dealt with first at the political level, inside Iraq. Adequate incentives must be provided and leverage attained against the various parties in the Iraqi government and their supporters, to be able to pull together an Iraqi government that really does legitimate the Iraqi people and de-legitimate the insurgency. That hasn't been done. That leverage has been two years late in being applied, the recognition of what the problem was has been late. All the leverage still hasn't been applied. When the president sends mixed messages like 'we'll be there through the next president's…into the next president's administration' and at the same time tells the Iraqis to pull up their socks and get going, that's a mixed message. The truth is that we can't be effective keeping our people there unless the Iraqi leaders do their part and that's a message they have to understand. And Democrats are giving them that message."

It's obvious to me that Clark believes the efforts needed to move toward an Iraq government of national unity and a regional accord have to bear fruit this year or Iraq will spin totally out of control. One piece of leverage that Clark thinks the U.S. still has is the clarity that we will not remain inside Iraq if those who attempt to govern Iraq are not serious about bridging their internal differences. That is what I take from Clark's comment about Bush sending Iraq's leaders a double message by stating American troops will remain inside Iraq through his entire term.

Added on edit: Here is Clark's key comment:
"The truth is that we can't be effective keeping our people there unless the Iraqi leaders do their part and that's a message they have to understand. And Democrats are giving them that message." The Clock is running, and much faster than Bush concedes.

Clark has no problem speaking about how the war is fought. He applies two measures: How are the troops doing? How are the policy makers doing. Clark always soundly condemns the policy makers as incompetant. He never disses the troops.

The person who I responded to implied that Clark supported bush's quagmire because the General said that the troops were doing fine.

General Clark is not optimistic.

Clark wasn't on Fox last week. So Tom Joad is basically just making this up. Even if he has his weeks confused, take a look at what Clark said the week before. He NEVER said "US troops really need to be doing what they are doing in Iraq right now," or anything remotely like it. So that's made up too.

What Clark did say on March 17, commenting on a video of an American/Iraqi military operation, was, "...this kind of an operation shows progress in training the Iraqi forces militarily, and it shows close cooperation between the Americans and Iraqi forces. What it doesn't resolve, of course, is the major political problem in the country,--which is the split between the Sunnis and the Shi'ites."
http://securingamerica.com/node/766

And on March 16, commenting on the same operation (but without the video), "...But what I want to caution you is that, although there's been a lot of, a lot of discussion of this, we're not going to win this war militarily. This may contribute to helping us, but the decisive point is political. We've got to get the Sunni leadership into the government. We got to get the constitution changed. And if this operation provides leverage that convinces the Shi'ite leadership to go along with relaxing their conditions and bringing the Sunnis back in, then it's really served it's purpose... But what I'm saying is that beyond all of that, operations like this will not win this war.
http://securingamerica.com/node/755

Clark's appearance on March 15 was all about Iran, with one question comparing Saddam Hussein to Milosevic. Nothing about our troops in Iraq or what they're doing there.
http://securingamerica.com/node/740

Reminds me of the old Simon and Garfunkle song... "a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

My quote above came from the 29th appearance. And his quotes are very clear that Clark was talking about what the United Stares needs tokeep concentrating on in Iraq this month, not saying that we should keep doing what we have been doing for years there, or continue doing that for years more. To the contrary:

"Well, the truth is that the policy that we've had in place - the president's strategy - is simply running out of gas in Iraq. Right now, 3 months after the elections were held, there's still no Iraqi government. You have feuding political leaders and it's not the fault of the men and women in uniform. This is a political strategy that the president requires...

That's the principal work that has to be done. It has to be done now, in 2006. This can't be deferred to 2007 because if it is the insurgency will grow and deepen and Iraq won't hold together...

...When the president sends mixed messages like 'we'll be there through the next president's…into the next president's administration' and at the same time tells the Iraqis to pull up their socks and get going, that's a mixed message. The truth is that we can't be effective keeping our people there unless the Iraqi leaders do their part and that's a message they have to understand."

Well ok, maybe a little sarcasm there.

The only political podcast ahead of it is from "Sean Insanity".

being "first" on anything except my "Shit" list!

He may yet over take Insannity.

I would love to see the look on his face when he realizes Clark is passing him after only a few weeks worth of podcasts. Let's do it!

but I guess I'll have to subscribe to help trump inSanity! }(

I wonder how Hannity feels about that.....Poor Sean....hehe...

It seems even the perennially wrong beltway folks have noticed that real people are listening to Clark.
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/03/listen_to_wes_c.html#comments

It's like I'm living in some sort of bizarro world.

But it will take a lot more before they understand that this is one soldier who's not gonna "fade" away!

"Too many people handicapping the Dem field aren't paying attention to Ret. Gen. Wes Clark. The guy has a monster travel schedule on behalf of other Dems. He's still the to-go talking head for Democratic national security events. He's doing the party's national radio address this Saturday."

I'm glad they are starting to notice. Especially Clark's constant campaigning trying to get other Democrats elected in 2006. Clark said that was priority number one, and he's putting his body where his mouth is.

Well deserved, of course....

I like this one too....

"I had occasion to spend an afternoon with Clark in Texas. Seeing the general campaign in that most red of states gave me reason to agree with the Hotline - I think Clark will exceed expectations in 2008. And in the meanwhile, he deserves all the credit in the world for going out there and putting his money and time where his mouth is when it comes to getting Democrats elected."

http://www.pinedaconsulting.com/index.php/2006/03/31/dont-count-out-clark/


BTW, Obama and KCRW's Left, Right and Center are also beating out Hannity now too. Clark still on top. :)

May have gotten some DUers to sign up for all sorts of left-oriented podcasts.

So I'll kick this for the weekend crowd. :)

First Ed Schultz starts beating Rush Limbo in several key markets (altho not overall).

And now the General leads the charge (pardon... couldn't resist the imagery) to overrun InHannity on internet podcasting.

Today is a good day. :)