War is not the answer – Stop a third war now February 23, 2007
Posted by faithinwes in defense, national security.comments closed
Get this ad for your website at StopIranWar.com.
At Daily Kos, a strong call by Tom Rinaldo to the ‘Netroots.
The Netroots has to jump start the debate inside America about the approaching war with Iran. We can’t wait for the mainstream media to do that for us. Our numbers may be too small for us to wage and win that debate alone with all who need to hear it, but we won’t have to. America does not want another war. Once the issue of War with Iran is fully in public play the tide against it will surge with the strength needed to give real meaning to that word. Our job, the Netroots’ Greatest Challenge, is to make that public debate ever present and unavoidable. Over the coming week I intend to write letters to newspapers I never read, I intend to go to web sites that I never visit, I intend to send emails to people who have never heard from me online before, and I will ask them to heed the warning being sounded at StopIranWar.com. Please join me in whatever ways that you can.
And yesterday, General Clark himself.
The Bush Administration seems headed for a showdown in the Middle East over the issue of Iran’s nuclear capacity, and it’s clear that all Americans want to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons and interfering on the ground inside Iraq.
That said, military force must be viewed as the last resort, and not the first option. Yet the Bush administration refuses to engage in direct talks with Iran, and with each passing month that we remain stalled and the Iranian program progresses, we come closer to the US military option.
Don’t get fooled AGAIN. Sign up on StopIranWar for the battle of our lives.
Clark the anti-poverty president February 20, 2007
Posted by faithinwes in poverty.comments closed
People who know me intimately know that I’m pretty passionate about ending poverty. I’ll get teary-eyed when I spit out sad statistics, curse efforts that increase poverty, curse when common sense solutions are ignored, and ask most politicians I meet pointed questions on poverty. It occasionally makes me callous to other people’s problems, sometimes even my own. Given that, one would imagine that I’d run to sign up for John Edwards campaign. But I didn’t. And I won’t.
-snip
I’ve never met or talked to Edwards so he may very well possess a deep understanding of what it takes to combat poverty. But I have yet to see that in anything he has said or has done.
But I have met Wes Clark. And, yes, I asked him one of my impassioned and pointed questions on poverty. What really surprised me was that he skipped the talk about what poverty is like–sparing me details that I’m quite aware of–and jumped right into the meat of possible solutions. I’m not one to be overly impressed with famous politicians–after all, I am a couple minute walk from more than one Nobel Laureate–but I was struck by his candor and his depth of knowledge on practical solutions. We talked about community and neighborhood based financial planning programs, microcredit, fair trade policy and national cultural impediments. A far cry from “we can do better”. That he was willing to discuss some of the hurdles in addressing this issue demonstrated that he knows what he’s talking about.
I won’t enumerate or elaborate the solutions discussed right now–I’ll save that for after he announces–but I just want to mention that as a person who cares very deeply about reducing poverty, Wes Clark is my clear choice as the anti-poverty candidate. Not platitudes, but practical solutions. Not just hope, but tangible solutions.
Is War with Iran Inevitable? February 14, 2007
Posted by jenmarie in military, national security.comments closed
“… surely we have learned by now that, particularly in this region, force and the threats of force should be the last, last, last resort. … It is past time to ask our elected officials in the White House and Congress to exercise leadership: recognize the real strategic challenge we face, and start to work now to avoid an escalation and widening of conflict in the Mideast.”
by Wes Clark
2/12/07
As the President fights for public support of his troop surge in Iraq, he is also ratcheting up the pressure on Iran. A second aircraft carrier battle group (with Newsweek reporting a third group likely to follow), Patriot missiles to protect our allies, arresting Iranian personnel in Iraq, releasing additional information about Iranian involvement, appointing a Navy Admiral to command forces in the region, even seeking diplomatic support from Sunni Arab friends in the region – Yes, the Iranians are interfering inside Iraq and seeking nuclear capabilities. Yet the President’s recent actions give the US little additional leverage to engage and dissuade Iran, and, more than likely, simply accelerate a dangerous slide into war. The United States can do better than this.
Since 9/11 the Iranians have tried on several occasions to open a dialogue with the United States. They, of course, had their own interests at heart, not ours. Yet, from dialogue some common interests might have emerged. The Bush Administration would have none of it, and branded Iran a member of the Axis of Evil.
During that period, with most of the world on our side, we had enormous diplomatic, economic and military leverage over Iran. Now, deeply committed militarily in Iraq, more isolated diplomatically, increasingly indebted to some of Iran’s crude oil customers, only modestly successful in gaining UN sanctions against Iran, the Administration has refused to change our approach, and has instead chosen to augment the least effective element of US power in the region – air and naval.
We are already totally dominant in air and naval power over Iran. Even with Iran’s new Russian antiaircraft equipment, no one should doubt that US forces could penetrate these defenses and strike with precision with minimal losses. Iran’s naval countermeasures in the Gulf can be largely preempted. The Iranians no doubt recognize this.
But the Iranians perceive American weaknesses on the ground, with an American Army too small to invade and occupy Iran, and too engaged inside Iraq even to threaten it. They see our soldiers through sniper sights, and from behind the triggers of improvised explosive devices, while they see themselves as a nation that gained considerable strength from a war with Iraq that cost a million casualties, took eight years, and involved withstanding missile strikes on cities and the use of chemical weapons. They no doubt believe that, whatever the current alignments of Sunni states, a US strike against Iran would bring outpourings of sympathy, public support, and waves of impassioned volunteers from throughout the Islamic world. They would see themselves as the heroic martyrs uniting Islam. The Iranians may believe this reaction would enforce on the United States a rapid, humiliating withdrawal from the Persian Gulf, leaving them military savaged but strategically victorious.
In this they might very likely be proven wrong. US power is far more sustainable in the region than Iran would like to believe, and the military humiliation Iran would suffer at the outset could well deter any outside assistance. The US does have a military option. But this is a struggle that will be costly for all involved, will further isolate the region, and whose ultimate outcome is likely to be decided by future incumbencies. Leaders on both sides should recognize that war is the most unpredictable of human endeavors, and that unanticipated consequences almost always follow.
I believe some in the Administration have seen this confrontation as inevitable – or have sought it – since late 2001. At that time a Pentagon general held up to me a Defense memorandum which he described as a five year road map to the conflict. But surely we have learned by now that, particularly in this region, force and the threats of force should be the last, last, last resort.
Military power aside, the US has enormous economic leverage over the Iranians through our influence on world financial institutions, international commerce and capital flows. While the latest actions against Iran’s banking system show the sharp stick of US power, the potential carrots are enormous, too. Islamic pride cannot be purchased, but neither can a proud nation ignore a more hopeful vision of its future.
The American troop surge is not likely to impact Iran’s on-the-ground influence in Iraq. Their presence serves the interests of some in Iraq; and they are deeply embedded and widely active. Only their perception of new interests and opportunities is likely to do this. They would need to see their situation through a different lens. It is asking a lot. But, cannot the world’s most powerful nation deign speak to the resentful and scheming regional power that is Iran? Can we not speak of the interests of others, work to establish a sustained dialogue, and seek to benefit the people of Iran and the region? Could not such a dialogue, properly conducted, begin a process that could, over time, help realign hardened attitudes and polarizing views within the region? And isn’t it easier to undertake such a dialogue now, before more die, and more martyrs are created to feed extremist passions? And, finally, if every effort should fail, before we take military action, don’t we at least want the moral, legal and political “high ground” of knowing we did everything possible to avert it?
Whatever the pace of Iran’s nuclear efforts, in the give and take of the Administrations rhetoric and accusations and Iran’s under-the-table actions in Iraq, we are approaching the last moments to head off looming conflict. Surely, it is past time to ask our elected officials in the White House and Congress to exercise leadership: recognize the real strategic challenge we face, and start to work now to avoid an escalation and widening of conflict in the Mideast.
Thank you for reading my thoughts on Iran. Again, I invite you to read the important discussion that followed in the comments section of my DailyKos diary.
This is a critical issue for our nation, and it is essential we continue to speak out.
Wes Clark
~~~~~~~~~~~~
General Clark posted the above both at WesPAC — Securing America and in a diary at Daily Kos, Monday, February 12.
With over 800 comments on the DKos diary, it is difficult to find General Clark’s answers to questions posted throughout the thread. Luckily, Stan at CCN (Clark Community Network) gathered the questions and answers onto his individual blog HERE.
Sandwiched between OBAMA & EDWARDS, WES CLARK soldiers on at the DNC Winter Meeting unfazed. February 8, 2007
Posted by jenmarie in DNC, media, speech.comments closed
From RAPID FIRE – Silver Bullets
I’m giving the General a great big salute. The man has balls the size of Mt. Rushmore, IMO!
The General walked into the DNC Winter Meeting as an undeclared candidate to Johnny Cash’s “I Won’t Back Down” and does the job he came to do against CW calculated odds!
Here’s the set up;
Wes Clark was scheduled to speak in between two of what the media has consistently labeled as the greatest political orators of our current times; Barak Obama and John Edwards.
Sen. Barak Obama educated as an attorney, became a top Presidential contender based on, among other things, a single speech he gave at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. With his rich baritone voice, Barak offers an effective rhythm and cadence reminiscent of a preacher/scholar with an unconventional approach to the subject of politics. Barak is simply a natural.
John Edwards, billed as a politician who can talk owls out of a tree since his single speech the “Two Americas”, was highly touted during the 2004 Primary campaign as a great speaker. On the strength of his one speech describing the state of poverty here in the United states, Edwards became a top 2004 primary contender and was later selected by popular demand as the Vice Presidential candidate by John Kerry, then the nominee.
Edwards is one who can pump a crowd up with his Trial Attorney manner of setting up a jury. He’ll tell his crowd what they want to hear, and in that respect appears to have an innate quality to understand what that something is. Former Sen. Edwards is a trained public speaker, and effective speechifying is one of the major tools that allowed him to earn his personal fortune which in turn provided him with the ability to go forth into politics.
…..and so, we find in the billing of the DNC Winter meeting, sandwiched between two speaking legends, a non politician who the media had quickly labeled “not ready for primetime” during his initial foray into elective politics. It is, in fact, this specific meme that greatly hampered Clark during the 2004 primaries; the media had pre-labeled him and used the tag whenever it wanted to discourage those who might have been curious about the Democratic General. It should be said that Wes Clark still ended up doing rather well in those primaries despite the odds.
Wesley Clark on Science & Faith February 8, 2007
Posted by jenmarie in faith and spirit, science/tech.comments closed
Originally posted by liberalpastor in burnsville, June 16, 2006
There was a big blogging conference last week in Las Vegas. It was called YearlyKos and it was sponsored by one of the largest liberal bloggers: DailyKos. You can read more about the conference here.
But what caught my attention was an address given by retired General Wesley Clark on science and faith to the Science bloggers. After talking about his own experience growing up in the south and being turned on to science by his school teachers and the rapid advances made in science because of the space race, he turned his attention to the current political atmosphere about science:
“Promoting Prosperity with Climate Change Policy” February 7, 2007
Posted by jenmarie in energy, environment, national security.comments closed
Clinton Global Initiative: General Clark’s Statement on Climate Change
Climate Change Policy in the United States
PRESIDENT JOSÉ MARÍA FIGUERES: General Clark, your leadership is widely recognized in many, many fields, and of course one in which you are an absolute expert is in the field of national security. What are the linkages between climate change and national security? And if we were to continue on the course on which we now are, what would be the unintended consequences in terms of a national security policy?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, thank you very much for the question, President Figueres. Let me just say how pleased I am to be here in this group and on this panel, especially with Senator Clinton. We go back to the 1980s in talking about the Mediterranean Basin. And I remember ecological discussions there.
But President Figueres and I … when you were the President of Costa Rica and I was the Commander in Chief for the Southern Command, we had a conference down in Bariloche, Argentina. And I flew down on an aircraft one afternoon with Senator Bob Graham and his wife. And we flew down the … we landed in Peru, we refueled and we flew down the coast. And we looked at the Andes Mountains from the west as the sun was setting. It was absolutely spectacular.
And you know, the Andes are very, very high. Much higher than the Rockies. They’re 18, 19, 22,000 foot peaks. And then, we noticed that most of these peaks had no snowfall. None. And we were just coming out of the southern hemisphere’s winter. And that’s when I first began to take very seriously the discussions of global warming. Because before you see it, it looks academic.
We were at conferences. We went around South America which seems to have been affected more quickly, even than North America. And we learned about the impact of global warming and the ozone hole and the ultraviolet radiation in places like Uruguay, where people were warned not to be on the beach during daylight, during noon, between 11 and 2 p.m., because of extreme ultraviolet due to the movement of the ozone hole over Uruguay.
And when you see these things, you realize that man made conditions do impact the environment and how we live. So I take global warming very seriously. And if you look at all the scientific projections on where it’s headed, you have to view the consequences of it as potentially so severe, it has to be considered a national security problem. There’s just no other way to deal with it.
Statement on Clean Air Plan February 7, 2007
Posted by jenmarie in 2004 platform, environment, jobs, science/tech.comments closed
New Hampshire
December 9, 2003
~ snip ~
Today I would like to focus on one element of our environment – the air we breathe.
Our atmosphere sustains life. Though the atmosphere seems cast from the Earth’s surface it’s actually quite thin. If you walked ten miles, you will have walked the expanse of the atmosphere. Unfortunately, throughout most of our modern history, we have treated our atmosphere as a dump for airborne industrial byproducts.
America’s efforts to address air pollution are in many ways a great success story. In 1970, concerns about the health toll of air pollution led to the passage of the Clean Air Act. It was a landmark legislative achievement and a product of bipartisan cooperation, pushed by Democrats in the Congress and signed into law by a Republican president.
Under the Bush administration, the bipartisan cooperation that led to this landmark achievement has broken down. We lack the leadership necessary for such an outstanding environmental achievement. Instead, the President is moving relentlessly to dismantle environmental protections and undo a generation of progress.
His so-called “Clear Skies” legislation, for instance, would weaken public health protections against dangerous soot, smog pollution and toxic mercury.
Airborn mercury eventually settles in water, enters the food chain and is ingested by people. It attacks the brain and nervous system, poses special risks for pregnant women and damages the immune and cardiovascular systems of adults.
~ snip ~
My Clean Air Plan will improve America’s health and America’s economy. Compared to the Bush administration’s policies, my Clean Air Plan will prevent more than 100,000 premature deaths and more than two million asthma attacks through the year 2020.
Specifically, my four-part plan will:
- Set tough standards for the worst sources of air pollution, starting with electric power plants;
- Crack down on corporate polluters;
- Use American technology and market-based approaches to meet air pollution challenges with innovative, job-creating solutions; and
- Restore trust in the environmental stewardship of the White House.
Power plants produce huge amounts of air pollutants that threaten the health of millions. To protect the health of all Americans, I will set tough new standards for power plants, such as those in Senator James Jeffords’ Clean Power Act.
We must also act aggressively to reduce air toxins. I will fully implement the Clean Air Act, set new national standards for the most dangerous pollutants, and revoke the Bush Administration’s efforts to allow older plants to continue polluting at high rates even as they undertake massive expansion.
Plus, I’ll put the environmental cop back on the beat.
100 Year Vision February 7, 2007
Posted by jenmarie in 2004 platform, national goals.comments closed
By Wes Clark
Looking ahead 100 years, the United States will be defined by our environment, both our physical environment and our legal, Constitutional environment. America needs to remain the most desirable country in the world, attracting talent and investment with the best physical and institutional environment in the world. But achieving our goals in these areas means we need to begin now. Environmentally, it means that we must do more to protect our natural resources, enabling us to extend their economic value indefinitely through wise natural resource extraction policies that protect the beauty and diversity of our American ecosystems — our seacoasts, mountains, wetlands, rain forests, alpine meadows, original timberlands and open prairies. We must balance carefully the short-term needs for commercial exploitation with longer-term respect for the natural gifts our country has received. We may also have to assist market-driven adjustments in urban and rural populations, as we did in the 19th Century with the Homestead Act.
192 Steps to Disaster Preparedness February 7, 2007
Posted by jenmarie in emergency response.comments closed
Interview with Nick Ballasy “On the Issues” show:
Nick Ballasy: With hurricane Katrina. How do you feel about the Bush administration’s response? Was it appropriate? Would you have done something totally different? Or..
Wes Clark: Well, there are a lot of things wrong with this and there’s plenty of fault finding at every level.
One of the things that happened, of course, that everybody knows about is the Federal Emergency Management Agency was slipped into the Department of Homeland Security and the focus was on terrorism, not on responding to natural disasters. So that was a distraction.
Another thing is, a lot of the key people were taken out of the Federal Emergency Management Agency because these were professional people and it became part of the political spoils. They put guys like Michael Brown, I’m sure he’s a decent guy, I don’t know him personally, but he had no experience for this kind of thing. It wasn’t like he was a, you know, big business leader who knew how to make things happen. He was a lawyer. And I like lawyers, but, unless you’ve run a big organization in a crisis, a disaster like Katrina is a tough.. It’s a tough learning experience and he didn’t do very well. And by the way, the guy over him, Michael Chertoff, he’s another lawyer who’s never, you know Federal Prosecuter, but he’d never actually had his hands on the wheel of a big organization. It’s about how you communicate, how you task, how you review, how you follow up, how you set suspenses and deadlines. It’s a whole lot of things that somebody in the military, for example, I mean, I’ve learned it throughout a thirty-four year career. I know how to do that kind of thing. James Lee Witt, down there helping the Governor of Louisiana, he learned it. He was a disaster manager in Arkansas before he ran the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
So there’s that problem.
James Lee Witt Associates Receives Award for Gulf Coast disaster recovery program February 1, 2007
Posted by faithinwes in emergency response.1 comment so far
James Lee Witt Associates, the public safety and crisis management firm founded by the former Clinton FEMA director and of which General Clark is Vice Chairman, was recognized by the American Society of Landscape Architects for its disaster recovery efforts in Louisiana. The award specifically applauds the firm’s development of an online planning program for community recovery following natural disasters, to assist FEMA and the State of Louisiana’s Recovery Authority Partnership.
“With the assistance of James Lee Witt Associates, Louisiana and the entire Gulf Coast are better equipped to meet the challenges of rebuilding after the devastation of hurricanes Katrina and Rita,” said Patrick Moore, Managing Principal, Moore Planning Group and Fellow of the American Society of Landscape Architect.
