I was horrified when I first heard that John Edwards was asking everyone to demonstrate against the war on Memorial Day.

It seemed nothing more than a cheap political stunt to me. But even if I give him the benefit of the doubt, I'm still left with his incredible ignorance of what the day means to those who have lost loved ones in the service of their country.

Clark says it best......

There's more...

So, there's a big battle going on in Washington over the Iraq Supplemental. And although I'm for any bill that brings home our troops sooner, what I'd like to know is this. Where does the money go once it's approved?  Does it go to the young men and woman who have been torn from there families two, three, sometimes four times in a row. Does it go to the soldiers who can't get the body armor or the equipment they need? Does it go to those who are increasingly being used as cannon fodder......sacrificed on the alter of lies, incompetence and yes, war profiteering?

There's more...

Wes Clark said those words on the campaign trail in 2003. He was talking about the outsourcing of some combat operations to private companies.

It hit a cord with me but didn't get a lot of press. The CorpPress were in "ignore stance" as far as a the Clark campaign was concerned, but more than that, I don't think they saw a problem with outsourcing any government function. They bought into the whole right wing meme that private enterprise does a better job.

Since then, the Press have had a rude awakening. It looks like they finally got it with the Walter Reed scandal, but that is just the tip of the iceberg.  The whole idea of replacing government functions with private companies, which has been the GOP's raison d'être from the beginning, has proven to be disastrous. And may I say, it comes a no surprise to most of us.

Private companies have a whole different mission from government. Their bottom line is to make a profit......service be damned.

But back to what Clark was talking about.........combat troops

More below the jump...

There's more...

Update [2007-3-6 7:53:48 by pelican]:: From Tom Rinaldo's comment below, we see that "in the next three months" was drowned out by laughter. So much so that no one heard it. Not the man standing next to her, not the reporter in the room and certainly not Clark. Which brings me back to my original complaint.....why something that was obviously important enough to front page, was not verified by either Chris or Markos? Waiting for a front page diary saying they made a mistake. crickets.....

Chris Bowers has a diary on the front page today, quoting someone who was at a recent Clark function......

Clark Won't Announce In The Next three Months Add to Hotlist

by Chris Bowers, Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 01:16:55 PM EST
Good Lord. So much for learning from your mistakes last time:

   

Just before he concluded his talk, he said, "I'm not a candidate for President, but I haven't said I won't run". He asked for questions and I couldn't help but be the first to ask, "Wes, is there any chance during the next 3 months you will declare your candidacy?" Everybody chuckled knowing I had supported Wes in 2004. He said no. He told the room that when you're a candidate, they discount your views on everything. He was very happy to discuss policy with high level people because they took him seriously. He knew that would change the minute he declared.

I hope that Clark can be a strong voice on issues, but I'm going to forget about him as a potential candidate in 2008. I can't seriously believe that he thinks he will delay as long as last time and still be an effective candidate against a far, far more star laden field. And the draft movement for him this time around is about one-tenth of what it was four years ago. I know that he has state publicly that he is still considering a run, but this is just absurd. I am crossing Clark off all straw polls until he actually declares his candidacy, and I think all pollsters should do the same.

Sounds definitive doesn't it?

But two other people who were there, say it never happened.

There's more...

From my Inbox...

All Americans want to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons and interfering on the ground inside Iraq.

Yet, President Bush's continued saber rattling gives the US little additional leverage to engage and dissuade Iran, and, more than likely, simply accelerates a dangerous slide into war. The United States can do better than this.

Whatever the pace of Iran's nuclear efforts, in the give and take of the Administration's rhetoric and accusations, we are approaching the last moments to head off looming conflict. Surely, it is past time to urge President Bush to exercise leadership and start to work now to avoid a widening of the conflict in the Middle East.

That's why today, I'm joining Jon Soltz, Chairman of VoteVets.org, the preeminent organization representing Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans, to launch StopIranWar.com.

There's more...

Wes Clark has an Op-Ed in The Independent today, where he explains the reasons why Bush will ignore reality and push for a "surge"

The recent congressional elections - which turned over control of both houses to the Democrats - were largely a referendum on President Bush, and much of the vote reflected public dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq. Most Americans see the US effort as failing, and believe that some different course of action must be taken. Most favour withdrawing forces soon, if not immediately. The report of the Iraq Study Group is widely seen as a formal confirmation of US failure in Iraq.
The country's action there has been the very centrepiece of the Bush presidency. With two years left in office, he would, of course, try to salvage the situation. Many Americans remember the 1975 evacuation of the US embassy in Saigon, with desperate, loyal Vietnamese friends clinging to the skids of the American helicopters. No one wants that kind of an ending in Iraq. And our friends and allies in the region are also hoping for the US to pull some kind "rabbit from the hat", even if it seems improbable, for a US failure would have grave consequences in the region. Iran, especially, is the beneficiary of a failure, and al-Qa'ida will also try to claim credit.
From the administration's perspective, a troop surge of modest size is virtually the only remaining action inside Iraq that will be a visible signal of determination.

Clark then details different scenarios of how the surge might be implemented, and what the results most likely will be........none of them good......

There's more...

From Eric Massa who is live blogging at kos right now!

If You Build it They Will Come...and Stay

After years of looking the other way as illegal immigration exploded, this Administration is manufacturing yet another crisis to divert attention from its multitude of failures, particularly in Iraq.  While we all agree that illegal immigration is a problem - a major one at that - the President and the Republican congress are jumping the gun with knee-jerk, half-baked "crisis" solutions to a problem that has been building for years.   And their "solutions" won't even begin to solve the problem, which has become institutionalized at multiple levels in our society, especially the economy itself.

I'll explain myself more in a moment, but right now, here's a summary of what I see as the important points about this "crisis." 

::

1.    The Bush Double Flip. Back in 2005, Congress authorized 2,000 extra border patrol agents for each of the next five years - agents one would assume would actually be used to patrol the border - but President Bush decided not to send all those extra agents.  (link)  Now, he says "send in the guard" - itself an idea riddled with problems (more below).   The first solution makes more sense, but the double flip illustrates the real Bush/Republican attitude: they're more interested in the politics than anything else.

2.    "Send In The Guard" is a really dumb idea. What Guard?  Almost all the National Guard is already tied down in that quagmire in Iraq.  The idea that they can do this enormous, long-term job during annual two-week training stints, is a bad joke.

3.    It's all about Economics. There are fundamental, structural issues of economics that are the real drivers of this "crisis," and any solution that doesn't deal with this won't work.  Workers enter this country illegally because there is a demand for their services: cheap labor, no benefits.  And it's not just businesses and corporations that like it this way.  I don't hear any calls from the anti-immigrant crowd for boycotts of goods that we get more cheaply because they're produced with illegal labor - say, fruits and vegetables.

4.    Secure the Borders. I believe that our first priority is to secure our borders.  In a post-9/11 world, we simply must have control over who comes and goes, and why.  But we can do it smart.  We can't afford to shoot ourselves in the foot in the process.  Security has to come hand-in-hand with a sane approach to the complex political and economic problems of the economic demand for immigrant labor, and the understandable desire of immigrants for the opportunity for a better life.  

5.    Talk about Border Security --  What about the Ports??? The fact that American ports are still 95% unprotected - an enormous gaping hole in our national security - tells the whole story about this Administration's commitment to national security, and to border security.  This new crisis is mostly a red-herring - a stinky fish tossed into the middle of the room to distract us from the real story and the real agenda and the real failures of this Administration and its rubber-stamp Republican Congress.

There's more...

Cross posted at kos where you can live blog with Jay and Bill right now!

FIGHTING DEMS SPOTLIGHT ON COLORADO: Live Blogging with Jay Fawcett (CO-05) and Bill Winter (CO-06)
::
Fighting Dems, Band of Brothers, Veterans for a Secure America,  Jay Fawcett, Bill Winter, CO CD 5, CO CD 6
{{
Colorado is a mixed bag, politically. Leaning Republican, there are three Democratic Congressmen to four Republicans. Despite a Republican Governor, there is the popular Democratic Senator Ken L. Salazar who campaigned in a cowboy hat with a populace message, and a respected Congressman in Mark E. Udall. Still, the state went 52% for Bush to Kerry's 47%, so why do two Fighting Dem Vets think they have a snowball chance in hell of winning in two Congressional districts now held by the GOP. Read on below the fold and find out.

Bill Winter and Jay Fawcett blogging live
::
In the first place, a popular Democratic candidate for Governor, Bill Ritter, is rallying the faithful. Yesterday at the state Democratic Party's general assembly and Colorado Democrats railed against the national Republican Party as they nominated Bill Ritter for governor along with a slate of statewide candidates. Note the following AP report.

GREELEY - Vowing to fulfill the ``Colorado promise,'' former Denver district attorney Bill Ritter was picked as the Democratic Party's nominee for governor the state assembly Saturday. All of Ritter's competition had faded away months ago, but the party had to formalize his nomination at its state assembly.
The roughly 4,000 officials, delegates and guests welcomed Ritter with a standing ovation and waving up signs bearing his name as he made his way to the stage with Bruce Springsteen's ``Born to Run'' blaring from the speakers.

And Salazar and Fighting Dem Jay Fawcett had the crowd cheering according to the Denver Post:

The party's faithful roared as U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar, clad in bluejeans and a white cowboy hat, described the Bush administration as "captives of the oil giants of the world."
And Jay Fawcett, the Democratic candidate for the 5th Congressional District, roused the crowd by vowing to put a scare into James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family.
"I believe in God," Fawcett said. "I own a gun. And if you're gay, you're covered by the Constitution of the United States of America."

There's more...

Wes Clark was in Iowa over the weekend campaigning for local candidates.

David Yepsen of the Des Moines Register covered his visit, and had this to say:

   

The nation is bogged down in a war. There seems to be no way out. A president's job-approval rating tanks.

   Iraq, 2006? Yes. It's also Korea, 1952. And in 1952, a war-weary nation grew tired of its president and turned to a retired general to be the next chief executive - giving him the mission of getting the country out of the conflict.

   This presidential cycle, retired Gen. Wesley Clark is showing up in Iowa, hoping to repeat something of the same feat Dwight Eisenhower accomplished when he succeeded Harry Truman in 1952.

More...

 

There's more...

Cross posted from kos

FIGHTING DEM VETS SPOTLIGHT: The Kentucky and Pennsylvania Primaries
::
Fighting Dem Vets, Band of Brothers, Veterans for a Secure America, vets running for congress, Democratic primaries
::
First things first:

Happy Mothers Day Karen Marie Otter (CA-52)
The mother of two "remarkable" teenage sons

Today we are surveying two crucial primaries, both on Tuesday, May 16th.

There's more...