RAPID FIRE - Silver Bullets

For a complete run down of Clark's Iran approach to date, go here!

Heck of long and fascisnating. One cannot say that Wes Clark is at a loss for words when it comes to what he feels must be done in reference to Iran!

Sure beats being a cheerleader for saber rattling like some announced candidates have been pursuing! There will be a contest held tonight; maybe to see who can rattle the loudest?

......Meanwhile, back at the ranch called Washington D.C., looks like the congress have their hands tied....kinda, sorta! The Faux Cowboy President has congress penned and ready for the preliminary rodeo!

Even as the panel discussed issues from past conflicts, Senator Kennedy used the session to focus on a possible future conflict, asking the panel about what authority Mr. Bush would have to attack Iran. The panel’s members agreed that he had the power to take what actions he saw fit to deal with any short-term threat that Iran might pose to American troops in Iraq, but that he would need some form of Congressional authorization to begin any large-scale or long-term conflict. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/30/washington/30cnd-congress.html

More on Wes and Iran at zaczaca' Blog!

Clark will give a speech in front of the DNC's Winter Meeting.

Yes, Clark is to do the Catwalk, as a WES CLARK DEMOCRAT so aptly put it.

I'm pretty hyped about this appearance!

Wes Clark will be speaking right after Barack Obama and right before John Edwards...so if anyone asks where's the Foreign Policy/National Security Beef will be during that "tour de force", tell them that it is squarely in the middle.

And while the General has not announced that he is running or forming an "Exploratory" Committee just YET, a few blogs are all aglow about the possibilities that an announcement is imminent.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/2/1/13520/52825
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/29/173331/284
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3086791&mesg_id=3086791

The DNC Winter Meeting will be shown on C-Span -
Click here to watch streaming video of General Clark's speech live at 10:21am ET on Friday!

General Clark will also be on Fox News, Friday, 2/2/07
2:30 PM EST | 1:30 PM CST | 12:30 PM MST | 11:00 AM PST
All times of scheduled programs on Fox are subject to change. We recommend tuning in a little early.

The Democratic National Committee will hold its annual winter meeting to highlight "Strong Leadership for America's Future" in Washington, DC from February 1-3, 2007. The meeting will feature presentations from the Democratic Presidential contenders on their visions and ideas for America’s future.

The candidates will join more than 400 DNC members from around the country, DNC Chairman Howard Dean, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to talk about the strong leadership Democrats are providing now in Congress and around the country and will provide in the White House.

The following presidential candidates will speak at the winter meeting: Sen. Joe Biden, Gen. Wesley Clark (Ret.), Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Sen. Chris Dodd, Sen. John Edwards, Sen. Mike Gravel, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Sen. Barack Obama, Gov. Bill Richardson, and Gov. Tom Vilsack.

"After six years of failed leadership from the Bush Administration, the American people want new leadership in the White House," said Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean. "Our Democratic leaders in Congress are working to make government work for every American, and the talented and diverse group of presidential candidates joining us this weekend are proof that we can bring the same kind of vision, talent and strong leadership to the White House. Democrats are energized and ready to build on our Party's successes, and we're confident that a Democrat will be America's next president."

WHERE: Washington Hilton
1919 Connecticut Ave. NW
International Ballroom
http://www.democrats.org/a/2007/01/dnc_winter_meet_1.php

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.

Gen. Clark background was initially that of a lifelong soldier trained to give orders. It can be said that Clark's diplomatic abilities to quietly converse with both world allies and adversaries at a negotiating table also didn't necessarily prepare him for the job of political orator. This art was a new challenge to be learned on the fly just a few short years ago.

The General's early classical debate training at Wes Point did prepare him for a formal and non personal manner of speaking but not that of a politician. This training must have been of some help but could not be a substitute to compete with the likes of lifelong courtroom attorneys and seasoned politicians. Clark learned to persuade based on providing facts and information; not based on arousing and agitating via emotional public appeals.

The DNC line-up for the 2007 Winter Meeting, instead of having the 3 top contenders (Obama, Edwards and Hillary) back to back in order to contrast and compare, chose to insert Wes Clark between two of them. There are some of his supporters who looked upon his placement on the speech roster as a great testament to Clark's abilities. Personally, I looked at it as a possible set up to benefit the two speakers that he was placed smack dab in the middle of. Obama being easily the most difficult speaker to follow, and Edwards, who would need a break between himself and Obama as to not provide the contrast that might sell him short (as Edwards speaking feats have never been thought of as consistent following his disappointing 2004 Dem Primary convention performance).

In addition, the roster listed Kucinich going before Hillary, providing her with a big ass break, IMO, as Kucinich's speaking style does not arouse in a way remotely close to that of either Obama or Edwards.

So me...I take my hat off to Wes Clark who did not flinch or hesitate. The man, undeterred, walked in, performed his duty very effectively, and walked out. He did not receive any standing Os...but then, he wasn't telling the crowd to stand up either....and he hadn't been touted by the media for months and months as a contender, let alone in the top tier.

And so I ask that you attempt this exercise; isolate Clark's speech away from where it was inserted, and see what you truly think. I consider this speech as an introduction as to who Clark is, aimed at those uninformed voters who never really got to know the General. It is a speech that covers for a large length the seriousness of war and what it truly means. Certainly, I didn't find it to be one of his better speeches in certain respects. I have heard him throw out much more "red meat" and convey domestic policy issues at other venues. This speech was much more quiet and reflective. The usually humble public servant spoke of himself and his accomplishments more than he had in the past. Certainly the speech’s length didn't enable him to list all that he has done that would have given meaningful insight as to why he should run (something the others are not handicapped with, as the media has already talked of the qualities to death).

Personally, I found Wes Clark to be no lightweight in this self taught art of political speech giving. Instead, I believe that, along with the other long list of valuable attributes that he offers (that others can't) as a presidential candidate, Wes Clark clearly showed to anyone who was listening that he is indeed ready for primetime along with the political current crème de la crème front running crop.

Watch the speech here.... http://securingamerica.com/

Lyrics to:

I Won't Back Down

Well I won't back down, no I won't back down
You can stand me up at the gates of hell
But I won't back down

Verse 2
Gonna stand my ground, won't be turned around
And I'll keep this world from draggin' me down
Gonna stand my ground and I won't back down

Chorus
Hey baby, there ain't no easy way out
Hey I will stand my ground and I won't back down

Verse 3
Well I know what's right, I got just one life
In a world that keeps on pushin' me around
But I stand my ground and I won't back down

Chorus
Hey baby, there ain't no easy way out
Hey I will stand my ground and I won't back down
No I won't back down.
http://www.cowboylyrics.com/lyrics/cash-johnny/i-wont-back-down-750.html

An article by New York Sun proves that Goldberg is wrong in his latest column; The N.Y. Sun says some New York Money People are buying influence from Democratic Politicians; and Iran has everything to do with everything! The Forward and the Associated Press also confirms this

If you've read the Goldberg "opinion", know that Jonah Golberg's column of wrongness is syndicated....meaning it will be fanned across the nation and perpetuates nothing more than a lie. When you google, one can see where it is going; to every right leaning publication in the nation, and I guess the L.A. Times (they sure are a changin').

The N.Y. Sun published an article on Feb 1st which negates Goldberg's nasty column out to slam Wes Clark and Matthew Yglesias, in where he states that neither Clark nor Yglesias have proven that there is a connection between AIPAC, New York Contributions, and the Iran Stance taken by some Dem and GOP politicians.

"there is zero evidence to back up Yglesias' statement that "major Jewish organizations are pushing the country into war" with Iran."

The sentences below are taken directly from the New York Sun and negates Goldberg's assertions by making statements very matter of fact: http://www.nysun.com/article/47843 (see page 2)

"New York is the ATM for American politicians. Large amounts of money come from the Jewish community," he said. "If you're running for president and you want dollars from that group, you need to show that you're interested in the issue that matters most to them."

Mrs. Clinton, who has opted out of the public campaign financing system, has tapped into the circuit of influential Jewish donors for years and has strong support in the community. A spokesman for Aipac, Joshua Block, said yesterday that the senator and former first lady has "an extremely consistent and strong record of support on issues that are important to the pro- Israel community.

Indeed, how to deal with Iran is likely to be the next majority foreign policy conundrum the 2008 presidential candidates face. While Mr. Edwards and Mrs. Clinton have different positions on how to deal with the Iraq war, each has used harsh language on Iran.

The Neoconservative N.Y. Sun is very explicit in confirming connections that Mr. Goldberg maintain don't exist, (and certainly the N.Y. Sun says much more than anything Gen. Clark or Matthew Yglesias might have ever said which has been exaggerated to an absurd degree by the hate merchants passing the story from one to another). In fact, the N.Y. Sun leaves nothing to the imagination.

Someone needs to point this out to Mr. Goldberg's editors ASAP, because it appears that they are paying good money for trash liners. The New York Sun is a Neoconservative publication, and so if Wes Clark can have the ADL come after him, and the Republican Jewish Coalition take out an ad asking for an apology from Wes http://www.rjchq.org/News.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=1204 , then the N.Y. Sun should be boycotted by ADL, RJC and everyone in between, OR it means that saying "Money People" is only harmful to those the media determines that it should harm.

So are Republican leaning publications like the New York SUN also Anti-Semite? Or is there is a double standard and this snowball rolling down the mountain towards Wes is nothing more than a smear campaign being ignited by the "Hate" merchants who are eager to sell anti-semitism at any price to quiet critics who speak against our march to war against Iran?

Here's a sharp analysis of my point written by Glenn Greenwald.... exposing the hypocrisy specifically of Wes' treatment: http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2007/02/enforced-orthodoxies-and-iran.html

In addition, Goldberg and other distractors do not ever point out that the ADL accepted Wes' explanation, nor do they mention the letter that states this. http://jta.org/page_view_breaking_story.asp?intid=6382

Meanwhile, the New York Sun--hardly a hotbed of anti-Semitism--recently reported that leading Democratic presidential contenders have been reluctant to speak out against war with Iran for fear of angering "pro-Israel" lobbying groups in New York (even though the vast majority of Jewish-Americans don't appear to favor such a war). According to the New York Post, Hillary Clinton "drew grumbles" at an AIPAC dinner "when she encouraged 'engaging' with Iran before taking stronger action to keep it nuke-free." Of course, Wes Clark and Matt Yglesias were accused of anti-Semitism and compared to Charles Lindbergh when they pointed out this state of affairs. I wonder if the Sun will get the same treatment...

I'm also curious to know why it's always and everywhere considered "pro-Israel" to support military strikes that won't, in all likelihood, destroy Iran's nuclear program, but will, in all likelihood, destroy international support for sanctions on the country, entrench the more radical factions in Tehran, and make future conflicts in the Middle East more, rather than less, likely. As if opponents of such a thing are "anti-Israel.")
http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=77751

and linking to the above is this:

Also see item by Jewschool-

The Jewschool weights with some details on the ongoing debate. The one that Goldberg believes there is no evidence of whatsoever!

by Mobius

February 5th, 2007

The AP reports:

Calling Iran a danger to the U.S. and one of Israel’s greatest threats, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Thursday that “no option can be taken off the table” when dealing with that nation. “U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons,” Clinton told a crowd of Israel supporters. “In dealing with this threat … no option can be taken off the table.”

"Clinton, D-N.Y., spoke at a Manhattan dinner held by the nation's largest pro-Israel lobbying group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee."

And The Forward:

While Jewish communal leaders focus most of their current lobbying efforts on pressing the United States to take a tough line against Iran and its nuclear program, some are privately voicing fears that they will be accused of driving America into a war with the regime in Tehran. […] In warning of possible scapegoating, insiders point to the experience of the Iraq War. Since the initial invasion in 2003, antiwar groups have charged, with growing vehemence, that the war was promoted by Jewish groups acting in Israel’s interest — even though the invasion enjoyed bipartisan backing and popular support, and was not at the top of most Jewish organizations’ agendas. The Iraq backlash prompted former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon to order in 2005 that his ministers keep a low profile on Iran. Now, however, Jewish groups are indeed playing a lead role in pressing for a hard line on Iran.

read more here

A comment I picked up online tells it better than I do!
Submitted by Nick Kelly on February 5, 2007 - 10:25pm.

"That quote in The Sun is attributed to"...a former Clinton Democratic political consultant who worked on President Clinton's re-election campaign, Hank Sheinkopf, noted that the Aipac dinner always draws a parade of politicians.

"New York is the ATM for American politicians. Large amounts of money come from the Jewish community," he said. "If you're running for president and you want dollars from that group, you need to show that you're interested in the issue that matters most to them."

http://www.nysun.com/article/47843?page_no=2

I googled Mr. Sheinkopf. I suppose those who know him will consider it an understatement to observe that it doesn't appear likely that he is an anti-semite.
So, the substance of what Wes said is now confirmed by a very knowledgeable source who is not likely to be anti-semitic, and Wes was previously said not to be anti-semitic himself by none other than Abe Foxman, the President of the anti-defamation league.

Therefore, all the articles, newspapers and blogs that are insinuating that Wes Clark is anti-semitic are --- I do hope Jonah Goldberg won't mind me borrowing his expression --- "blowhards"-Nick Kelly

Interestesting debate here.

So here's your chance to walk point for the General Write multiple letters to the Editors for each google hit you find Contact info of some of the Hate Merchants selling politics of personal destruction

Rosner - rosner@haaretz.co.il

Goldberg - JonahNRO@aol.com

National Review LTE - letters@nationalreview.com

L.A. Times - letters@latimes.com

Salt Lake Tribune - letters@sltrib.com

We need letters to go out NOW in response to the Goldberg column!

SO LET'S DROP WHAT WE ARE DOING, LET'S GET SETTLED IN , AND LET'S WALK POINTS FOR THE GENERAL - I BELIEVE THAT HE DESERVES IT -

DEBATE IS DEMOCRATIC, DISSENT IS PATRIOTIC AND SILENCE IS BETRAYAL!

According to Maxine Waters on Hardball today, Wes Clark has been warning the Congress on Bush's push towards Iran for some time.

Watch the video
30 Second Advertisement shows first.
Maxine Waters comes on at 7:17
Talks about Iran and Wes at 8:00.

Love that Maxine! She's a stand up Representative, part of the Black Congressional Caucus, progressive as heck, and discusses with Chris Matthews in direct terms what she thinks on the issues of Iraq and Iran.

General Wes Clark, a highly trained strategist and a potential Democratic presidential candidate for 2008, writes that the current President is fighting a political war on two fronts right here at home; Bush is seeking to get his Iraq surge on, and at the same time "ratcheting up the pressure on Iran".

The General lists the military and public relations build up against Iran and sums up Bush’s steps thus far:

"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...."

Now I don’t know about you, but I’ve seen the footage of the "Iranian" weapons "found" in Iraq at least 10 times starting Sunday. Considering I barely watch television news, this certain footage has been seen by many more than enough times, leaving us to think, ok, we get the picture-- But do we really? I don't know if enough of us realize how reminiscent this is of the prior PR sales job so many bought into just a few short years ago. General Clark and I agree; it is absolutely the last thing we need now.

So why is the temperature being raised all of the sudden? And why does this have the feel of a 2002 deja vu?

Here's one answer as stated by the General, "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."

And According to Clark, "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."

Well, I certainly have learned that force and threats will get us nowhere but mired into costly and deadly quicksand, something we are already caught up in. But has the administration learned this? Because to hear them talking, it doesn’t appear so, and this has been all the while General Clark has advocated this direct approach to diplomacy, long before it was ever suggested by a Baker Commission! Coincidently, It wasn't until yesterday that the President's finally made some casual cavalier pronouncements of feigned interest in "diplomacy", because in reality, the administration has consistently turned its nose up at the mere mention of talks, negotiations, discussion, or any other diplomatic suggestions. It is as though they are fearful of legitimizing the accurate notion that talks with Iran are way overdue.

And of that apparent lack of the President’s willingness to "engage"Iran, Clark asks:

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?"

Short answer; Doh.....Ye-ah!

So here’s my shorthanded advise to the Bush Administration:

• First stop the pitiful swaggering cowboy threats
• Then let the big mouths pundits and hardnosed tough guys and gals in congress know that they need to chill for a bit, because this is no game.
• Now, close your eyes, take a deep breath, and move your shoulders up and down slowly.
• Open your mouth and beg Wes Clark to accept the position to head a team of his own choosing to get the hard diplomacy done.
• Once Wes Clark & Co. smooths out the rough edges and gets a productive dialogue going, then let the political vultures swoop in to claim the ultimate credit.

Now that might be the smartest strategic move this President ever makes in his political life. Just don't hold your breath. Bush simply isn't that smart, and hasn't indicated that he is ready to choose peace over confrontation; quiet negotiations over loud bravado.

But very seriously, we really can't afford to wait till election 2008 before getting some kind of dialogue going with Iran. This diplomacy needs to happen now, before there’s some kind of "international" incident. But sadly, the way this Administration is building a case that Iran is the enemy (as though we needed anymore of those) is dangerous, frightening and simply unwise. Because as General Clark puts it, "wouldn't want to be branding people as enemies too soon. That was one of Bush's many mistakes. Iran is a nation we have many disagreements with...and that's why we should be discussing, not sabre rattling."

Because even having to think of waging more wars-- well.....that’s an insanity just too close for comfort.

PS. Want to know and learn more? Read Clark's entire relevant diary; the questions and the answers. Makes one wish Bush could at least figure out how to use the Internet(s)!

Also see:
"The Year of Iran": Can The People Be Fooled Twice?
INFO GALORE! Wes Clark on Iran In Clark's own words
IRAN and U.S. Politics - The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Maxine WATERS on Hardball- Wes CLARK has been warning Congress on BUSH & IRAN
Clark vs the Neocons on Iran
Our Canary in a Neocon Coal Mine
General Clark blogging on Iran today

As General Wesley Clark was actively concerned about the needless deaths of thousands of innocent victims in Rwanda, Bosnia and Kosovo (the last which was prevented to great measure thanks to the General), Clark is equally deeply troubled about what is currently happening in Darfur.

This particular round of genocide isn't new. It has been going on for quite a few years now.

Wes Clark was one of the early leaders in bringing Darfur to the attention of Americans. Using his voice, well known for ringing the alarm bell on such matters, Wes Clark brought the problem to the forefront shortly after it came to a head. That was back in 2004. Certainly since, Darfur has become a cause celebre with celebrities such as George Clooney and Angelina Jolie bringing much needed attention to the cause of stopping the genocide in Darfur, Sudan.

Needless to say, General Wesley Clark, as usual, was ahead of the curve and in front of the times. Tragically, the genocide continues to this date.

Wes Clark advocates for swift intervention to the deaf ears of the Bush Administration. They say that they understand that Darfur is a pressing genocide, but they drag their feet. Clark recommends International humanitarian intervention via the UN and possibly NATO.

You can locate the articles and radio interviews that the General has done on the subject of Darfur dating back to 2004 through the present Here.

I located an excellent post on Democratic Underground by Clark Supporter, Westcott.

It provides both the transcripts and Video Testimony that General Clark gave to Congress back in September of 2002.

It's priceless!

Go here and see what I mean!

also read:
What Wes Clark said prior to The Iraq War
The Iraq War Resolution - Did Clark support "a" resolution or "the" resolution?
Mining and finding Prescient Gems-Clark's 2002 Iraq Congressional Testimony
Wes Clark in '08! Why Supporting someone who was Right on Iraq in 2002 makes sense.
Clark's 2002 Congressional Testimony - Youtube w/t Transcript
The Levin Amendment- The Resolution that Wes Clark was "For"!

If you go here, you'll get a more fully sourced synopsis on Wes Clark's involvement in attempting to get Washington to respond to the terrible genocide as it was happening in Rwanda.

Rwanda.... On a more practical level, we need to see the provision of forces and resources on the ground that were so tragically lacking in Rwanda. Throughout the three months of slaughter, from April to June 1994, there were ample opportunities for a relatively small, well-trained force to intervene and stop genocide in its tracks. There were many proposals — not least from U.S. General Wesley Clark, who presented a plan for a small force to establish corridors of escape.

This article, referring to Wes Clark's frustration:

Throughout the '90s, he bridled at U.S. inaction, particularly in Rwanda, where rampaging Hutu militiamen murdered 800,000 Tutsi in 100 days. The response from Washington was worse than nothing: Secretary of State Warren Christopher urged a "full, orderly withdrawal" of U.N. peacekeepers, lest the United States be called upon to relieve the rump force, a prospect the Pentagon adamantly opposed. Clark, then Shalikashvili's policy director, was ashamed. He later observed to author Samantha Power, "The Pentagon is always going to be the last to want to intervene." In Waging Modern War, Clark implies that the military dishonored itself "when we stood by as nearly a million Africans were hacked to death."

and I'll sadly leave you with this excerpt from a 2003 Esquire interview with General Clark to echo in your hearts:

The United States, however, wouldn't invade Rwanda, although Clark pushed his mentor, General John Shalikashvili, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, to push for an intervention. Shalikashvili declined after Clark told him twenty thousand troops would be required, and as Clark says now, "I watched as we stood by as eight hundred thousand people were hacked to death by machete."

STOP PREVENTATIVE WAR BY TAKING PREVENTATIVE ACTION NOW!
Just do it!

Click on it and go!

For those who long ago tuned out the Anna Nicole Smith tabloid case and/or the “much to do about nothing” Clinton and Obama fest, and are actively following what is going in reference to the President’s plans on what to do about Iran, there are some significant items being reported!

Apparently, according to the U.K. Telegraph, preparations are being made for Israel to launch air attacks on Iran. I don’t know if this is true, but I do know that it’s damn scary!

Meanwhile the Sunday Times is reporting that U.S. Generals are threatening to quit, if America attacks Iran.

In 2002, we, the people were late on the issue of preventing a war. The Iraq War Resolution passed in October; we didn't take to the streets by the thousands till way too late. Had we been galvanized in larger numbers prior to October, we could have made a difference. As it were, we didn't realize how terrible it would all turn out. Some even took years to "get it". Well now, we all should know.

Gen. Wes Clark took the lead on this long ago, and having someone up front who recognizes dangers before they become dangerous is the best kind of leader.

Like IndianaGreen, a poster on Democratic Underground, wisely remarked, “ When someone as level headed as Wes Clark pushes the alarm button about a war on Iran, he got my attention.”

Wes Clark and VoteVets.org’s new website http://www.stopiranwar.com/ has handy letter writing tools to write to your Congressional Representatives, and both the national and the local press. I utilized these tools to send many newspaper editors my thoughts on this Iran/boogeyman to bomb scenario that is being marketed to the American people. I can’t post my letters here just yet, because letters published elsewhere on the internet are normally rejected by staff members selecting letters to be printed. Guess they use “google”?

And so I hope that whomever is reading this has already sent their letter to Pres. Bush, their congressional members, and the media on this issue. It may be one of the most important thing you do. Don’t delay taking action, because timing is everything. The corporate media must cover this issue, and not just from the perspective of the administration.

And remember that the bottomline message has got to be that “War is not the Answer”.

RECOMMENDED READING:
Clark vs the Neocons on Iran
http://www.aleftturnforclark.com/2007/02/clark_vs_the_neocons_on_iran.html

War is NOT the answer: Israeli flyover plans?
http://www.awesclarkdemocrat.com/2007/02/war_is_not_the_answer.htm

WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER - We won't get fooled again
http://www.moderatingthemadness.com/2007/02/war_is_not_the_answer_we_wont.html

General Wes Clark: Fighting the War on Iran While Other Democrats Just Fight Each Other
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-boyce/general-wes-clark-fighti_b_41833.html

You can also listen to the Wes Clark's recent interview on Ed Schultz show here

and the excellent Bog Radio Interview with both Wes Clark and VoteVets.org's founder Jon Stoltz here.

Check it out! You'll be glad you did!

You will recognize some in the supporting cast, including Gen. Wes Clark.

Consider it a little Pre-Oscar Celebration!

Kudos to the actors, the director and the writer(s) -

Watch HIT MEN here