” Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. As the parent of armies, war encourages debt and taxes, the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors and emoulments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people…no nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare…”

-James Madison,
from Political Observations, April 20, 1795

Thank you for posting this quote, RonD.

How is that any better exactly? He is still saying let the Senators do the heavy lifting, but he ignores the fact that Senate isn’t doing shit other than asking “how high” when the Republicans and the White House tell them they’d better jump.

And, by the way General Clark, fuck you very much, you egotistical aerial-bombing-loving political lightweight. He was Patreaus before Patreaus was cool.

Matt Stoller: You recently called the Moveon ad criticizing Petraeus a ‘big mistake’. Why is it a big mistake?

Wes Clark: Because it distracted attention from focusing on the failures of the policy and let the other side play a game of personal attack again and you know sort of outrage at that. That’s a mistake. It distracted us from the dialogue we needed.

Matt Stoller: So your argument is…

Wes Clark: It gave something that Republicans could all agree on.

MS: So your argument is not that it was inaccurate in any way.

Wes Clark: No, I’d say it was a mistake tactically.

Wes Clark: I think that you’ve got to hold the political leadership accountable for that. Why let Bush get away with hiding behind his general? Why not just attack Bush directly?

Matt Stoller: Ok, but David Petraeus claims that violence is down, and his report is the outlier. The Associated Press, the Los Angeles Times, the GAO, all say that violence remains high. I don’t understand why Petraeus should be above criticism for representing information that isn’t credible.

Wes Clark: He shouldn’t be above criticism. You should quarrel with the information, don’t quarrel with his character.

Wes Clark: Moveon’s an organization, and when it does that it distracts from the dialogue that the Senator’s trying to have. Frankly, I think the better course of action is to bring out all the statistics and challenge Petraeus directly to explain how he can say that in the face of all these statistics. Did we do that? Did Moveon do that? Did they lay out the statistics and say ‘Petraeus says this, here’s the other fact he doesn’t tell you, General Petraeus come back to us and explain to us.

Matt Stoller: Absolutely they did that. That’s what the ad was, was there anything in the ad that was factually inaccurate?

Wes Clark: What instead came out was the play on his name, and that’s all that came out. And that was the mistake. If it was a serious ad, did it ask those serious questions, no one could have objected to it.

Matt Stoller: Ok so let’s go back to the Petraeus ad. In particular you said that truth is relative, so truth is sort of malleable, can you go into that concept a little bit more?

Wes Clark: Well I’ve got about two minutes Matt before I’ve got to get on. Petraeus set up his criteria, I’m sure he’s trying to project progress, he’s using those statistics to guide the performance of his forces out there, and I’m sure that’s what he sees, an effort to move towards progress. And yet, the fact is there’s not a lot of progress, and people need to see both sides and that’s what the dialogue’s about but I don’t think you advance the dialogue by name-calling and that’s the Republican side. I’ve been called a lot of names by Rush Limbaugh and I don’t appreciate it and I don’t think we advance our own efforts by making a pun off his name. Let other people do that.

Matt Stoller: So how do the millions of people who feel lied to by General Petraeus express themselves? What’s the appropriate way to express themselves?

Wes Clark: Send emails, write editorials, call Senators, write Op-Eds, letters to the editors, but make them substantive, serious letters. If you feel like he has lied to you say so, but don’t make the pun on his name. Show it with facts and let people draw the conclusion. It’s inflammatory rhetoric to hurl out accusations of lying, that’s a conclusion that has to be drawn by a careful review and examination of the evidence and it has to be used with great circumspection. That kind of reckless language, especially the use of puns and so forth, people don’t like it, it doesn’t change peoples’ minds, it alienates support, and this is a democracy. We’ve got to convince moderate middle of the road Americans to come our way. We won’t do it with those kinds of ads.

Matt Stoller: Ok, thanks a..

Wes Clark: I’m sorry, you’re asking my straight up opinion, I know there are a lot of people who will disagree, but I’m gonna tell it to you straight, that’s what I feel.

Matt Stoller: I appreciate that.

………………..I think you totally misrepresented the whole interview
Wes Clark disagreed with the name calling tactic and he is RIGHT!

TACTICAL ERROR!!! Nothing but Repub CHUM.

Jane this post stinks but I still love ya.

First, once this fool amendment was up for a vote, the Dems were in a no-win position. I’m disappointed, but I won’t beat up on any of them for making a judgment as to what would or would not play at home. The ad headline was, after all, over the top. I reserve my fury for Reid, who should have had more sense than to allow the thing onto the floor.

I love it that MoveOn bounced back so quick with those McConnell and Giuliani ads, and got smarter about the tagline (”betrayal of trust” expunges the ambiguity about whether “treason” was implied, and retroactively clarifies the Petraeus headline too.)

I don’t agree with Wes Clark’s take. But he’s not saying Senators have the right to criticize generals, and citizens don’t. He’s talking about tactics, not rights. His claim is just that the Wurlitzer is prepared to overlook the harshness of an assertion by a Senator, which it will not overlook when it comes from a progressive organization. I think he’s right that, given the realities of the playing field, the language of ordinary folks on our side has a finer line to walk between being provocative and being offensive than the language of ordinary folks on their side. He’s wrong in thinking that this means liberals would be wise always to keep well to the tame side of that line, but that’s a matter of poor political instinct on his part, not of disrespect for free speech.

An example of one reason I, a USA citizen, no longer live in the USA is this: The government voting to condemn criticism of the government by the country’s own citizens.

Come on, MoveOn! The war affects the entire planet, nor are all USAians are in the USA, so why the hell is the petition restricted to people (who do not want to lie) with a USA zip code!?

Whatever, I signed the petition.

End the Iraq Occupation. Redeploy the troops.

We find ourselves in a very dangerous period in our history when the military is worshipped to the point that criticism is vilified by political “leaders.”

Incredible.

Run the clock back 56 years and we find the opposite, when the President (Harry Truman) finally canned MacArthur. The people were enraged and Truman knew his act was political suicide. He did it because it was right. Then we had real honest to God leaders.

DC wants citizens to STFU.

So true. This is my first post, but have been lurking for months. I just signed the petition and gave a little too. Thanks to all of you for the education I’ve received here at the lake. Feels good to dip my toes in!

“We will not be silent. We are your bad conscience. The White Rose will not leave you in peace.”

And Congress, you can take that “…not leave you in peace” bit to the bank, cuz I’m gonna be on your ass like white on rice.

I’ve already sent my eyeful to Bill Nelson and Mel Martinez. Worthless bastards.