Politics: November 2003 Archives

A few interesting items today I wanted to mention. First off, the Rocky has named John Hickenlooper Business Person of the Year for 2003. The article covers his business history from his childhood to today as well as some of his business victories since becoming Mayor. Congratulations!

Hickenlooper, 51, embodies the modern-day pioneer spirit of Colorado, said Tom Clark, president of the Metro Denver Economic Development Corp.

"He started anew in Colorado, earned his stripes the hard way and brought his passion for being a successful businessperson into civic life," Clark said. "He is the ultimate citizen politician. You couldn't ask for a greater definition of the Business Person of the Year. I think he is a great choice. He is so friggin' unpretentious. I hope he stays that way."

Also in the Rocky is a profile of Michael Bennet, Hickenlooper's chief of staff. It's a must read to understand the kind of dedicated people Hickenlooper attracts to make Denver a better place.

"At the end of the day," said Kurt Hall, one of the chief executive officers of Regal Entertainment Group, "he's one of the guys that I can count on one hand that I've dealt with in the investment world that have character."

Last, but certainly not least, the Colorado Supreme Court will be ruling on whether the Republican redistricting plan for the state will be allowed to move forward.

The court fight could have major implications, with Republicans now holding five of the state's seven congressional seats and hoping to solidify their hold on those.

Democrats on the other hand hope to pick up two of those seats - if they win the court fight.

Democrats need to gain 12 seats to take control of the 435-member House, an uphill fight in view of state-by-state redistricting in 2001. A GOP redistricting plan in Texas could add to the GOP majority - although that plan, too, is being challenged in court - and help President Bush in a re-election bid.

Political experts say if the redistricting plans in Colorado and Texas are allowed to stand, it could lead to similar changes nationwide.

The rulings will be available here on Monday.

I think we're going to be seeing a lot of this picture in the coming year.

Marilyn Musgrave and her Federal Marriage Amendment nonsense is one thing. The woman is a wackjob, and its up to her constituants to either remove her, or stand with her in wackjob solidarity. She doesn't represent me, and I have no say in what she does. Wayne Allard on the other hand, I can do something about. I had no particular problem with Allard before, but with this move we're beginning to look a lot like the "Hate State" once again. Whoever his opponent will be in 2008 - assuming my memory lasts that long - has earned themselves a volunteer.

Sen. Wayne Allard on Tuesday introduced a Senate version of a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, meaning four of the nine Coloradans in Congress have lent their names to the controversial cause.

Allard's measure is meant to short-circuit the debate being waged in U.S. courts by defining marriage as being between a man and a woman.

"This union is sacred and must remain so," Allard added.

Allard's amendment is identical to one being carried in the House of Representatives by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, a Fort Morgan Republican.

Good news on the electronic voting front. I thought I had mentioned the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2003 before in this space, but apparently I had not. In any case, this bill, assuming it passes, should address all of the concerns about the auditability of electronic voting in time for the November 2004 general election.

As criticism of electronic voting systems heats up across the nation, three Republicans have signed on to support a bill that would force e-voting machines to produce a paper trail. Previously only Democrats had vowed to support the bill.

Republican congressmen Tom Davis of Virginia, Christopher Shays of Connecticut and New Hampshire's Charles Bass have agreed to co-sponsor the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2003, which was introduced to the House in May by Rush Holt (D-N.J.).

The bill would require electronic voting machines that currently don't offer a paper trail, such as touch-screen voting machines, to produce a receipt. The receipts would allow voters to verify that a machine recorded their vote correctly and would be used as an audit trail in case of a computer malfunction or other election irregularity.

There are currently 74 co-sponsors of the bill. Davis, Shays and Bass, however, are the first Republicans to sign on as co-sponsors. Davis is the former chair of the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee.

Congressman Holt said voter receipts should not be a partisan issue, as all parties should be concerned about the integrity of voting systems.

In other electronic voting news, David Chaum, noted cryptographer, inventor of eCash and founder of DigiCash (a mid-90's neighbor of mine at CWI/SARA in Amsterdam) has been working with other cryptographers in coming up with a very interesting way to provide voters with take-home receipts without the vote-selling concerns which have made this illegal in the past.

The new type of receipt is printed in two layers by a modified version of familiar receipt printers. You can read it clearly in the booth, but before leaving, you must separate the layers and choose which one to keep. Either one you take has the vote information you saw coded in it, but it cannot be read (except with numeric keys divided among computers run by election officials).

The half you take is supplied digitally by the voting machine for publication on an official election website. These posted receipts are the input to the process of making the final tally. A lotto-like draw selects points in the process that must be decrypted for inspection, but not so many points as to compromise privacy. Anyone with a PC can then use simple software to check all such decryptions published on the website and thereby verify that the final tally must be correct. Such audit cannot be fooled, no matter how many voting machines or other election computers are compromised or how clever or well-resourced the attack.

This Monday, December 1st is the monthly Clark 2004 Meetup. In Denver, the Meetup will be held at the John Stewart VFW Post #1, 955 Bannock St in Denver (just north of Speer). 30 are already confirmed to attend, but 84 voted so it should be a good sized group. If you plan on attending, find out your precinct number ahead of time so planning can begin for the caucus in April. Denver residents can find out their precinct numbers here. Otherwise check your voter information card or contact your County Clerk. Also, they'll be holding a clothing drive to benefit soldiers recuperating at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany. If you have any winter clothes, toiletries or international calling cards or want to get some, bring them along.

Clark participated in last nights DNC Debate in Iowa (transcript here). Not that I'm biased, but I think Clark came out the winner, and most of the MSNBC analysts agreed, including Jesse Jackson, Norman Schwarzkopf, and Howard Fineman. It's interesting to note that former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan and Weekly Standard columnist Stephen F. Hayes thought Dean came out the winner. Take that however you like.

My favorite Clark moment came in response to the current RNC ad airing in Iowa which accuses "Some are now attacking the President for attacking the terrorists." Clark's answer: "I'm not attacking the president because he's attacking terrorists. I'm attacking him because he isn't attacking terrorists. And that's the problem with this administration."

His closing statement, also somewhat in response to the RNC ad, sums up why I think Clark is our best chance in the general election.

CLARK: Well, Tom, tonight we're in Iowa. But the real debate is not here. It's going to be a year from now with George W. Bush and we can already see the outlines of this debate.

It's going to be about the war on terror, foreign policy and who can keep America safe. And we see the ads trying to strip us of our patriotism and our ability to hold our president accountable for the mistakes he's made.

CLARK: Now, we know that we're not safer today and we know he's made mistakes. But we also see those ads.

And so I think the real question is before this party: Who is the person best able to answer the questions America will ask? Who can stand toe to toe with George Bush and argue foreign policy and security policy and the values that we, as Americans, believe in?

I'm the only person on the stage who's led major forces in an alliance in war. And I'm the only person here who's negotiated or helped to negotiate an agreement to end a war.

I am the candidate who can stand with George W. Bush and win this election.

On a side note, I was pretty impressed with Carol Moseley Braun's performance in the debate. I wish she had a reasonable chance, but she'll probably be out of money shortly. She's the kind of candidate that could be spending her limited campaign funds more effectively on an Internet oriented campaign, but a look at her website is a let down. Oh well.

Along those lines, it's time for the DNC to start winnowing down the field for these debates. How they do it is up to them, but there's too many candidates up there on stage, most of whom don't have a chance in hell of winning the nomination, let alone the general election.

Incidentally, the DNC unveiled a new ad featuring Ragin' Cajun James Carville and being that K-Street has been retired, it looks like that's the only place outside the talk circuit you'll be seeing him.

I've been lax in my daily dosing. To make up, here is a profile of The General running in the NY Times today.

All of which is to say that General Clark is complicated. The very conjunction of general and Democrat suggests complication. Could someone who voted for Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, the first George Bush, Bill Clinton and Al Gore be anything but complicated? Could someone who as supreme allied commander of NATO presided over its 1999 victory in Kosovo and then summarily lost his job be anything but complicated?

A defender of civil rights, he is suspicious of the post-9/11 antiterrorism law and wants to see bookmobiles chug around the country with copies of it so people will understand its dark implications. And yet he favors a constitutional amendment to outlaw defiling the American flag. Complicated.

One more indicator: In searching for an aperture into civilian life, he sketched out three fresh careers. First he would enter business and amass $40 million (a figure he plucked out of the air to have a goal) and metamorphose into a modest version of George Soros, the billionaire philanthropist. That done, he would recede into a university and teach leadership. He would also work at compressing his golf handicap (last seen stuck at 18) in preparation for Career No. 3: a teaching golf professional.

A Plato-quoting Rhodes scholar four-star Army general stationed on the practice range, reconfiguring errant swings? Correct. In golf, he finds profundity. "Golf is like life," he said. "When you learn a sport, you go through the cycle of humility. You learn about yourself."

He did not get deep into these new realms. He managed to round up roughly one-twentieth of the $40 million he sought before he detoured into Career No. 4, which he crisply introduces at each campaign stop: "I'm Wes Clark. I'm running for president."

Yesterday, General Clark unveiled his "Rural and Farm Security Plan"

During the economic boom of the 1990s, many of America's rural communities didn't enjoy the same prosperity and growth as our cities and suburbs. And now, with the whole country enduring an economic downturn, the situation in rural areas has gotten even worse. Now is the time to turn the country-and the heartland-around. With his Rural and Farm Security Plan, Wes Clark will: fight for America's family farmers and ranchers, jumpstart the rural economy, explore the promise of new energy and provide access to quality healthcare and education to all Americans in rural communities.

On Friday he presented his "Manufacturing Security Plan"

The manufacturing sector is the backbone of the American economy. In the 1990s, growth in manufacturing contributed an estimated 22 percent of overall GDP growth. In 2002, the manufacturing sector constituted roughly 16 percent of total U.S. economic output. However, the manufacturing sector has been hit hard by the Bush recession. Since President Bush took office, the manufacturing sector has lost more than 2.5 million jobs-one out of every seven jobs in the manufacturing sector. That's more lost manufacturing jobs 33 months than in the previous 20 years combined. The economy has shed manufacturing jobs each and every month George W. Bush has been President. Wes Clark's New American Patriotism agenda involves making smart economic choices to get America moving in the right direction again. Wes Clark proposes a three-pronged Manufacturing Security Plan:

• Jumpstart the manufacturing sector and get jobs growing today
• Stop rewarding companies that move jobs overseas and start rewarding companies that produce in America
• Create the conditions for the manufacturing sector of the future

Here is an instance of why Rather's post-interview comments concern me. Jacob Weisberg, editor of Slate, in a conversation about Clark's new ads with political correspondent William Saletan, raises the following point:

Why did his determination to fight on humanitarian grounds in Kosovo not extend to Iraq? In the scale of his despotism, Saddam Hussein was Stalin to Milosevic's Mussolini. Saddam's efforts at ethnic cleansing and repression were bigger and more vicious than anything Milosevic was capable of. Clark objects to the way Bush went about making war on Iraq, and so do I. But everything Clark says now is calculated to leave the impression, true or not, that he wouldn't have used the military to end the humanitarian and human rights catastrophe in Iraq.

What distinguishes these two instances of humanitarian intervention isn't principle, but politics. Kosovo was Clark's war. Iraq is Bush's. The general's self-serving use of one war to flay his enemy for the other is hardly shocking. Yet I resent this ad for trying to wash the contradiction away with swelling violins.

The General's position needs to be clarified for the sake of consistancy.

I honestly don't think his position is that the humanitarian situation in Iraq was not comparable to Kosovo. I would expect from his past positions that perhaps he didn't see it as the imminent, organized campaign that was underway in Kosovo. Therefore, the reasoning would go, we could have taken the time to get the world behind a humanitarian liberation of Iraq rather than trying to scare the world with bogus intelligence on WMD and terrorist links.

It's starting to be spun badly and I think a more definitive statement on this matter would help clear it up.

Clark spoke to the Council on Foreign Relations today on the topic of Restoring America's Alliances.

Earlier this year, another British Prime Minister came to the United States. Before a joint session of Congress, Tony Blair told us: "There never has been a time when the power of America was so necessary." But like Churchill, he also delivered a warning. He said that we must work with our allies to defeat terror, and that "what America must do is to show that this is a partnership built on persuasion, not command." This time, however, our leaders did not listen. They did not heed the warning.

The key points of his plan for a New Atlantic Charter:

• Mutual Commitment - To address the security issues we face, America must declare its commitment to work with its democratic allies as a first, not last resort. European nations should make the same commitment
• Improving Rather Than Spurning Treaties - All allied nations must commit to improving international treaties and organizations rather than spurning them. This commitment includes the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the Kyoto Agreement. Working on international agreements is not just good policy for the United States. It will breathe new life into the Atlantic alliance.
• Agreement on Action - Craft an agreement on collective responses - diplomatic, economic and legal - to new threats, including the menace of:
  • Terrorism
  • Failed states
  • Ethnic cleansing
  • International Disputes
  • Nuclear and Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation
• At Work Outside Europe - Work with our NATO allies on a political strategy to promote reform, human rights, and the rule of law in the greater Middle East. Look for inspiration from programs like NATO's Partnership for Peace.
• Willingness to Lead - Promise to return America to its historic role of peacemaker in the Middle East - by meeting, not abdicating, our responsibility to seek an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In recent weeks, past leaders of Israel's security services and the current Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces have said that military measures alone will never lead to peace in the Middle East. Clark agrees. We must encourage both sides to meet their commitments.
• Capabilities for Action - Set the conditions and create the capabilities to enable NATO to act. This reorganizes our government so that we can bring to bear the economic, diplomatic and political tools in our arsenal. And adapting our military not just for fighting contemporary wars, but also for peacekeeping and post-conflict operations.
• Force As A Last Resort - Only as a matter of last resort in the case of imminent danger NATO should prepare for collective preemption. "Of course," Clark noted, "unilateral action may be necessary when the threat is imminent, the evidence persuasive, and other options unavailable."

(summary cribbed from the Wes Points newsletter since I've had a very busy day and didn't want to deprive you all of your Daily Dose of Clark)

Don't miss The General tonight on David Letterman.

General Clark appeared on 60 Minutes II tonight in a great interview with Dan Rather. The transcript and a short video clip are online. Clark got very emotional during this discussion of the Balkan genoicde:

DAN RATHER: You brought a book along with you this morning and before we get too much further along, I'd like you to tell me why you brought it along and what impresses you in it.

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well I brought this book along. I was given this book a few days ago up in Dartmouth. And when I opened it and just flipped through it, I -- by the photographer who was there-- he-- I immediately realized why I had so strongly warned the Pentagon about the dangers and the need to focus on Slobodan Milosevic and what was going on in the Balkans.

And I brought it along because it's-- when you talk about policy disputes, sometimes it can seem academic. It's like words. They don't mean much. And I brought it along because I want to show you what a policy dispute's all about. This is Behelena (PH) in Bosnia, Herzegovina, in 1992. This is what ethnic cleansing is, or was, in the Balkans.

These are Serbs. These are dead Muslims. This is the casualness, the pornography of violence against civilians. And this is not real war. This is war against unarmed people. (UNINTEL PHRASE) these dead, he's kicking them. He's relaxing at the end of (UNINTEL), he's got a cigarette lit, he's got his sunglasses up. He just wants to make sure he's finished his work. And I just couldn't bear the thought that the United States would stand by and allow this to happen.

DAN RATHER: What is the other picture you have marked?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: In the summer of 1998, while I was in command, another round of ethnic cleansing started. And I was warning the Pentagon about it and trying to mobilize U.S. opinion and U.S. leadership to take action to prevent it.

Well, we did take some action. We tried to undertake diplomacy. There was a lot of discussion. And meanwhile the Serbs were moving some 300 to 400,000 Kosovar Albanians -- were driven from their homes. They fled to the mountains because they had to get away from the Serb military.

And in the mountains, this is what you saw. This is a five-week-old baby who's died of exposure. And the family's preparing him for burial. When you can stop something like this, you should.

DAN RATHER: ...Hearing you speak of this is the first time I've seen you speak with real emotion.

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Yeah.

DAN RATHER: Deep-seated emotion. Tell me why that is?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Why? Because you're dealing with people's lives when you're dealing with things like this, Dan. This is about life and death. It's about the difference between academic theories and discussions of deterrence and prevention and preemption, and what the real impact is on the ground of U.S. actions.

And I don't think you can be a real statesman or a real leader and be-- can connect the two. Lots of people go to school and they study it. Lots of people on the ground. But there aren't enough linkages. It's easy when you're in the United States to depersonalize all that's happening over there.

And so we don't have an interest in it. You know, there were people in this case who said, "We don't have any interest here. I mean there's no oil. If there were oil here, we'd stop this." So we'd rather fight for oil than to save lives. I don't think so. I don't think that's what this country really believes or what we stand for. So I do get emotional about this. Because when you can do good, you should

This is a man who, unlike Bush, I trust with a muscular humanitarian foreign policy. My only concern... this doesn't seem to square with a comment Rather made after the interview was over, that Clark didn't think Iraq was a case of genocide justifying invasion. I think it's fairly clear, especially in hindsight - and maybe hindsight is the key - that it was. I'm not sure if this reflects Clark's actual position, or a misperception of Rather's. I'm not the only one concerned by this (see comments in the Clark Community Network thread on the interview here, here, here and elsewhere throughout the whole thread) and I'll be following up if I can clarify his actual position. In any case, I think it's clear what his visceral reaction to such a situation is, and perhaps this is just a case of confusion following his campaigns bungling of things over the last few weeks.

Here's the niftiest thing I've yet seen to come out of the Clark Community Network. Clark's old Security Officer has started up a CCN blog to discuss his experiences serving under The General.

Ladies and Gentlemen, we, his security agents used the phase "Going Hot!" everytime General Clark landed in a combat or hostile area. I want you to know that the boss is "Going Hot" based on his appearance today on FOX. I haven't seen the boss this upset since the time he dressed down war criminals from Bosnia. The last time I saw the boss, I could see that his focus is on the mission. Hang on people!!!!, the boss has his war face on! Sir, Tomahawk Cruise Missles down range!! Mar 1999

Cris Hernandez, Chief Warrant Officer (Ret)

They're also in the process of integrating some new tools into the Network. The Clark Recruiter lets you keep track of the resources you bring to the campaign and earn incentives from them. The Clark Event Finder helps you locate Clark 04 events in your area. And On The Issues centralizes all of his policy briefs in one place.

Dan Conley's is getting on board the Clark Train, and so should you.

If you need more encouragement, go watch The General flip out on a Fox News talking head attempting to pull the same old "why do you disrespect our fighting men and women by opposing Bush" schtick.

Gregg Easterbrook is impressed with John Kerry's writings from Vietnam. I just finished the excerpt published in this month's Atlantic Monthly last night. It's too bad the timing coincided with his staff bugging out, because it really is a pretty compelling story. It just showed up in the mail last week, so it probably won't make it to The Atlantic's web site until next week but check it out when it does - or you can borrow my copy when I'm done ;)

The name John Kerry and the word Vietnam are about to make big news. The December Atlantic Monthly cover story is an excerpt from Douglas Brinkley's forthcoming book Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War. Kerry gave Brinkley, a historian, complete access to the copious pages of diaries, letters, and notes that the presidential candidate wrote while serving in Vietnam. The material, mainly concerning Kerry's disillusionment with failed policies and needless killing, is relevant to the situation in Iraq, and potentially controversial.

While I will of course vote for Dean if he becomes the Democratic nominee, Kevin Drum and I both agree that the quickest way to Democratic defeat would be a Dean candidacy. As far as I'm concerned, Dean would be a fine candidate, and quite possibly - as a domestic centrist - my favorite, if not for his ardent anti-war stance. It's the thousand pound anchor around his neck that is guaranteed to sink him in the general election. You simply have to look around you at the state of mind of the average American today to realize this.

I have to say it: I think Dean is unelectable. Without going into tedious detail, just try to imagine that it's April and the $200 million attack machine has geared up. And think about what the ads are going to look like, especially to moderates who aren't true believers in the Dean phenomenon already. (Go ahead: use your imagination. And try to be brutally realistic.) To me, they look devastating. I know it's not fair, but this election isn't going to have anything to do with fairness.

And if you want one single thing to chew on, it's this: national security is going to be the main theme of the election. I don't care if we like it or not, the Republicans are the ones with the money and the bully pulpit and they're going to hammer on it. And while I know that a lot of liberals think that anti-war sentiment is going to wash over the country in a great wave, it's just not realistic to think that's going to happen. Really, it's not.

Wired is reporting on The General's new 'Clark Community Network'

The Clark Community Network allows users to contribute content, organize themselves into groups and administer various aspects of the network. Barrett said this shared sense of responsibility would differentiate Clark's online community from the popular Dean campaign blog.

"The Dean campaign has a lot of momentum and they're utilizing it well, but they are missing the key aspect of online community, which is a sense of ownership to a group or affiliation -- geographic or special-interest -- providing a little bit of ownership of the campaign to every person who wants it, and providing a robust set of communities online that allow people to talk and plan events and do grassroots campaigning," he said.

At launch, Clark Community Network users will be able to create blogs, polls and e-mail lists. Soon after, Barrett said, developers plan to roll out additional features, including photo galleries, event planners and a feature that tracks and rewards users who bring in recruits to the site.

[via Political Wire]

This is one of the funniest take-downs I've read in a long time, and for that Philosoraptor earns a spot in my Daily Read. If you've got a spare 10 minutes, give it a look.

In the end, the essay does promote a caricature of masculinity, a caricature that's tied up with disrespect for both women and homosexuals (raising the question: who's left for this guy to have sex with, anyway?). And, to top it all off, du Toit apparently lives in some weird, right-wing dream world in which Republicans are upstanding defenders of the good and the true, Democrats are pansies, and liberal women are just waiting around to be ravished by Donald Rumsfeld. No, I'm not making this up. Read on, reader; you are about to be amazed. You are about to enter... The DuToit-light Zone...

[via Ted Barlow at Crooked Timber. Read the original post, it contains another funny piece]

I've been waiting for a reasonable assessment of Dean's Confederate flag statements. The American Prospect has delivered.

But, if he can reframe our nation's obsession with its race into a shared economic agenda, he stands a chance of making progress. Indeed, lost in the hoopla about Dean's remarks was his argument that those poor southern whites "ought to be voting with us because their kids don't have health insurance, either, and their kids need better schools, too." That's the part not enough people heard -- and that's what we need to hear more about from Dean.

The DNC had a little Bush haiku contest on their blog, Kicking Ass. Haiku good.

1st place: Mark L.
I pledge allegiance
to the United States of
Halliburton, Inc.

2nd place: doogieh
What Roves the hallways
of the Bush America?
Some say it's treason.

3rd place: Wayne Canne
YOU ARE EITHER WITH
deficit rich guy tax breaks
US, OR AGAINST US.

4th place: doogieh
Please watch what you say.
Patriots don't criticize
The Republicans.

5th place: acallidryas
New attacks each day.
Over one hundred more dead.
Mission Accomplished?

6th place: Mark L.
No child left behind,
Clean skies, healthy forests and
Iraq. Pants on fire!

7th place (tie): Rumblelizard
There should be limits
To freedom, he said. And now,
We see he meant it.

7th place (tie): Shant Mesrobian
Screwed the country bad
Two thousand four awaits him
He'll go just like Dad.

9th place (tie): Irfo
Preppy cheerleader
Pretends to be working man
But nothing's working.

9th place (tie): Debbs
Watch fat cats choke down
$2,000 hot dogs.
Hand me a pretzel.

Special Honorable Mention: Hollywood Liberal
Thank you DNC...
Can't stop thinking Bush haiku.
Now look what you've done!

In an op-ed for the Boston Globe, General Clark previews his "success strategy" for Iraq. In summary his points are:

• End the American monopoly.

  "I would transform the military occupation into a NATO operation with US forces in charge. With US command, NATO authority, and UN endorsement, other NATO countries would send troops, and Arab countries would also step in."

• Find the right force mix.

  "The more conventional forces we have, the more logistics we need. The more unarmored Humvees on patrol, the more unnecessary American deaths from roadside bombs."

• Better border protection.

  "To stanch the flow of foreign jihadists into Iraq, we must seal the borders. That requires assistance from Iraq's neighbors. Using carrots and sticks, we can persuade these countries to cooperate."

• Secure ammunition.

  "Weapons dumps throughout Iraq are unguarded. It is estimated that 500,000 tons of ammunition is still not secure. We must patrol these sites and destroy these weapons."

• More intelligence resources.

  "Right now too many of our linguists and intelligence experts are working on the search for weapons of mass destruction. International inspectors should take over that search, which would free up enough experts to help us track down those who are killing our soldiers and creating chaos."

• Formidable Iraqi security forces.

  "We should recall the Iraqi Army to duty right now. If given good pay, good training, and solid background checks, Iraqi civilians can also help fill the intelligence and security gap."

• Give the Iraqis a rising stake in our success.

  "It would be wrong to transfer authority to the Iraqis before they are ready to succeed, but we can give Iraqis more control over their destiny. The administration says the Iraqis can't have a sovereign government without a constitution. This is backwards. Iraqis, appointed by representatives from Iraq's 50 elected regional councils, should name an interim government even while a constitution emerges. That is what our Founding Fathers did.

  If we give the interim government control over oil revenues and transfer authority on an ongoing basis, it will be easier for the Iraqi people to see that those blowing up pipelines are sabotaging their future. If we give civilians a stake in stemming the violence, they will help us solve this problem."

  
  

The plan will be more fully fleshed out in a speech he will be giving today in South Carolina.

[UPDATE]
Another important point from a USA Today article about the speech:

Clark said even though he opposed sending troops to Iraq, they must stay to finish the job. "Early exit means retreat or defeat. There can be neither," he said.

Retreat is not an option. We made this mess and we must clean it up.

[UPDATE 2]
A more fleshed out version of this is available on General Clark's web site. The key additional points in my view:

Create a new international governing authority. The Coalition Provisional Authority, which is the American-led de facto government of Iraq, should be replaced. But the United Nations is neither able nor willing to assume the daunting task of governing Iraq. General Clark would create a new international structure—similar to those used in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan to govern Iraq. The interim government would have representatives from the European Union, the United States, neighboring countries and others who support our efforts to build a democratic Iraq.

[...]

Elect a truly representative government. The Iraqi people have already elected 50 city and regional councils in Iraq. These councils could elect a new interim government in Iraq just as state legislatures once elected members to the U.S. Senate. This new government would represent Iraq internationally and control oil revenues, funds and any frozen assets through a transparent, internationally audited process. Transfer of government functions to this new government would progress week by week. The interim government would launch a new process to write a Constitution. This constitution would be an Iraqi document—not written by Americans or people appointed by Americans—and would set the terms for
free and fair elections.

It also contains some thoughts on how we could avoid Bush-esque foreign messes in the future.

• Promote security through multilateralism. No nation will ever have veto power over our security. But turning our back on our allies makes it harder to protect ourselves and our interests. Despite our overwhelming military, economic and political strength, we cannot maintain stability in the Middle East, support reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, deal with the challenges of North Korea, track down Osama bin Laden, fight the global war against terrorism, face the problem of Iran, and return to prosperity in this country, unless we have allies to help us.
• Modernize international institutions to combat new threats. General Clark proposes a new Atlantic Charter to repair and modernize our security partnership with Europe. The Charter will define the threats we face in common and demand action from our allies to meet them while offering a promise to act together.
• Restore our moral standing abroad. General Clark believes America should lead the world in addressing the causes of human misery by attacking the problems of poverty, disease, and ethnic conflict with the same ingenuity we have brought to the challenge of warfare. These efforts will reduce the anger and alienation that gives rise to terrorism, and it will gain us more friends and partners around the world. It will be far easier to ask countries to support us with our concerns, when they see us helping them on theirs.

[via Political Wire]

If you haven't dropped off your ballot yet, get it in by 7pm today! Denver election results can be viewed here as they come in. State-wide numbers will be here.

Dan Conley has some interesting thoughts on the occasion of shutting down deanblog.com. I agree on nearly all of these points.

The big reason why I am walking away from deanblog is that I simply do not want a Howard Dean vs. George Bush race and do not want Howard Dean to be elected President. Here's why:

1) Dean does not have the temperament to be President. A Dean Presidency would be just as divisive and partisan as the Bush administration. Bill Clinton governed from the center and still had a difficult time moving the ball ... he only did so very slowly and deliberately and by rallying his huge reservoir of public goodwill. Dean will follow the Bush blueprint, which might work fine for a President holding a majority in both houses, but it would be an absolute disaster for a partisan Democrat working with Tom DeLay and Bill Frist.

2) Dean is clueless on foreign policy. There, I said it. Quite honestly, I have no idea what Dean really believes about foreign policy because all he seems to do is react to whatever Bush does. Give him the Oval Office, a stack of intelligence briefings and cabinet ministers with opposing points of view and I have no idea how it could work out. Given his rather confrontational manner, it would not surprise me one bit to see more wars in a Dean administration than we'd get in a second Bush term.

3) Dean will not wear well with the American people. There are some politicians who you slowly grow to appreciate over time. Bob Dole is a guy like that -- he can seem mean at first glance, but his big heart has a way of showing itself at odd times. Dick Gephardt is another. I think the American people from across the political spectrum would really end up liking that guy if he ever made it to the White House. Howard Dean is not. Dean is brusque and short tempered. You want a President who won't say stupid things like "wanted dead or alive?" Well, then Dean is NOT your man. He's just as likely to make an off-hand gaffe as our current White House occupant.