Gary Hart delivered a great speech Tuesday at the Council of Foreign Relations in New York--on the military, technology, terrorism and homeland security. We were able to obtain a copy, and have reprinted it in its entirety. We're told it will be available soon on GaryHartNews.com.

Finally, a politician who makes sense. It's long but well worth reading.

Lots of comments are still coming in on one of our prior posts on Hart--most of it is very favorable towards a presidential run. Here's one that came in tonight from a reader named Brendan.

I'm too young to remember 88, but reading what has been printed of Hart, by all means, RUN man RUN! We need a Bartlet running for office, and he seems to be the only dem out there with a brain. Gep is a geek, Kerry is too Northern, Edwards too Southern, Lieberman too Republican and Sharpton...yeah, right.

We said in our November post that we were impressed with Hart but not quite ready to jump on his bandwagon. We're getting closer to making the leap.

Update: The Washington Post has a profile on Hart and his potential presidential run here.

Update: Gary Hart's national security speech is now up on his website, here.

John Nichols in the Madison Capitol Times makes some good points about Hart. So does Jonathan Cohn in The New Republic, especially about how Hart can effectively neutralize the Donna Rice incident.

A new ABC News/Washington Post poll shows support for the War in Iraq is at its lowest level since last summer. The poll also shows Bush's approval rating for handling the Iraq situation is now down to 50%. And "71 percent of Americans said if U.N. inspectors cannot find hard evidence of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, the United States should present its own evidence before attacking."

We criticized Donald Rumsfeld last week for his remarks about Vietnam Draftees. A reader in our comments section to the post has informed us that Rumsfeld has issued a further statement about his remarks, on the Department of Defense website. Since we believe that everyone deserves a defense, we are reprinting some of his remarks.

"...my statement was not eloquent. A few columnists and others, though, have suggested that those words were intended to mean that draftees added no value to the military. That is not true. I did not say they added no value while they were serving. They added great value. I was commenting on the loss of that value when they left the service. I certainly had no intention of saying what has been reported, or of leaving that impression. Hundreds of thousands of military draftees served over years with great distinction and valor - many being wounded and still others killed.

The last thing I would want to do would be to disparage the service of those draftees. I always have had the highest respect for their service, and I offer my full apology to any veteran who misinterpreted my remarks when I said them, or who may have read any of the articles or columns that have attempted to take my words and suggest they were disparaging.

The intent of my comments was to reflect a view I have held for some time: that we should lengthen tours of duty and careers for our all-volunteer forces, so that these highly trained men and women in uniform can serve in specific assignments longer, and also not be forced to leave the service when they are at the peak of their skills and knowledge.

It is painful for anyone, and certainly a public servant whose words are carried far and wide, to have a comment so unfortunately misinterpreted.

It is particularly troubling for me that there are truly outstanding men and women in uniform or their families -- past and present -- who may believe that the Secretary of Defense would say or mean what some have written. I did not. I would not.

I hope this deeply felt statement reaches those who have served those who are serving, and their families.

"In a speech delivered at the National Press Club today, Sen. Edward Kennedy took a hard anti-war stance. "I continue to be convinced that this is the wrong war at the wrong time. The threat from Iraq is not imminent, and it will distract America from the two more immediate threats to our security -- the clear and present danger of terrorism and the crisis with North Korea."

"Kennedy, who voted against the Senate resolution in October authorizing the President to take military action against Iraq, said the inspectors need more time. "If our goal is disarmament, we are likely to accomplish more by inspections than by war."

Go on over to CNN and answer today's poll question, who's right, Bush or Kennedy. (Thanks to Jim Capozzola of Rittenhouse for the link)

Results as of 5:30 p.m.: President Bush 26% 1589 votes, Sen. Edward Kennedy, 74% 4594 votes , Total: 6183 votes

USA Today reporters Tom Squitieri and Dave Moniz wrote today that front line troops in the military are disproportionately white, not black , according to military statistics.

The American troops likeliest to fight and die in a war against Iraq are disproportionately white, not black, military statistics show -- contradicting a belief widely held since the early days of the Vietnam War.

''If anybody should be complaining about battlefield deaths, it is poor, rural whites,'' says Charles Moskos, a military sociologist at Northwestern University in Illinois.

In a little-publicized trend, black recruits have gravitated toward non-combat jobs that provide marketable skills for post-military careers, while white soldiers are over-represented in front-line combat forces.

Blacks make up 12 percent of the population, and 20% of the military. But they make up less than 5% of the high-risk postions, such as army commandos and navy and air force fighter pilots.

Among the possible reasons given for the disparate numbers are "lingering racism in some quarters of the military and a tendency among black recruits to choose jobs that help them find work in the civilian sector."

In a major blow to the Bush Adminstration, the Washington Post reports that "France suggested today it would wage a major diplomatic fight, including possible use of its veto power, to prevent the U.N. Security Council from passing a resolution authorizing military action against Iraq."

"Three top Bush administration officials said today they would welcome exile for Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, and one, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, signaled the United States might allow Hussein to escape war crimes prosecution if he voluntarily steps down."

"Today's comments appeared to be a signal to Hussein that a bargain might be in the offing. "To avoid a war, I would personally recommend that some provision be made so that the senior leadership in that country and their families could be provided haven in some other country," Rumsfeld said on ABC's "This Week." "I think that that would be a fair trade to avoid a war."

Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice are also said to support asylum for Hussein. The U.N. Security Council is applying pressure, as are citizens around the world. Some Arab nations are said to be trying to convince Hussein to step down. Perhaps if his safety in another country can be guaranteed to his satisfaction, he'll consider it. It sure beats going to war.

Jim Henley of Unqualified Offerings recounts his day at the protests yesterday. Here's a bit of it:

Finally we came to the counter-protest. There was even less to it this time than last - maybe three-dozen Freeper types lining a half block leading to the Navy Yard entrance. And as we approached, they began chanting:

Your Red roots are showing!
Your Red roots are showing!
Your Red roots are showing!

Me with my PEACE NOW SOCIALISM NEVER sign. Ronit with her NYC WANTS AL QAEDA sign. Teresa with her very specific Not THIS War, and Patrick and Teresa who have been leading us through renditions of "America the Beautiful," "My Country 'Tis of Thee" and even, hard as it is to sing, "The Star-Spangled Banner." Well, about two thirds of this last, since I skipped several lines by accident. My companions had fine singing voices and on those occasions where we were close enough to other marchers, several joined in.

Let us remember the core principle though: the counter-demonstration can afford to be dinky, because the counter-demonstrators are already slated to get what they want.

It's a long and thoughtful piece, you ought to go read the whole thing.

Max Sawicky's account is here.

And from Eric at the Hamster:

attended the antiwar march in Washington DC on Saturday afternoon and, needless to say, it was a success.

The speakers at the protests emphasized that because of the blistering cold temperatures a lot of people thought there would be a small and timid turnout. As seen, those critics were wrong. All people, from toddlers to grandmas; hippies to military veterans; capitalists to Marxists; lesbians to college frat boys attended the rally in support of America against a disastrous foreign policy called the Bush doctrine.

The Bush doctrine is a ruinous plan that calls for American solders and Iraqi civilians' lives to be exchanged for the capitalist pursuit of oil. As many signs at the protests read, this proposed war was nothing more than 'blood for oil.'

These are the people that care about America. There were the grandparents I met who were afraid that their grandsons would die for a chicken hawk administration. There were the humanitarians and idealists who were concerned about the havoc another war would bring to Iraq. There were also liberalists who believe that international institutions like the United Nations are the answer, and not the enemy, in American foreign policy.

There was opposition, of course. Perched on a Citibank balcony were people claiming they stood in support of America's soldiers, and subsequently in support of American foreign policy. The Georgetown College Republicans, in all their infinite wisdom, held banners proclaiming their patriotism. As one protester, upon seeing the suit-wearing Republicans remarked, “I think they're sipping wine-glasses.”

At times the message of the rally got off topic. Some people used the rally's large audience to lobby for other causes. At one point, an Israeli and Palestinian got into a verbal confrontation. Yet these deviations were slim and few. The people who descended on DC came to march for peace, and save this country, and its soldiers, from an endless and unnecessary Bush war that will take American lives.

The Denver Post is calling it " the largest war protest since Vietnam"--in huge letters, on the front page. Good for them.

Intervention Magazine has this first hand account by senior editor Regis T. Sabol, which begins:

From the grounds in front of the US Capitol, on the Mall, a sea of a quarter million Americans -- regardless of the number that the networks are reporting -- braved biting cold under a beaming sun to oppose the Bush regime's plan to invade Iraq "any day now." They came in fleets of buses, from cities large and small, from north and south, east and west. Twenty-five buses came from Brooklyn alone, with another 50 from the Big Apple itself. Minneapolis boasted a caravan of 45 buses while tiny Rhode Island had 15 buses, all carrying protestors to the Capitol. One bus traveled north from Gulf Port, Mississippi picking up passengers along the way in Alabama and delivering them to the center of resistance in the nation's capital.....

Here is the New York Time's account.

The Chronicle has this report of events in San Francisco. Check out this picture of the crowds. And here, in their own words, the protesters sound off on Bush.

"Hundreds of thousands of Americans opposed to waging war in Iraq rallied on Saturday in several cities demanding the White House back down and give U.N. weapons inspectors a chance....."

"Though U.S. opinion polls have shown broad support for ousting Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, a Newsweek survey released on Saturday found 60 percent of Americans want to take more time to explore nonmilitary solutions.

"A TIME/CNN poll also found 49 percent of respondents thought Bush was doing a good job handling the Iraq situation, while 44 percent thought he was doing a poor job."

Here's a wrap-up with details of marches in U.S. cities and around the world.

[note: we will be adding to this throughout the day]

"One protester held a sign that depicted King and read "I have a dream!" The sign's opposite side showed President Bush and read "I have a nightmare."

On the International Protests:

Moscow photo

Paris Photo

World-wide War Protest photos, courtesy BBC

Atrios has great pictures of today's war protesters from around the world. Big turnout--we are grateful and filled with pride for them. ( update: Per Atrios in the comments section, these photos are from the last protest march--he was clear, we misunderstood.)

Some of the slogans on banners:

A banner in Moscow declared: ''Iraq isn't your ranch Mr. Bush.''

In contrast, three dozen people showed up at a support the war rally at the Washington Monument.

"I have seen war. I have seen war on land and sea. I have seen blood running from the wounded... I have seen the dead in the mud. I have seen cities destroyed... I have seen children starving. I have seen the agony of mothers and wives. I hate war." Dwight D. Eisenhower