Doesn't Clarks military background make anyone nervous?

[peabody71]

I'll admit I don't know enough about him but my instincts have me wondering why so many are so quick to support Clark. I have a basic mistrust of any established military folks. I consider the U.S. military, in my lifetime, to be the most corrupt in history. What is really behind a Clark candidacy?

[JI7]

1. i support kerry

so, no. does bush's lack of military background make anyone nervous ?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. No

[wndycty]

3. Why?

:kick:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. How Is The Military Corrupt?

The military is an instrument of civillian rule.

They do what the elected leaders instruct them to do.

[peabody71]

10. Come on.

Any institution with an unlimited budget that never balances will simply breed coruption. Panama, Iraq, Chile, and on and on and on.....

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. I Hardly Compare Our Military

with the militaries of authoritarian regimes.

[atreides1]

39. As a former soldier

It isn't us troops down in the dirt that make the big money purchases
it's the college clowns and ring-knockers. Who kiss ass and lick boots
so well that the only time they do with a field unit is so they can pad their military resume.

Powell is one of those, he did 2 tours in Vietnam, and did not command
American combat troops. His first tour he was in command of ARVN troops, his second tour he was a staff officer. After his second tour
he did the minimum time in the field, that he needed to be promoted to the next higher grade. Hell from what I've read he was a an Affirmative Action promotion to his first star. But I guess his former
commander of the Americal Division(MY LAI) was very appreciative of Major Powell's assistance in the initial investigation of the MY LAI
MASSACRE. You see it was the former commanding general of that division who made sure that Powell's name was on the next Generals
list, after he had been passed over the first time.

So don't pit the blame on us field troops, if it was up to us we would have the equipment and supplies that we need to complete any
operation assigned to us.

[Maple]

5. A general as president?

Sounds very third worldish.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Ulysses Grant, and Dwight

Eisenhower were very third worldish.

Don't you think it's more constructive to build up your candidates than tear down others

[Maple]

24. Different era, different century

It's third worldish now. Backwards...you know.

(I don't have a candidate)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

35. I Don't Think It's Retro To Elect A General

We elected a simian.... That's retro...

[caledesi]

49. Ya know, Clark reminds me of Ike...got that gentle face.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

61. I Trust You Are Sincere

because I have seen lots of generals on tv. Military pundits are almost as ubiquitous as political pundits and after seeing them all Clark does seem the most humane.

There was a difference between a Patton and a Eisenhower and that's why Ike had to bring Patton to task several times including the time Patton slapped a soldier.

[carpetbagger]

30. Look at your quarter.

Lt. General Washington (posthumously declared the senior general of the U.S. Army, sort of a "six star general")

Look at some more:
General of the Army Eisenhower
General Grant
Maj. Gen. Garfield
Maj. Gen. Jackson
Maj. Gen. Taylor
Bvt. Maj. Gen. Hayes
Brig. Gen. Pierce
Brig. Gen. WH Harrison
Brig. Gen. A. Johnson (administrative rank)

[GreenArrow]

68. The men who win the wars make make the money

or at least they get to decide what is pictured on it. It'd be nice if we could get some non military people, animals, places or things on our money. Instead we're stuck with Caesar.

[ibegurpard]

6. No

But the sparsity of information about his views on a lot of issues plus his perplexing ambiguity about his political affiliation does.

[holyworrier]

7. Sir, Yes SIR

Especially since he's a grad of West Point, where the Military Elite Society is fostered and fed. A West Point grad's first allegiance is to his fellow West Pointers. I want to hear Clark repudiate the Military Elite in public.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. Why Should We Repudiate The Military

They are there to protect us.

[G_j]

21. elite

Did he not say the "military elite"?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

36. The Military Is A Hierachy

and the elite is part of the hierachy.

I respect the officers as well as the grunts.

I

[G_j]

58. regardless

of who you respect. The poster did NOT say 'repudiate the military'. Is english really that difficult?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

65. I Don't Want To Repudiate The Military Elite

K

[holyworrier]

33. I thought I wrote "Military Elite"...

Hey, I did. My son is in the army. I don't condemn grunts. But the Military Elite is inextricably intertwined with Industry. Their job is to protect our economic imperialism. They keep crooked congresspersons and senators in office with pork. They refuse to be held accountable by the People.

Who was the general who said "you can't have McDonald's without McDonnell-Douglas"..?

Check out Gen. Smedley Butler's writings.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

8. That is rather interesting considering the President who warned us most

of the abuses of the military industrial complex was Dwight Eisenhower.

Some of the most strident voices against the invasion of Iraq were military or former military such as Admiral Eugene Carrol and Admiral Jack Shanahan from the Center for Defense Information ( a defense watchdog group founded during the Reagan years)

Many presidents have served in the military.

One must distinguish between a former officer and the military indistrial complex...frankly that Dick Cheney represented a "businessman" rather than the MIC SHOULD have been a cause for concern to Americans prior to the LAST election.

on edit: and I am undecided in the presidential race and undecided about Clark until he tells me what he will do as president and I can contrast it against the other candidates.

[peabody71]

14. Very true but we are the thinking class.

And that is why I have raised the question in DU. You can't tell me it is not a legitimate question.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

16. No that's why I answered it

and your question did seem a bit conclusionary

[kainah]

56. I agree, NSMA

A lot of the military people I know are the most cautious when it comes to war. They know what it means, they know how serious it can become and how quickly. They know how easily it can be abused. Clark definitely has my interest ... and his military training is actually one of the reasons. Right now, I don't see a way out of Iraq without enormous carnage. Hopefully that's the kind of "creative thinking" they teach at West Point.

And I also agree on being undecided in the presidential race. In spring 2002, I was one of 3 people supporting Dean on DU. Now that so many others have seen the light, I'm able to look around some more.

[ohmyman1]

12. electability

i think clark has it

[Julien Sorel]

13. No. But the knee-jerk, anti-military attitude of some of the people

here remind me in spades why people point at left wingers and snicker.

[peabody71]

18. Man. I tend to look at military gung ho mother fuckers and snicker.

[Julien Sorel]

42. Too bad there are more of them then there are of you.

And they vote. In large numbers.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

22. I don't think it is so much knee jerk on the part of most

I think many have grave concerns after recent events and don't separate the military as in those whose serve from the military industrial complex as in those who suck the wealth out of the nation in order to control.

[Julien Sorel]

40. There are a few like that.

But look over the board here. Some people assume that Clark is a tool of the 'Military-Industrial Complex,' merely because he was a career military man. Some others accuse him of being a war criminal, with no real evidence at all to support the claim: he was in the military, he fought in wars, so he is a war criminal. And then there are those who say 'I could never support a military man,' with no reason given. I'm well aware that a lot of this is just people who are committed to one candidate trying to attack Clark in any way possible as a back-door way of supporting their person. But enough of the attacks are obviously genuine to the point where it is clear to me why the Left is still derided by many people. As long as that attitude persists, we will lose votes on it and it alone.

People need to grow up and use their brains: Clark was in the military. OK, what kind of person is he? What are his views? What is his record of service? Where does his military service fit in in the big scheme of his candidacy?

This nonsense you see here, 'Oooooh, I don't feel comfortable with a general in politics,' is defeatist and simple-minded, and a symptom of the very desease that has pushed the Dems into minority status. We're supposed to be the open-minded party, and to a large extent, we are. But the vocal minority here makes it easy for the rest of us to be tarred as close-minded and anti-patriotic. That's how elections are lost.

[Kahuna]

59. This strategy of the Deanies to bash Clark's 34 years of military service.

is certain to backfire on them. I hope they keep it up.

Dean who never served a day in uniform vs. Clark who served his country for 34 years. Your whisper campaign is certain to not only fail but to backfire.

[Pastiche423]

15. It makes me beyond nervous

When I 1st heard he might run, I got a feeling of dread. It was similar to the feeling I got when I heard * has thrown his hat into the presidential ring.

I see no additional postives that he could bring to the table, only negatives.

Military people live a different mind set than civilians. They are told what to do, think and say, until they can tell others what to do, think and say.

We need a peacekeeper, not another reason for the world community to fear our government's desire for empirical domination.

[neverforget]

26. Painting with a broad brush

I served in the military and I think for myself and no one tells me what to say. What makes you think that the world will fear an ex-general anymore than they already fear a corporate stooge? Military men and women have hearts and a conscious too.

[11cents]

28. Read his book

And ask yourself if this is really a guy who was told what to think, and say. If you're not willing to at least find out something real about him instead of relying on these infantile "Dr. Strangelove" images of what military men are like, then at the even leaster acknowledge that when you weigh into every Clark topic that starts on this board you're doing so from a position of willful ignorance.

Your view of the military is beyond naive. And so is your view of the opinions of the "world community." If Clark is elected the worldwide sigh of relief will be audible from Pluto. (The same will be true if Dean or Kerry is elected, to name the two leading candidates.) Please wise UP; the military didn't push for this war; historically, it drags its feet at getting involved in any wars.

[Pastiche423]

37. Until

he states he is a proud Democrat, I will not waste my time reading his book.

Btw, what the fuck does "Dr. Strangelove" images of what military men are like" mean?

Are you assuming I know nothing about military men?

[11cents]

51. Uh -huh

>he states he is a proud Democrat, I will not waste my time reading his book.]

What does his announcing that he's a Democrat have to do with whether or not you choose to be informed before you post? But whatever. You're not going to read the book after he announces either.

>Btw, what the fuck does "Dr. Strangelove" images of what military men are like" mean?

You've seen the movie? I mean the notion that professional military men are slavering war-lovers and that a president from a military background will of course put forward an aggressive, imperialist policy. There's absolutely nothing in American history to suggest that would be the case, and certainly nothing in Clark's history. Are you aware that he praised Eisenhower as an "anti-imperialist" for opposing the Anglo-French plot to take back control of the Suez Canal in 1956? Of course you aren't.

> Are you assuming I know nothing about military men?

How could I assume anything about you? You're just print on my screen,, and I judge by what you write. You may know something about some military men but your portrait of "military men" in general is nothing but a ridiculous ideological caricature.

[Pastiche423]

57. No, I have never seen the movie

Dr.Strangelove.

"You're not going to read the book after he announces either."

"Of course you aren't."

How could you assume anything about me? After all, I'm only print on your screen.

I din't realize I had a ridiculous ideological caricature about the military. could you describe what that means?

[11cents]

84. Really?

You've never seen Dr. Strangelove? You must be really young. But then, you sound really young.

I know you didn't realize that you have a ridiculous ideological caricature of the military. Now you do realize it. I think I already pointed out some indicators of this caricature -- the notion that a military man is a natural warmonger, the notion that a military man is a natural imperialist, and I might add, the notion that once you know that someone is a "military man" you can surmise what his politics and mindset are. These are not based on fact, observation, historical knowledge. It's just a cartoon that you're carrying around in your head.

[JVS]

19. yes

but i now know that such a concern is bigotry :eyes:

[grasswire]

23. no

Not since I learned that after Vietnam (where Clark was wounded) he went to spend time with Jesuits to learn about the philosophy of "just" war.

I look forward to the day when he shows * the door. I relish the thought. I yearn for it. And I am convinced that if he runs, he will win.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. Well-You Got What You Wanted- A Flame Fest

What trips me out is the folks who claim to hold the banner of peace the highest always create the opposite.

[chaska]

29. Hell, yes!!!

I've seen that time and time again.

I still consider myself a peace activist, but since coming here and seeing how absolutely belicose the peaceniks are, and how unbelievably closed-minded, I may have to reconsider.

[snyttri]

25. If you don't like Clark on the military you'll love Arnold in charge of

California. It's really sad when knowing what you're talking about becomes a disqualification.

Truman was going to forego running for re-election to let Ike get the Dem nomination if McArthur had run. I guess you would have voted against Washington, too.

[peabody71]

27. I believe a Clark candidacy goes to the root of some problems.

Obviously defeating Bush is priority #1.
But are we willing to throw our support toward someone with a background built into the establishment so many of us do not trust?
Is a General, at this time in history the best symbol of who we are as a paople. Would we not be better served to show ourselves and the world that we aren't the gung ho crazed AMericans that the world sees us as, thanks most recently to the Bush regime policies?
Clark may be a great man, I am not convinced yet, but maybe he is.
But a true player, within the military industrial complex, makes me nervous all the same.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. I Trust Our Government... I Don't Trust Bush.

What's wrong with Wes Clark?

To paraphrase Alexander Hamilton"if men were angels we wouldn't need a military."

[tameszu]

54. Remember the war that Clark won: it was a *NATO* war

"Is a General, at this time in history the best symbol of who we are as a paople"

Yes. Because he is the U.S. general that represents everything that Bush does not, and that the U.S. military so often does not.

Recall that Clark's war involved leading NATO, successfully, in its first war and spent the entire time defending the principles of multilateralism, even as some of the less enthusiastic members were grumbling about the Americans as usual on one side (I don't entirely blame them, but that didn't make Clark's work even easier), while on the other side, Republicans were bringing up the spectre of world government and so on.

Then he wrote a book talking about how the U.S. should do MORE OFTEN work in coalitions and through international institutions, even though they can seem like a pain in the butt. Thinking people in other countries will infinitely prefer *this* sort of attitude--a multilateralist, NATO attitude--to Bush's cowboyism or even to Clinton's attitude. Not that Clinton was a bad guy, but because he knew that he was perceived to be weak on defense, he felt he had to give in to the Pentagon and the Repubs on so many issues.

[RobinA]

94. Every Candidate

for pres. with a prayer of winning an election has a "background built into the establishment." If you reject establishment candidates on that basis alone you will not be able to vote for anybody beyond the fringe candidates. Plus, since the pres. is head of the biggest, most powerful establishment the earth has ever seen, shouldn't he be a guy with a track record of successfully dealing with said establishment? I'm as much an aging hippie as the next liberal boomer, but I don't want a president who just came off the commune. This dude is going to have some things to do, and I want a guy who can work the levers of power.

[shimmergal]

97. Almost all candidates have some "background built into the establishment"

With the possible exception of Al Sharpton. Even Nader has a bunch of establishment connections.

Who is so pure that they'd qualify in your eyes?

[Mz Pip]

32. No

He's seen the best and the worst of military action. Perhaps we need the perspective of someone who has been there and can honestly evaluate where we are.

I can understand the mistrust of the military, but they have saved our butts on more than one ocassion. Give 'em a break and don't judge Clark solely on the fact that he is a general.

MzPip
:dem:

[RobertSeattle]

34. Hell No

There's alot of ignorance about the US Military here at DU.

Me: Army Officer 1985-1991. Been there, done that.

[ScotTissue]

38. I cannot support any candidate who supports any violence

That is just not a line I, or any passionate Democrat, can cross.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. I Would Have Supported Violence

to separate us from the British

to end slavery

to end the Holocaust

Wouldn't you?

[ScotTissue]

46. Was the bombing of Serbia

To end slavery?

To end the Holocaust?

[tameszu]

55. Well, Bosnia ended up killing 250,000 civilians and displacing that many

The Kosovo intervention was to prevent ethnic cleansing. We know what happened in Bosnia. We know what happened in Srebrenica. They are as close as we can get to speculating about counterfactuals.

As such, I would count Kosovo as redeeming a promise that falls under "never again."

[IranianDemocrat]

60. If you were preisdent

right now there would be exactly ZERO bosnians and albanians alive in Europe.

[snyttri]

44. You wouldn't support violence in defense of an invasion? Some strategy.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

45. Sometimes I Wonder What Planet Am On

[IranianDemocrat]

62. lol I really hope snyttri was being sarcastic.

.

[carpetbagger]

47. Who ordered Clark into Kosovo?

Yeah, that guy.

[Julien Sorel]

53. Who are you to tell me what lines I can and can't cross?

[Kahuna]

66. So now you're defining the line for Democrats?

that's a bit arrogant, don't you think?

[Joe the Revelator]

86. That has nothing to do with being a democrat..

...but everything to do with being a pacifist . Nothing wrong with that though :-D

I'm a quasi-pacifist for Clark

[DoveTurnedHawk]

98. Oh PLEASE

I am a passionate Democrat, and I think your position here is complete and utter crap.

Last I checked, Gandhi wasn't running for the Democratic nomination. All of the Democratic candidates have endorsed the use of force at some time during their careers. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

General Clark, however, is far more reluctant in his philosophy about use of force than the majority of the current Dem field, and IMO wiser and more reasonable on this issue than ALL of the rest of the Dem field.

DTH

[w13rd0]

41. No, not really...

...I'm far more concerned with a candidates ties to think tanks, the DLC and large multinational corporations than I am with military backgrounds...

[poskonig]

48. No. Just the opposite.

I want to know what Clark offers besides a cool title.

Max Cleland lost three limbs in 'Nam and that didn't stop him from losing.

[NNN0LHI]

50. No more than Deans lack of a military background makes me nervous

Neither factor would sway my decision one way or the other. There have been great presidents with a military background and other great ones who did not.

Don

[Terwilliger]

52. no

Democrats are warmongers, too

[DemocratSinceBirth]

70. I'm A Just Warmonger

If I could go back in time I'd hope I had the courage to risk my life:

to separate us from the British

to free my black brothers and sisters from bondage.

to save the Jews, Gypsies, Gays, Catholics, and Communists from Hitler and his executioners

to save the Malays, the Indonesians, the Chinese, the Koreans, the Filipino's from the iron heel of oppression of the Imperial Army

to save my Muslim brothers and sisters from ethnic genocide in Bosnia and Kosovo at the hands of Slobodan Milosevic

"All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

-Edmund Burke

"The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in a time of great moral crisis"

-Dante Alighieri

[Terwilliger]

96. if you don't fix your problems

the world won't care if you're the conquering hero

they just care that with all these wars, you haven't fixed anything yet

[Proletariat]

63. It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

:)

[IranianDemocrat]

64. Your ignorance is unbelievable.

Don't shoot your mouth off unless you understand his positions.

[Dr Fate]

67. What about my relatives and friends military backgrounds?

Should i be "nervous" about that too?

[peabody71]

72. Whoa. Lets ground this conversation a bit.

Your family that served in the military does not compare to a Supreme Commander of NATO, etc.

[Bridget Burke]

69. No

"I'll admit I don't know enough about him ..."

Any post that begins with a statement of offensively innocent ignorance ("I just can't see" "Somebody please tell me" "I'll admit that I don't know") rings an alarm bell.

Step 1: Learn more about him. Then let everybody know what your objections are.

I haven't made a decision about Clark. However, most members of the current regime are distinguished by their LACK of military experience. Do THEY make you feel safe?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

71. I Have A Name For All The Clark Bashers In This Thread

Some subtle....


Some not so subtle...


Karl Rove's Greatest Hits....

[peabody71]

73. Are we really "bashing" him?

This is an issue that I personally don't feel has been explored enough. Especially on the DU. We have an obligation to explore all facets of a candidate and make an informed decision.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

74. I Did A Cursory Review Of The Thread And I See

the General has a lot of enthusiastic defenders.

You have to respect a man who has such a dedicated cadre.

[nomaco-10]

75. It's unbelievable

The majority here believe Clark would be an excellent asset to the democratic party so the malcontents and naysaying conspiracy theorists have to start posting this kind of crap. Another thread entitled "A disturbing story" about Clark. If the Dem party doesn't unite, this party will implode before 2004, perhaps that's what the repukes are waiting for. SAD

[RichM]

77. Yeah, literally "unbelievable" -- as in, "not to be believed."

How would you know what the "majority here" believe about Clark? You have been here for exactly 21 posts, probably all of them hyping Clark. You're not in any position to say what the majority believes or doesn't believe. You're just throwing your own personal opinion around, & trying to dress it up as a statement about "the majority." This is a dishonest tactic -- just what I'd expect from a Clark supporter.

[nomaco-10]

79. I'm a democratic party supporter. This is DU isn't it. GO DEAN

[QC]

89. Members of the military are professional killers.

No career military person, no matter his or her credentials, should ever hold public office.

Religious people, gun-owners, Southerners, rural people, and blue-collar workers (i.e., 80-90% of the electorate) are the source of all evil in the world.

Only vegan northeastern or Bay Area atheist members of Handgun Control Inc. and NARAL are pure enough to be worthy of the presidential candidacy.

Anyone else is "Repub lite."

Remember--if you believe that politics has something to do with getting elected and doing things, you are caught up in mere "electoral politics."

The real purpose of politics is to make impotent yet poignantly beautiful gestures that demonstrate one's moral purity. Anything else is a hopeless compromise with evil.

[gully]

76. Yea, George Bush... Kidding. I don't know enough about him really.

[Oracle]

78. No...

crushing...General Andrew Jackson...the first real Republican hater.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

80. Not very.

I too mistrust the military. I'm a marine vet and understand how many in the military think. But, to say that military instantly qualifies or disqualifies anyone from high political office is shortsighted, at best. From what I've discovered about Clark (admittedly not all that much) he doesn't seem to fit into the easy mold of "the military mind".

At this point, however, I am taking a look at him. He is the one candidate that is fairly immune from the distortions sure to come from the republicans. He certainly can't be called "soft on defense" or the similar tripe the pubbies are fond of. He comes in "clean" in that he has no political record to defend. i.e. "In 1986 you supported H.R. 2704..." In short, it would be damned hard for the republicans to attack him. And, then, they would have to go after him on the issues. All of which are losers for them. Including the deepening quagmire in Iraq. He wouldn't be vulnerable to "well, you supported the president with your vote." And, the fratboy would look even more ridiculous parading around in a flightsuit.

I'm hoping that he proves to be as good as initial reports seem to say. Liberal enough for leftists like me, anti-Iraq war, moderate enough to attract the wobbly centrists, and a good enough politician to wipe the floor with the smirkbaby in the debates.

We'll see.

[pfitz59]

81. Read history..dammit! Maj Gen Smedley Butler, USMC

"War is a racket!" http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm
More on Smedley: "Smedley Butler served his country for 34 years, yet he spoke against American armed intervention into the affairs of sovereign nations. Throughout his life, Butler demonstrated that true patriotism does not mean blind allegiance to government policies with which one does not agree."
http://www.soundprint.org/radio/display_show/ID/274/name/Smedley+Butler
Smedley even foiled acoup attempt! http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/Coup.htm

Before you paint the military with a broad brush, do a little research!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

82. Thankyou!!! Were it not for this military man, the fascists would have won

over half a century ago!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

92. I Am Afraid

that the fact we are out of power has made some of us so alienated from the system that we have created an alternate reality.

[dudeness]

83. clark impressed with his appearance on H&C

but i find it very unusual and somewhat contary to the political process i am used too...that a person could be considered a potential candidate for a party he has not previously been an active member of ..in this case the democratic party..it really shows to me how close your two parties over there are philosophically..I firmly believe it is policies that deliniate parties not personalities ..I would like to hear some policies from clark..

[Dover]

85. I think it might be helpful to read (or reread) Brzezinski's book

(The Grand Chessboard) to understand what Clark and others were up to in the Balkans and the U.S.'s motives for being there. It might provide some insight about his foreign policy. I think we should press all the candidates for their foreign policy ideas.

Brzezinski saw Western Europe as the bridgehead for the U.S. eastern expansion and influence in Eurasia.

Here's just a small excerpt from the Eurasian Balkans chapter (which should be read within the larger context of the book. Also keep in mind some of this is already dated by changing events):

The traditional Balkans represented a potential geopolitical prize in the struggle for European supremacy. The Eurasian Balkans, astride the inevitably emerging transportation network meant to link more directly Eurasia's richest and most industrious western and eastern extremeties, are also geopolitically significant. Moreover, they are of importance from the standpoint of security and historical ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and more powerful neighbors, namely Russia, Turkey and Iran with China also signaling an increasing political interest in the region. But the Eurasian Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize: an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in addition to important minerals, including gold.

The world's energy consumption is bound to vastly increase over the next two or three decades. Estimates by the U.S. Dept. of Energy anticipates that world demand will rise by more than 50 percent between 1993 and 2015, with the most significant increase in consumption occurring in the Far East. The momentum of Asia's economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy, and the Central Asian region and the Caspian Sea basin are known to contain reserves of natural gas and oil that dwarf those of Kuwait, the Gulf of Mexico or the North Sea.

Access to that resource and sharing in its potential wealth represent objectives that stir national ambitions, motivate corporate interests, rekindle historical claims, revive imperial aspirations and fuel international rivalries.

...snip...

It follows that America's primary interest is to help ensure that no single power comes to control this geopolitical space and that the global community has unhindered financial and economic access to it. Geopolitical pluralism will become an enduring reality only when a network of pipeline and transportation routes links the region directly to the major centers of global economic activity via the Mediterranean and Arabian Seas, as well as overland.

..snip..

Ultimatiely, Central Asia's future is likely to be shaped by an even more complex set of circumstances, with the fate of its states determined by the intricate interplay of Russian, Turkish, Iranian and Chinese interests, as well as by the degree to which the U.S. conditions its relations with Russia on Russia's respect for the independence of the new states. The reality of that interplay precludes either empire or monopoly as a meaningful goal for any of the geostrategic players involved. Rather, the basic choice is between a delicate regional balance - which would permit the gradual inclusion of the area in the emerging global economy while the states of the region consolidate themselves and probably also acquire a more pronounced Islamic Identity....or ethnic conflict, political fragmentation, and possibly even open hostilities along Russia's southern frontiers.

[snyttri]

87. You can vote to retain the chickenhawk deserter we have now if success

in the military bothers you so much. Cheney, Wolfowitz, Pearle, Delay and Gingrich are all draft dodger civilians. By your standards you should feel you are already in good hands. Enjoy!

[AP]

88. I, for one, don't doubt Clark's patriotism, intelligence, etc.

But I think people who like him are people who are afraid of (or accept that) the Republicans are right -- that national security is THE single, most important issue and that all other issues take a back seat to it.

I think that if the Democrats nominate a candidate who symbolizes the democrats conceding that the right wing is right in their world view, the race is pretty much lost.

I don't think most Americans think national security comes first. I think most Americans think than a strong, fair, growing, progressive economy comes first, and that if you treat average americans right and have a good economy, national security will follow quickly behind, and if you don't have a progressive, fair economy, then what the hell are we fighting for.

I think, if you run a guy because you think his military record is great, you're going to lose, because either most democrats will stay home, and/or moderates will say, what the hell, I'll vote for the Republicans since they were on this national security issue first.

FDR wasn't a military man. Clinton wasn't either. Both won races at times when the economy was in the crapper and there were threats abroad. Ask yourself why.

[LTR]

91. We live in much, much different times

The economy is still very important. Yet, when a foreign terrorsit group comes on to US soil and kills 3000 people, this becomes an improtant issue. And one that Bush Inc. has very badly failed.

Ask yourself his: If FDR would ahve ignored Japan and Germany after the Pearl Harbor attack, where would we be now? We had to defend oursleves.

If we just roll over and ignore the threat of terroist groups that are envious of the American way of life, and want to see all of us dead, then we open the doors to other attacks on our soil. I really don't want to see another 9/11, do you? Neither do the victims' families.

Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups are still running amok. And they are not just going to give up.

In order to maintain this country, we must have a rational, well-thought plan to squash terrorism. Sure, it's the diplomatic version of playing 'Whack-a-mole', but if we can warn other would-be bin Ladens that they never get away with another attack like this, I imagine we can all breathe a little easier at night.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

93. What Were The Threats Abroad

when Clinton was elected in 1992?

He was the first post Cold War president.


What threats were abroad when FDR was first elected president in 1932?


The world was a relatively quiet place with the nascent fascist movements in Japan, Germany, and Italy barely on the radar screen.

This is going to be the first election held in the "terror era"* and national security will be a threshhold issue. It will not be the only issue, of course, but a candidate will have to establish his credibility in that area before voters will listen to him about anything else. We might prefer it to be elsewise but as Edmund Burke said "we must take man as he is not the way we want him to be."

Wes Clark seems like a bright fella. Hell, I couldn't dream of being first in my class at West Point. And he's a Rhodes Scholar to boot. I am sure he can address America's economic and social challenges while allaying folks fear about national security. In short I believe he can chew gum and walk.

I like John Edwards. A trial lawyer like John Edwards was able to win compensation for my mom after she had ler leg amputated because of medical negligence. I just think it's hard for a first term senator to propel himslelf into the White House.

As a student of political science I realize that the constraints of the office and our system of government limit what any president can do and therefore Dean, Gephardt, Clark, Kerry, Graham, Edwards, and Lieberman would govern pretty much the same so the challenge for me is to embrace a Democrat who can beat Bush.

I try not to get emotionally attached to a candidate. The last candidate I was emotionally attached to was Bobby Kennedy.

I take a cold eyed look at the candidates and support the one who has the best chance of beating his Republican rival.

And this year my analysis leads me to General Clark

*I believe the public believes we are in a "terror era" and rather or not they are right , a majority of them will not vote for a candidate who they believe is credible on this issue despite his or her other virtues.

[leftofthedial]

90. makes many people nervous

George Dubya Shitforbrains, KKKarl Rove, Donnie Rumsfeld, Condie Whiteasrice, Colonoscopy Powell, and all the rest of the criminal conspirators sqatting in the executive branch.

[Donna Zen]

95. good thread

First let me say that I think this thread rather than resulting in a “flame war” is a necessary discussion of an element that Clark brings to the table, the military. Although 91% of our presidents have served in the armed forces, putting forward a person that has worn four stars on his shoulder, demands consideration of his past association with the Pentagon and what that means. Clark addresses the concerns from both sides in his book. After Vietnam, the American public was distrustful of its military; the military licking its wounds was leery of this country’s intelligencia and tended to promote and rely upon the more thick-necked among its ranks. Clark, a Rhodes Scholar, said he couldn’t hide his past and yet, as a member of the military found himself in an odd position. America has come a long way in bridging that breach, but don’t think that Rove is unaware of our mistrust of the of the military. He will covertly play to that sensitivity of the left, the allergy to military uniforms as Clark calls it, and try to peel away support. If Clark hadn’t been brought to my attention by someone far further to the left than myself, I would have stopped looking for information about the man before I started. We need to talk about the issue of the military and the possible influence on a civilian government or we will be unknowing made into Rovian puppets. For myself, a student who survived Kent State, those four stars versus the chickshit pigs in the White House, only make me smile.

Is Clark a Democrat with a big “D”? Yes, he will run as a Democrat. Recently he hired two heavy hitters straight out of the bowels of the Democratic Party. One is an expert on the legal issues surrounding the complex world of putting your name on the ballot. While he enjoys the luxury of free tv with its associated name recognition, the apparatus of party politics moves forward. Clark believes that enacting positive policies for this country means working toward a common good; partisanship that polarizes the electorate is currently distorting the process of good governance and causing people to accept policy that is contrary to their own self-interest. We all know that big money and a corporate media are killing democracy, but because they keep us divided, we can’t form a force with our like-minded republican neighbors to do anything about it. With his opening non partisan salvo, to use a military term, Clark would seem to indicate he wants to end the false rancor that has infected this nation and form a coalition of the well informed as opposed to the well propagandized, that can dominate the conversation and take our country back. Sign me up.

Finally, it is my intention to vote for a Democrat in 2004, ABB. I want to make that move without losing my lunch or my soul; therefore, the military issue which could be a determining factor is some cases, has long ceased to be a cause of concern with Clark.