General Clark *hearts* liberal votes, buys stereotype about liberals.

[More Than A Feeling]

Don't know if people have seen this, but I thought it was interesting...

Introducing himself, (Clark) said: "Now, how are we going to get Nation readers to vote for someone like me?" I didn't know what to say. "I'm a military man," he continued, "and the military scares liberals. They say, oh, no, he's bombed people. People forget that as commander of NATO I was in charge of school children, and communities." He left soon after but gave me his card. "Nation," he said again, pointing to himself.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=68751

Ok, raise your hands, everyone who is scared of the military. Seriously, after all the veterans the Party is running this time around, after nominating our last presidential candidate for his military credentials, after all the generals who have spoken about the realities of the Iraq War (for every Peter Pace, there is a Paul Eaton. For every Geoffrey Miller, an Antonio Taguba, for every Tommy Franks, an Eric Shinseki.), why does one of our top presidential contenders still buy this myth, that "liberals" have a kneejerk fear of the military?

Naturally, if the anecdote in question proves not to be true, I will post a retraction of these comments.

[OKNancy]

1. It's not a myth, in my opinion

Clark is pretty well-informed and he is also internet-savvy. All he has to do is read.
I've seen that sentiment expressed many times on DU and other liberal sites. Some liberals/progressives will not even consider Clark for dog-catcher because of his military background. Even my own mother, when his name was first mentioned three years ago said the same thing to me. (She changed her mind and actively supported him here in Oklahoma in 2004.)

Of course it's not EVERYONE it is just some.

[still_one]

2. If they don't consider Clark it will not be because he is military

it is because he believes we should stay the course in Iraq, as does biden, hillary, and mccain

but Feingold doesn't, and the conservative Murtha doesn't either

It has to do where they stand on the issues. Unlike the repukes the democrats do NOT blindly follow their leader

I will not vote for hillary or biden because of their position on the Iraq war

There are certain issues that I will NOT compromise on. Another one is a woman's right to choose, and anyone who wants to privitize social security or medicare will NEVER get my vote

[CJCRANE]

13. Clark is not for "staying the course".

He is all for finding a political and diplomatic solution incorporating Iraq's neighbors and other countries in the region, using the military as leverage not as a battering ram.

He was against the invasion and also against Bushco's sabre-rattling against Iran and Syria. His current view seems to be to make the best of a bad job and that involves hands-on diplomacy and negotiation not the "stuff happens" Rumsfeld approach.

[still_one]

14. No, Clark has stated in no uncertain terms we cannot leave

until the job is done. Frankly, this is a civil war, and it won't be done until we are out of there

Yes, he was against the invasion, BUT he also says that we cannot leave. We are a catalyst for the violence, not a solution to end it

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. That's not what he said

He said it would be a mistake to set any timeline for withdrawal of U.S. forces. You may disagree with that statement, but it in not the same as saying we cannot leave until the job is done. They are very different statements. The first one is Bush's, and it is an obsessive conviction that if we keep doing what we are doing eventually it will work out all right so we can not stop what we are doing until it works out all right. Clark instead has a much more complex read on the situation. He argues that announcing a pull out now undermines U.S. leverage with Iran and Syria to help broker a regional agreement that will provide Iraq with stability and security and which will give Iran and Syria sufficient assurances that their own security needs will not threatened by a stable Iraq. In fact direct negotiations between Iran and the U.S. regarding Iraq have just been agreed upon, something Clark has been pushing for years.

Further Clark argues that the only chance to avoid a deepening civil war in Iraq (he already calls it a civil war) is the creation of a government of national unity, which will require the Shiites to make some concessions to the Sunni. It is the Shiite majority in the Iraq Assembly currently who want the U.S. to keep troops inside Iraq to provide security for their government and to train their troops. Clark argues that this provides the U.S. with the only diplomatic leverage we have to pressure the Shiites in government to make concessions to the Sunnis that can avoid all out civil war and regional destability. As long as they are asking for us to keep our troops inside Iraq we can demand certain political flexibility from them in return. Announcing a timetable for pulling out now undercuts that leverage. Clark is not advocating keeping American troops inside Iraq until the job is done. He advocates not announcing withdrawals now while their presence inside Iraq still has a chance of helping enable political changes needed to turn Iraq away from civil war.

Again, you can disagree with Clark on all of this, but he does not take Bush's position. At best Clark thinks if everything goes as well as possible from here on out we will end up with a C- situation in Iraq, after wasting thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars. Clark openly acknowledges that if the political process in Iraq breaks down this year that withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq is likely the only recourse left to America. Bush will never admit that.

[still_one]

18. that is your interpretation, I have a different one

that is the same thing they said in Viet Nam

and 10 years and 60000 dead Americans, not including Viet Nam civillian deaths were the result

[Tom Rinaldo]

19. We can disagree on the interpretation

Not everyone says what they really mean and you might see a meaning in Clark's comments that I don't. I think Clark says what he really means, but allowing for our differences, my point remains. Clark does not say that we have to stay in Iraq until the job is done.

[still_one]

20. That's cool

believe it or not, other than that point, I actually like Clark. I also believe Clark could be persuaded to change his view, which I don't consider a sign of weakness. That is something the current administration will never do, and why we are in the mess we are in

In fact the most outrageous statement in the press conference yesterday was that it will be the job of another president to determine when we leave Iraq. Bush got us into this mess, and now he throws his arms up, and says it is someone elses worry when we get out. Not his problem!!!

[Clarkie1]

72. We need to use leverage we are not using.

We need to threaten to leave, reduce support, etc., if the Shiite-dominated government does not make real reforms to allow greater participation by the Sunnis, and write those reforms into the constitution. They rulers of Iraq need to know that our support for their government, and our continued presence in Iraq in the near-term, is conditional on their behavior.

Doing what we are doing now (with no strategy and no use of the leverage we have with the Shia) is simply making us a catalyst for more violence and is not doing anything useful.

That is a rough paraphrase of Clark's position. Simply pulling out is not the best option, because it's giving up the leverage we have to allow minority Sunnis to have a real place in the government and economy. Doing so would destabilize the entire region. We have a responsibility to do what we can to promote minority rights and a stable government there.

[lukasahero]

8. Spot on.

Not much to add except my voice to those who are saying that Clark was not wrong in that assessment. I've seen it here lots of times: people who simply will not even consider his candidacy based solely on his military service.

And just to back up this claim, check out some comments in this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2506687&mesg_id=2506687

[underpants]

3. I'm not but he may have been playing to the crowd OR

it may just be a matter of degree.


Liberals aren't necessarily afraid of the military they (we I guess) are weary of it and want to keep it in check much like the rest of the authority structure. See they got guns.

The flip side of this is the fawning RW that thinks that this country should adhere to the military principles of class status, rank, and obedience.

[mmonk]

4. I guess it comes from the fact

liberals will protest a bad decision concerning going to war where self proclaimed conservatives never saw a war they couldn't support. I don't think Clark has a problem with liberals however, since many well known prominent liberals supported his candidacy. Clark's problems came from the "me too" and conservative democrats in 2004. Keep in mind I myself was a Clark supporter and member of the draft Clark movement.

[Viking12]

42. I think it comes from a Republican General & President's prophecy...

"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together." Dwight D. Eisenhower

[calmblueocean]

5. There are a lot of people on DU who have said exactly that.

I've read posts here from people who didn't want to support Wes Clark because he was a general. It's a small but vocal minority of folks who do feel that way.

[nickinSTL]

6. he's not wrong

My mom, who's definitely a liberal, has a deep-seated suspicion of anyone with military connections. (my dad worked for the military as a civilian for about 35 years, and my mom worked as a secretary on military bases for about 15)

I've also heard plenty of people on DU who are likewise suspicious of the military. I like Clark a lot, and I don't share that deep suspicion, but he'll have his work cut out for him appealing to those Dems who don't trust the military.

That said, if he got the nom, my mom would probably vote for him.

[Douglas Carpenter]

7. General Clark was endorsed by Michael Moore and George McGovern

and a whole host of other liberal-doves. I don't think he has that big of a problem.

[Dhalgren]

9. Any sane person has at least some reasonable fear of the

military. Look at what the military is currently doing in Iraq, right now. Liberals are uncomfortable with the military because of its potential for misuse and for the extreme danger the military represents to freedom and liberty. There are few examples in history of benign militaries and we should have a healthy fear of its power and misuse. I do not think that this fear should necessarily extend to individual soldiers, but fear of the organization is not misplaced...

[Jai4WKC08]

47. One thing wrong with that assessment

In our country, it's the civilians we put in office (I won't say "elect") who sometimes misuse the military.

Most people actually in the military would be the very last ones to want to be sent to war for no good reason. That's not to say they can't be bamboozled to think there's a good reason, just as in 2002 most voters were... and apparently almost everyone in in Congress (I say "apparently" because they should have known better, and I think most of 'em did). But even so, the military wouldn't be in Iraq if the civilians hadn't sent them there.

I don't think there's any reason for Americans to fear the military. Fear instead the civilians who give them their orders.

If we ever get to a point where the military makes the decision to go to war, or not to, then there will be reason to fear them.

[Rowdyboy]

10. Many on DU reflexively reject anything to do with the military.....I saw

many hundreds of comments in 2003-04 (some from posters I respect) that they could NEVER support a former military officer as the nominee.

As usual, General Clark is 100% in his assessment of the situation.

[Crunchy Frog]

37. I agree. I've seen exactly the same thing on here.

It wouldn't surprise me to see some people whining about that statement in one thread, and then whining about how they can't possibly support a military person in another thread.

[Texas_Kat]

39. It's gonna happen

you know it is..

Bookmarked the thread for future reference.....:evilgrin:

[CarolNYC]

56. No doubt...

hypocrites come in all stripes unfortunately....

[Renew Deal]

61. A few people in DU

or even some in the activist community do not represent the view of "liberals." We nominated Kerry last time around. He was an officer. Carter and Kennedy both served. I think LBJ did too.

[QC]

11. The Nation ran a nasty, factually-challenged hatchet job on Clark,

so he has some reason to be suspicious of them.

[Jai4WKC08]

48. I strongly suspect

They just did it again.

I don't buy the quotes in that blog entry. It just doesn't sound like Clark. For example, he doesn't speak in one-word sentences. Just not his style.

[Evergreen Emerald]

12. "Some liberals"

I am also tired of the stereotyping of liberals. We are given specific qualities--and frankly dehumanized--thereby making it easier to be a "them" versus and "us." DU is filled with a variety of people who have one thing in common: we see that our republic is in trouble with the current administration. Other than that, the beliefs about the military (and other topics) run the spectrum.

I am not afraid of the military. I am afraid of the administration and how they have used the men and women in uniform.

Labeling liberals has been ingrained in our collective mindset due to the constant re-defining done in the 90s by those who wanted to gain power. It worked. We must overcome the urge to reinforce those lies.

[bvar22]

15. Help me out here:

Does Gen. Clarke support:

a) Defunding and dismantling "StarWars"?

b) Cutting the budget of the DoD?
"66 percent (of ALL Americans) would reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending but by reducing Pentagon spending "
http://alternet.org/story/29788/

c) Withdrawing development money from projects to produce "next generation" 21st century fighters, bombers, and Naval vessels for which NO country in the World is building a counterpart?

d) Reforming the out of control MIC to focus on adequate and affordable effective, efficient, realistic defensive armament?

Most Liberals I know aren't "afraid of the Military", but are VERY concerned that the Pentagon Spending is destroying the economy, and the MIC are producing weapons that are "offensive" in nature. Everyone I know loves Eisenhower, and believe that that General had it RIGHT! If Clark sounded more like Eisenhower, and less like Bush, I would march in his parade.

"Every gun that is fired, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."
– Dwight D. Eisenhower

[Tom Rinaldo]

26. I don't have direct quotes handy on all your questions

I do have one Clark made about Ike which I'll include below. I know I have heard Clark speak about the difference between Republicans and Democrats around the military budget. A point he always makes is that Republicans are in love with large Weapons systems; Elaborate, complex, very expensive and high tech approaches to war. Clark says he learned that it is the Democrats who care about our soldiers and seeing that they have what they need to do their jobs well, be kept safe, and have their families provided for. Clark thinks money is being wasted on ultra high tech weapons systems designed to fight against a global super power adversary that no longer exists, and the thing is Clark really knows where the bodies are buried.

New Hampshire Public Radio did a series of long free ranging interviews with Democratic candidates for President prior to the 2003 NH Primary. They were conducted by host Laura Knoy for the show, "The Exchange". She had each major candidate on twice, the first time explored background and general beliefs, the second time specific issues. This interview with General Clark was conducted on November 5, 2003, which was her first interview with him. It is still available to be listened to at their archive at:
http://www.nhpr.org/node/5339

At about the 35:30 point in the interview a caller asks Clark about Ike's comments on the military industrial complex. This is my hasty attempt to transpose those comments, not an official transcript:

"I think General Eisenhower was exactly right. I think we should be concerned about the military industrial complex. I think if you look at where the country is today, you've consolidated all these defense firms into a few large firms, like Halliburton, with contacts and contracts at the highest level of government. You've got most of the retired Generals, are one way or another, associated with the defense firms. That's the reason that you'll find very few of them speaking out in any public way. I'm not. When I got out I determined I wasn't going to sell arms, I was going to do as little as possible with the Defense Department, because I just figured it was time to make a new start.

But I think that the military industrial complex does wield a lot of influence. I'd like to see us create a different complex, and I'm going to be talking about foreign policy in a major speech tomorrow, but we need to create an agency that is not about waging war, but about creating the conditions for Peace around the world. We need some people who will be advocates for Peace, advocates for economic development not just advocates for better weapons systems. So we need to create countervailing power to the military industrial complex."

During this same interview Clark also made this statement:

"I think we're at a time in American history that's probably analogous to, maybe, Rome before the first emperors, when the Republic started to fall... I think if you look at the pattern of events, if you look at the disputed election of 2000, can you imagine? In America, people are trying to recount ballots and a partisan mob is pounding on the glass and threatening the counters? Can you imagine that? Can you imagine a political party which does its best to keep any representatives from another party — who've even been affiliated with another party — from getting a business job in the nation's capital? Can you imagine a political party that wants to redistrict so that its opponents can be driven out entirely?...it's a different time in America and the Republic is - this election is about a lot more than jobs. I'm not sure everybody in America sees it right now. But I see it, I feel it."

I urge people to listen to the whole interview if you want a better feel of who Wesley Clark is.

[bvar22]

28. Thank You.

I am delighted by the response, and will file the quotes away for future use.
I am more familiar with Clark's stand on Labor issues. He caught MY attention when he said "Labor Rights ARE Human Rights".

The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[Donna Zen]

58. Star Wars?

Yes, he refers to it in his Seton Hall speech. Yes, he calls the Pentagon budget the "make-want budget" and explains in Winning Modern Wars why and how the military budget keeps rising while America actually robbed. It has to do with the current congress critters. He says that an improved weapon/piece of equipment is requested. The critters who are in states that manufacture that old version ban together to stop the new stuff. The new stuff will be made in different states and those congress people ban together. In the end Clark says, everything gets funded: the old and the new. Yes, Clark said at a NH event that the MIC is getting bigger and if we want to do something about it, vote for him. We could not only have a cheaper military, we could have a better military.

[Vickers]

16. As a veteran, I agree with him. I've seen more anti-military bullshit on

this site than just about anywhere.

Notice he doesn't say ALL, he says SOME. Hard to argue with that.

On the other hand, I also feel that there are more liberal veterans than freep veterans...most freepers don't have the courage of their basement-dwelling convictions.

[JNelson6563]

21. Disappointing statement

:-(

[FrenchieCat]

35. Disappointing, but true.....

Unfortunately.

Maybe part of Wes Clark's response is due to that NATION 5 pages "High School Creative writing" Hit piece in where Matt Taibbi (Milosovic Apologist Extraordinaire) wrote, His eyes are blank. Like a turtle resting on a rock and much, much more....1/2 of which were his "impressions" as he (Taibbi) had so-called "infiltrated" the "misterious" Draft Clark movement to bring us his "unbiased" :sarcasm: unattributed "perceptions" and "recollections".

and the Pic that was on the December '03 cover....just in time for Democratic Primary voters......would certainly lead one to think that Clark is right on the money, no matter how many guilty of it themselves are now going to conveniently deny it.

The man wasn't born yesterday! :eyes:


Even the fucking picture wasn't real!

[xkenx]

22. I've spent mucho time here refuting attacks on Clark for being "Military,"

so here's a reprise.

GEORGE McGOVERN
Today, I am proud to stand here this morning and announce my support for a true progressive, a true Democrat, and the next president of the United States.

A man whose progressive policies on education, taxation, health care are in the finest tradition of the Democratic Party.

A man whose ideals, decency, and compassion are in the great tradition of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, and Bill Clinton.

A man whose life's work and devotion to America will serve as a beacon to our young and give pride to us all.

That man is Wes Clark - and he will lead our party to victory in November.

Like Wes Clark, I'm a veteran. I was an airman in World War II. And I believe there is nothing more patriotic than serving your country.

I also believe there is nothing more patriotic than speaking out - and standing up for what you believe in. That was one of the reasons I ran for president in 1972 - because I believed that Vietnam was a not a war America should be fighting. Back then, Wes Clark was an officer in the United States Army. And in the election of '72, he voted for the other candidate. Let's call it youthful indiscretion. The good news is that this time we both agree.

Today, we are fighting the wrong war in Iraq. And that's one of the reasons I'm standing here today. Because there is only one man in this race with four stars on his shoulders and thirty-four years of military experience. There is only one man in this race who stopped genocide and saved 1.5 million Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing. There is only one man in this race who has a success strategy to get us out of the war in Iraq - and get our servicemen and women home safely. And that man is Wes Clark.

Wes Clark is also a champion of America's working families, because he knows that you can't be strong abroad unless you're strong at home. Wes Clark understands the problems facing ordinary Americans, especially the three million Americans who've lost their job since George W. Bush arrived at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. And the 44 million Americans don't have health care, and the thousands who can't afford the sky-rocketing costs of education.

Wes Clark is the only man who can get our country back on track. He's got a jobs program to get our economy going ... a real tax reform to help our working and hard-pressed families ... and a health care plan to make health care affordable for all Americans and universal for all our children. He wants to fight for all Americans, from all walks of life. These are not just Democratic values. These are American values.

Running for president is no easy task. And I have the battle scars to show it. I, too, was the subject of a few dirty tricks during my day. But I'll tell you, there is no better man to withstand the Republican attacks then Wes Clark. And the Republicans know that - they're running scared. The last thing they want is a four star general on their hands. So to my Republican friends out there: get ready, here we come.

Finally, let me say this: There are a lot of good Democrats in this race. But Wes Clark is the best Democrat. He is a true progressive. He's the Democrat's Democrat. I've been around the political block - and I can tell you, I know a true progressive when I see one. And that's why he has my vote.

Wes Clark will bring a higher standard of leadership back to Washington. He'll fight for America's interests, not the special interests. He'll bring honesty, openness, and accountability to the White House. He is a born leader.

That is why I am standing here today: because there's one man in this race with a success strategy in Iraq... there's one man who can really stand up for working American families ... there's one man who can beat George W. Bush - and take back the White House in 2004.

And that man is my friend, our leader, a true progressive, and the next Democratic president of the United States, Wes Clark.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FROM A POSTER ON DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND

Everything you've posted so eloquently could have come from my heart. AND I have another, completely selfish, personal reason.

My son decided long ago that he intends to make the military a career. This kid is not a gung-ho shoot-em-up type kid, but one that turned down a nomination to the Air Force Academy because he so adamantly opposes the way the leadership has dealt with women's issues there. A kid who is a 4.0 honors scholar and is majoring in political science and international affairs. A kid who is a Democrat through and through and values the leadership in a military that is based on a meritocracy.

My selfish, personal reason: I would trust Wes Clark with my son's life.

Wes Clark is a man who understands the value of each and every life and what a tragedy it is to lose even one. He understands that every action he takes has consequences. Wes has used his talents, his skill and his conscience to make sure that every decision he makes guarantees the best outcome with the least cost in lives and heartache. Tirelessly, sleeplessly and with unfailing courage and unceasing care.

Oh, there are a lot of politicians that I might vote for, but there are NONE that deserve to make the decision about whether my son lives or dies.

Except Wes Clark.

Because you see, I think he may be the only one out there that values my son as much as I do.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MARIO CUOMO
Mario Cuomo said, "Wes Clark is a man of whom you can ask a question, and he will look you directly in the eye, and give you the most truthful and complete answer you can imagine. You will know the absolute truth of the statement as well as the thought process behind the answer. You will have no doubt as to the intellect of the speaker and meaning of the answer to this question....So you can see, as a politician, he has a lot to learn."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL MOORE
I?ll Be Voting For Wesley Clark / Good-Bye Mr. Bush ? by Michael Moore

Many of you have written to me in the past months asking, "Who are you going to vote for this year?"

I have decided to cast my vote in the primary for Wesley Clark. That's right, a peacenik is voting for a general. What a country!

I believe that Wesley Clark will end this war. He will make the rich pay their fair share of taxes. He will stand up for the rights of women, African Americans, and the working people of this country.

And he will cream George W. Bush.

I have met Clark and spoken to him on a number of occasions, feeling him out on the issues but, more importantly, getting a sense of him as a human being. And I have to tell you I have found him to be the real deal, someone whom I'm convinced all of you would like, both as a person and as the individual leading this country. He is an honest, decent, honorable man who would be a breath of fresh air in the White House. He is clearly not a professional politician. He is clearly not from Park Avenue. And he is clearly the absolute best hope we have of defeating George W. Bush.

This is not to say the other candidates won't be able to beat Bush, and I will work enthusiastically for any of the non-Lieberman 8 who might get the nomination. But I must tell you, after completing my recent 43-city tour of this country, I came to the conclusion that Clark has the best chance of beating Bush. He is going to inspire the independents and the undecided to come our way. The hard core (like us) already have their minds made up. It's the fence sitters who will decide this election.

The decision in November is going to come down to 15 states and just a few percentage points. So, I had to ask myself -- and I want you to honestly ask yourselves -- who has the BEST chance of winning Florida, West Virginia, Arizona, Nevada, Missouri, Ohio? Because THAT is the only thing that is going to matter in the end. You know the answer -- and it ain't you or me or our good internet doctor.

This is not about voting for who is more anti-war or who was anti-war first or who the media has already anointed. It is about backing a candidate that shares our values AND can communicate them to Middle America. I am convinced that the surest slam dunk to remove Bush is with a four-star-general-top-of-his-class- at-West-Point-Rhodes-Scholar-Medal-of-Freedom-winning-gun-owner-from-the-South -- who also, by chance, happens to be pro-choice, pro environment, and anti-war. You don't get handed a gift like this very often. I hope the liberal/left is wise enough to accept it. It's hard, when you're so used to losing, to think that this time you can actually win. It is Clark who stands the best chance -- maybe the only chance -- to win those Southern and Midwestern states that we MUST win in order to accomplish Bush Removal. And if what I have just said is true, then we have no choice but to get behind the one who can make this happen.

There are times to vote to make a statement, there are times to vote for the underdog and there are times to vote to save the country from catastrophe. This time we can and must do all three. I still believe that each one of us must vote his or her heart and conscience. If we fail to do that, we will continue to be stuck with spineless politicians who stand for nothing and no one (except those who write them the biggest checks).

My vote for Clark is one of conscience. I feel so strongly about this that I'm going to devote the next few weeks of my life to do everything I can to help Wesley Clark win. I would love it if you would join me on this mission.

Here are just a few of the reasons why I feel this way about Wes Clark:

1. Clark has committed to ensuring that every family of four who makes under $50,000 a year pays NO federal income tax. None. Zip. This is the most incredible helping hand offered by a major party presidential candidate to the working class and the working poor in my lifetime. He will make up the difference by socking it to the rich with a 5% tax increase on anything they make over a million bucks. He will make sure corporations pay ALL of the taxes they should be paying. Clark has fired a broadside at greed. When the New York Times last week wrote that Wes Clark has been ?positioning himself slightly to Dean?s left," this is what they meant, and it sure sounded good to me.

2. He is 100% opposed to the draft. If you are 18-25 years old and reading this right now, I have news for you -- if Bush wins, he's going to bring back the draft. He will be forced to. Because, thanks to his crazy war, recruitment is going to be at an all-time low. And many of the troops stuck over there are NOT going to re-enlist. The only way Bush is going to be able to staff the military is to draft you and your friends. Parents, make no mistake about it -- Bush's second term will see your sons taken from you and sent to fight wars for the oily rich. Only an ex-general who knows first-hand that a draft is a sure-fire way to wreck an army will be able to avert the inevitable.

3. He is anti-war. Have you heard his latest attacks on Bush over the Iraq War? They are stunning and brilliant. I want to see him on that stage in a debate with Bush -- the General vs. the Deserter! General Clark told me that it's people like him who are truly anti-war because it's people like him who have to die if there is a war. "War must be the absolute last resort," he told me. "Once you've seen young people die, you never want to see that again, and you want to avoid it whenever and wherever possible." I believe him. And my ex-Army relatives believe him, too. It's their votes we need.

4. He walks the walk. On issues like racism, he just doesn't mouth liberal platitudes -- he does something about it. On his own volition, he joined in and filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of the University of Michigan's case in favor of affirmative action. He spoke about his own insistence on affirmative action in the Army and how giving a hand to those who have traditionally been shut out has made our society a better place. He didn't have to get involved in that struggle. He's a middle-aged white guy -- affirmative action personally does him no good. But that is not the way he thinks. He grew up in Little Rock, one of the birthplaces of the civil rights movement, and he knows that African Americans still occupy the lowest rungs of the ladder in a country where everyone is supposed to have "a chance." That is why he has been endorsed by one of the founding members of the Congressional Black Caucus, Charlie Rangel, and former Atlanta Mayor and aide to Martin Luther King, Jr., Andrew Young.

5. On the issue of gun control, this hunter and gun owner will close the gun show loophole (which would have helped prevent the massacre at Columbine) and he will sign into law a bill to create a federal ballistics fingerprinting database for every gun in America (the DC sniper could have been identified within the first days of his killing spree). He is not afraid, as many Democrats are, of the NRA. His message to them: "You like to fire assault weapons? I have a place for you. It's not in the homes and streets of America. It's called the Army, and you can join any time!"

6. He will gut and overhaul the Patriot Act and restore our constitutional rights to privacy and free speech. He will demand stronger environmental laws. He will insist that trade agreements do not cost Americans their jobs and do not exploit the workers or environment of third world countries. He will expand the Family Leave Act. He will guarantee universal pre-school throughout America. He opposes all discrimination against gays and lesbians (and he opposes the constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage). All of this is why Time magazine this week referred to Clark as "Dean 2.0" -- an improvement over the original (1.0, Dean himself), a better version of a good thing: stronger, faster, and easier for the mainstream to understand and use.

7. He will cut the Pentagon budget, use the money thus saved for education and health care, and he will STILL make us safer than we are now. Only the former commander of NATO could get away with such a statement. Dean says he will not cut a dime out of the Pentagon. Clark knows where the waste and the boondoggles are and he knows that nutty ideas like Star Wars must be put to pasture. His health plan will cover at least 30 million people who now have no coverage at all, including 13 million children. He's a general who will tell those swing voters, "We can take this Pentagon waste and put it to good use to fix that school in your neighborhood." My friends, those words, coming from the mouth of General Clark, are going to turn this country around.

Now, before those of you who are Dean or Kucinich supporters start cloggin' my box with emails tearing Clark down with some of the stuff I've seen floating around the web ("Mike! He voted for Reagan! He bombed Kosovo!"), let me respond by pointing out that Dennis Kucinich refused to vote against the war resolution in Congress on March 21 (two days after the war started) which stated "unequivocal support" for Bush and the war (only 11 Democrats voted against this--Dennis abstained). Or, need I quote Dr. Dean who, the month after Bush "won" the election, said he wasn't too worried about Bush because Bush "in his soul, is a moderate"? What's the point of this ridiculous tit-for-tat sniping? I applaud Dennis for all his other stands against the war, and I am certain Howard no longer believes we have nothing to fear about Bush. They are good people.

Why expend energy on the past when we have such grave danger facing us in the present and in the near future? I don't feel bad nor do I care that Clark -- or anyone -- voted for Reagan over 20 years ago. Let's face it, the vast majority of Americans voted for Reagan -- and I want every single one of them to be WELCOMED into our tent this year. The message to these voters -- and many of them are from the working class -- should not be, "You voted for Reagan? Well, to hell with you!" Every time you attack Clark for that, that is the message you are sending to all the people who at one time liked Reagan. If they have now changed their minds (just as Kucinich has done by going from anti-choice to pro-choice, and Dean has done by wanting to cut Medicare to now not wanting to cut it) ? and if Clark has become a liberal Democrat, is that not something to cheer?

In fact, having made that political journey and metamorphosis, is he not the best candidate to bring millions of other former Reagan supporters to our side -- blue collar people who have now learned the hard way just how bad Reagan and the Republicans were (and are) for them?

We need to take that big DO NOT ENTER sign off our tent and reach out to the vast majority who have been snookered by these right-wingers. And we have a better chance of winning in November with one of their own leading them to the promised land.

There is much more to discuss and, in the days and weeks ahead, I will continue to send you my thoughts. In the coming months, I will also be initiating a number of efforts on my website to make sure we get out the vote for the Democratic nominee in November.

In addition to voting for Wesley Clark, I will also be spending part of my Bush tax cut to help him out. You can join me, if you like, by going to his website to learn more about him, to volunteer, or to donate. To find out about when your state?s presidential primaries are, visit Vote Smart.

I strongly urge you to vote for Wes Clark. Let's join together to ensure that we are putting forth our BEST chance to defeat Bush on the November ballot. It is, at this point, for the sake of the world, a moral imperative.

Yours,

Michael Moore

[lojasmo]

23. I won't vote for a "democrat" who registered as such only

months before running for the democratic nomination for POTUS.

I won't vote for a candidate who voted Reagan and Bush I into office.

I won't vote for a candidate who supports SOTA

I won't vote for a DU (uranium) appologist.

I WILL vote for a veteran for US congress in 2006

[xkenx]

25. You're one of them. Read my post #22

[AJH032]

24. It's not a myth, but it's not completely true either

There are plenty of liberals who want to demilitarize America (I've seen that opinion expressed here on DU), but there are also many who don't. We can't just generalize and say "liberals want this" or "liberals want that" and assume it to be 100% true.

[Tom Rinaldo]

27. Not one person has said it's 100% true

Most liberals don't totally agree on most things, it's just an undercurrent that sometimes surfaces. Rarely is it a hard core thing anyway, just something that some of us aren't totally comfortable with. I've admitted to this about myself here in the past:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x590221

[radio4progressives]

29. I'm a Military Brat...

both parents were Marines when they met and got married. Dad served two tours in Viet Nam as well as Laos and did a 13 month stint in Okinawa..

I'm not a progressive against the military per se. I'm against Militarism used to advance Imperial mis-adventures, and I think we should all be very seriously concerned with the MIC, but that's a very different issue that ought to be delineated in these discussions..

Stuff happened in Kosovo that progressives are very concerned about, i'm not going to advance those concerns here. The CFR is a very questionable organization that is something of front org to advance the MIC and Imperialism. Again, that's a different matter, and i fear people do not make the distinctions when discussing this issue.

I will make note of prediction based on yesterday's press conference on current events in Iraq which apparently will be on the plate for the next administration... if this war is still on going in 2008 - Clark will likely be considered as the "favorite" candidate among military vets and moderates - because he will likely be the one considered as the only one qualified to clean up Bush's mess in the ME.

That's just a prediction, not touting Clark as someone I support to be president, because personally, I'm a Feingold/Gore or Gore/Feingold supporter if conditions for that were to ever be possible.

Whoever is elected will inherit Bush's mess to clean up, and be charged with repairing our national image on foreign policy matters - but the damage will be so severe, i'm not sure it will be humanly possible for any one individual to accomplish no matter what military / progressive / fiscal / moderate or other creds that individual possesses.

But the domestic front is equally as bleak, and I'm not sure there is any one individual that will be able to repair the enormous destruction this administration has wrought upon our nation and the world.

[Tom Rinaldo]

30. I respect your thoughts R4P

And I couldn't agree more with this statement you made:

"I'm not a progressive against the military per se. I'm against Militarism used to advance Imperial mis-adventures, and I think we should all be very seriously concerned with the MIC, but that's a very different issue that ought to be delineated in these discussions."

War, even when fought with the best of intentions and the noblest of goals, even when the predominate effect of waging a specific war is a net gain for the human values we embrace compared to the most likely reprocussions had that war not been entered into, even when all efforts to avoid war have been completely exhausted and it is the only realistic course of action left, war is always a killing machine that sucks in innocents and spits out corpses.

Feingold and Gore are both on a very short list of Democrats who I would be glad to support should one of them become our nominee.

I thought you might be interested in these statements that Wes Clark made during his 2004 campaign under WES CLARK'S TEN PLEDGES regarding national security. I only pulled three to keep this post from becoming way too long:
http://www.clark04.com/issues/10pledges/

2) I will never ask our troops to risk the ultimate sacrifice or ask their families to pay the ultimate price of patriotism except as an absolute last resort.
As President, I will rebuild our relationships abroad and the alliances which maintain them. And I will strengthen them, so that we can solve problems together, so that the use of military force is our last resort not our first, and if America must act with force we can call on the military, financial, and moral resources of others.

Restoring our alliance with Europe is the first essential part of my broader strategy for American national security. President Bush has created a go-it-alone approach and declared the use of preemptive military force as the defining characteristic of his national security strategy. A Clark Administration would place our work with Europe and a reinvigorated NATO as a centerpiece of U.S. policy -- and then seek not to rely on preemptive force, but instead to use diplomatic, political, economic power and international law in support of preventive engagement. We would reserve the use of force for an absolutely last resort and then act together if possible and alone only if we must.



4) The statements and actions of a Clark Administration will restore America's moral authority.

The Bush Administration has squandered in two years the moral authority America spent generations building. It started when President Bush said to the world, "you're either with us or against us." As a result, even some of those who were with us are now against us. And those, like Tony Blair, who are still with us pay a political price for it. America is hurt as well. We are less secure when our friends suffer for standing by our side. With fewer partners, we are left to meet dangers alone.

Even in Eastern Europe, there is dismay. These were some of the first countries in the world to support the Bush administration in Iraq. And what does this Administration do to its friends? In July, it suspends all U.S. military assistance to Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Slovakia, and Bulgaria because they have not yet promised Americans blanket immunity from the International Criminal Court.

One after another, American presidents have laid a foundation of moral authority for the United States. That foundation was built through our leadership in containing Communism, in promoting human rights, in helping the poor and the sick, and in promoting international law. That foundation has been splintered in a few short years.

Also, a key part of my strategy of preventive engagement is to lead the global fight against rising tide of AIDS. Although AIDS is a preventable and treatable disease, in 2003, 5 million people worldwide were newly infected with HIV and a record 3 million people died of AIDS -- more than all the deaths from wars and terrorism in the world combined.

I have a four-part Global AIDS Security Strategy:


Keep the U.S. commitment to combat AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria worldwide - doubling funding to $30 billion by 2008.

Dedicate a large majority of U.S. funding to multilateral approaches like the Global Fund to Fight AIDS Tuberculosis and Malaria, while demanding results and additional commitments from our allies.

Base prevention and research efforts on the best available science, including overturning the global gag rule.


My Global AIDS Security Strategy will:

Prevent 14 million new HIV infections

Provide care and support for 20 million HIV-infected individuals and AIDS orphans

Provide treatment for 5 million people living with HIV/AIDS, including supporting the WHO goal of putting 3 million people on treatment by 2005

Accelerate the development of vaccines and cost-effective treatments to stop HIV, TB, malaria, and other infectious diseases



8) America's military will be a complement, not substitute, for diplomacy, law, and leadership in the conduct of our international affairs.
We must reorganize our government so that we can bring to bear the economic, diplomatic and political tools in our arsenal. When we use the power of international law and diplomacy, we can achieve decisive results, even without decisive force.

A Clark Administration would place our work with Europe and a reinvigorated NATO as a centerpiece of U.S. policy -- and then seek not to rely on preemptive force, but instead to use diplomatic, political, economic power and international law in support of preventive engagement. We would reserve the use of force for an absolutely last resort and then act together if possible and alone only if we must.

The United States needs a cabinet-level or subcabinet-level agency that is charged with developing plans, programs, and personnel structures to assist in the areas of political and economic development abroad. Call it the Department of International Development. Focusing our humanitarian and developmental efforts through a single, responsible department will help us bring the same kind of sustained attention to alleviating deprivation, misery, ethnic conflict, and poverty that we have brought to the problem of warfare. These efforts will reduce the anger and alienation that gives rise to terrorism, and win us more friends and partners around the world. It will be far easier to gain international support for our concerns when other countries see us helping them on theirs.

[radio4progressives]

34. Yes, this will likely appeal to most Americans..

particularly if we are still in Iraq in 2008.

I just heard that the Pentagon/DoD is building an multi-billion dollar United States Embassy complex in Baghdad. From the sound of it, it'll be something of a U.S. Pentagon Satellite center - underground facilities and bunkers - state of the art - as well as a city within walls, complete with multi-plex theatres, restaurants, shops and the like.

If only Americans understood what we were doing there.

[FrenchieCat]

36. Can you clearify something?

You said..."The CFR is a very questionable organization that is something of front org to advance the MIC and Imperialism Why are you bringing up this organization in reference to Wes Clark. He is not a member, far as I know.

[radio4progressives]

38. I'll try...

CFR is an organization which progressive politico's pay very close attention to..

I didn't say Clark was a member, because i do not know if he is or not, but he certainly has their support from the little I have read, that shouldn't be taken as personal judgment against Clark.. (from me), just pointing out that progressives will express concerns on this regard. I'll need to invest time and energy researching into that issue, and weigh what I learn about it against any other concerns, on balance.

In the end, i don't think it really matters much.

Today, I'm more pessimistic than ever about the immediate future of our country, particularly seeing how leadership in our own party refuse to call out the Bush administration on his muderous policies and against permanent warfare and continued saber rattling for more pre-emptive strikes against other countries.

To me, it's absolute height of insanity for there to be no response from our own leadership to President Bush's statements regarding the Iraq situation being on the plate for future administrations and future governments..

because no one is, none of this matters anymore...

[HootieMcBoob]

31. What about us liberals who were part of the military?

He should have said: I'm a liberal military man who reads the nation. Candidates need to internalize this truism: "perception is reality"! The Republicans on the other hand believe "deception is reality". There's a difference.

If you repeat that kind of thing people begin to internalize it. If you say that you are a liberal, that you're a career military officer and that you are an avid reader and admirer of The Nation, then that becomes the reality.

[Tom Rinaldo]

32. I don't trust these as exact quotes

They were after the fact notes taken by the Nation intern. This comes from a chance one on one encounter, it was not not a press statement, it is not a message Clark was sending out to anyone. I don't fault the intern at all, I am sure he or she got the gist of the conversation more or less right, but probably s/he never expected it to be published by the Nation either. Some of those "quotes" don't sound even remotely like the way Clark actually talks in person. I would take those quotes with a grain of salt and think more about the questions raised rather than the way they were supposedly framed.

[Totally Committed]

33. In posts too numerous to count here, I read many times

one DU-er or another say they couldn't consider voting for Clark because he was "in the military". How many e-mails do you think Wes has recieved to that effect? He reads the blogs... how many times do you think he read that very remark? Given the frequency and the repeated sentiment, here and elsewhere, among those on the far Left, I don't think it's fair to charcterize this as "buying a myth".

Candidates make speeches to get their point across. To do that, they ALL generalize broadly and emphasize to make their point. If Wes said this, that is why. If he even said something similar, that is why.

TC

[sandnsea]

40. That's why I use the term leftist

To try and differentiate them from liberals or the generic left. Leftist-anarchist types hate just about everything US, certainly the military is at the top of the list. And there are definitely plenty of DUers who fall in that category.

[radio4progressives]

41. I'm a Leftist Anarchist type and I completely Disagree with your statement

please see my post above - "I'm a Military Brat" # 29..

I notice that you do this alot..

[WildEyedLiberal]

45. Well, perhaps she notices that all you do is criticize Democrats

The fact that you proudly describe yourself as an "anarchist" speaks volumes, really. Anarchism is a violent and chaotic fantasy for children, not a viable political philosophy.

[Tom Rinaldo]

54. I disagree with you about Anarchy by the way

It is a much richer and thoughtful political philosophy than you give it credit for. Yes some who self identify as Anarchists are drawn toward violence, but you might want to look into the worker self management movement that flourished in Argentina recently as a more sober reference point. Volunteer Fire Departments are essentially Anarchist institutions in action. Barcelona, a very large and sophisticated city, was controlled by the Confederation of Anarchist Unions during a large part of the Spanish Civil War. Anarchist philosophy essentially is a belief in bottom up decision making with many different models of how that can be accomplished. It has gotten a bad rap.

[Totally Committed]

43. No offense, but I am a "Leftist" (think I'm too old to be an anarchist)

I am a "Leftist", a "Liberal", and a "Progressive", and view each term as a badge of honor. I wear them proudly. I have always loved my country. (I would not be still fighting for her salvation at this late date if I didn't.)

There are DU-ers who fall into the category as you have described it, but I, and people like me, fall outside these parameters and find disturbing to be categorized that way.

Just the fact that someone as far to the Left as I am can support Wes Clark for as long and as fervently as I have has got to say something. None pf the candidates is perfect (some are less perfect than others, but in the end we will all make our choices...) But, I will state here and now, to probably no one's surprise, that I feel Wes Clark will be the best POTUS this country could have elected in this time and place.

TC

[radio4progressives]

44. I was responding to the other post..

I was responding to Sandsea that Leftists Anarchists are anti-Military.

doesn't make the distinction between the MIC, which even military people are concerned about, raised first by a former General and a President of the United States, a Republican i might add...

it just's flat out wrong and unfair, and deflamitory to claim that all or most Leftists are "anti-military" is essentially all i'm saying. :hi:

[Totally Committed]

50. I knew that .....

:hi:

I agree with you when you say it is flat-out wrong and unfair, and yes, defamitory. to claim all Leftists are and "anti-military", and that was what my post was meant to say as well.

I do have to say, though, that the sizeable contingent that is anti-military both here and on other boards is quite vocal, and very sad. They drag out the same tired, old saws against any former military person (of course, I notice most when it's Clark....) and no matter what you tell them -- even if it refutes what they are saying 100% -- they just keep repeating it and repeating it. I just don't know it any of them is "Left-er" than I am, or what. That's my point. I just don't know.

TC

[AX10]

46. That is the difference between the liberals and the left.

The left, just like their right wing counterparts are extreme. Though, the right wing is more extreme than the left. Liberals will have no problem embracing a military person.

[radio4progressives]

49. WWI, WWII, Cold War/Viet Nam all Major Wars/Conflict Democrats Created

or Democrats engaged in...

What was the question again?

[bush_is_wacko]

51. I'm a liberal and I'm NOT scared of the military! Clark is wrong!

We just want the military to be used for it's rightful purpose. Defense NOT offense. No pre-emptive wars. No war for oil or $$.

I have two living veterans in my family. One is a thuglican the other a LIBERAL. Guess which one fought in Vietnam? My grandfather fought in Korea and WWII he was a LIBERAL! My husbands father fought in Vietnam. He was a LIBERAL! I know three Gulf War Veterans. They are ALL Liberals!

IF Liberals have a knee jerk reaction to the military it is the CURRENT military movement they have a knee jerk reaction to.

Clark needs to re-examine his definition of Liberal!

Or maybe I need to re-examine my definition of Liberal?

[Tom Rinaldo]

52. I don't trust the Nation's intern's exact quote

That is just not how Clark speaks. And Clark identifies himself as Liberal. I don't doubt that the subject of their conversation included how some on the left are suspicious of the military, but I just don't believe that Clark literally said "Liberals are afraid of the military". Clark has too many close friends and supporters who are Liberal and way left of Liberal to believe that as a blanket statement. Check out the bloggers who use his own web site sometime for an example. Almost all are left of center and Clark reads the blogs on his own site.

[maxsolomon]

53. not SCARED of the military, just OPPOSED to its existence.

and pissed about the amount of our budget its bloated needs & wants takes up.

[high density]

55. Well, "The Nation" did print a very nasty article about him in 2003

It was just a total trash article and it has completely turned me off to that magazine until they apologize two or three times about it. I'm a liberal, and as far as I can tell, Clark's also a liberal. He certainly has my vote at this point. I don't agree with Clark on Iraq (I think it's time to pull out now) but since Bush is telling us that we're still going to be in Iraq in 2009, I think Clark is about the only one in the field right now that has the skills and world view to deal with the situation in an intelligent manner. (I'm not a single issue voter on Iraq. It's a obviously a very bad situation that has no easy fix. I am right in line with many of his other positions, though.) We can all be sure that Clark would NOT abuse the military like Bush has done.

The Amy Goodman crowd will never vote for him, but I don't think anything could possibly change their minds. An endorsement Michael Moore and George McGovern might help... Oh yeah. :eyes:

Plus I want to see him elected so I can say I shook the president's hand, not just once but twice. :D

[AtomicKitten]

57. yeh, but THIS military man is so pretty.

Yummy.

[LittleClarkie]

59. There's a segment of DU that feels that way about Clark.

I've seen enough flamewars that brought up his military service, and whether or not he bombed people. I dunno if that segment reads the Nation, however.

[AtomicKitten]

64. funny but Clark is bulletproof against the chickenhawks

I guess some of the people flaming him and his supporters (I supported him in the primary but missed the flame wars here at DU) didn't listen to him. If they had, they would have moved beyond the rhetoric and seen a truly decent man with a good heart. Or maybe not.

If Gore doesn't run, I'll support Clark in 2008.

[Renew Deal]

60. Because Clark has little political acumen

He's heard that "liberals" are afraid of the military and he bought it. It amazes me that he would believe this considering the long history of veterans in the party, but whatever. Clark is just parroting something he heard.

[incapsulated]

62. You're right. I've never heard one word against the military...

On DU or in that five-page long smear of Clark in the Nation, with a photoshop of his face in camouflage on the cover. Why, during the primaries, all I read was praise and stunned but happy surprise from people here upon learning that someone who had served in the military would be running for office. "Surely not", they said, "a member of our beloved armed forces, and a 4 Star General at that, wants to be President? What a wonderful idea! We just
adore the military here at DU! We need more Generals running for office! Where do we sign up?!"

Or, I could've been dropping acid or something when I remember it that way.

[wiley]

63. Strong Acid!

You were tripping!

[Tom Rinaldo]

67. Case in point (I couldn't make this up if I tried)

From an exchange I had with a poster on another DU thread:

"A general is not the right candidate for the democratic party, we already have a war time president and plenty of generals. There are plenty of great people that would be a lot better choice then Clark.

Your statement to me is wrong:

'And you know damn well that Clark was never a Republican. Repeating a lie endlessy does not establish it as true.'

No I don't know that he is not a republican or ever been a republican because he actually did vote republican a few times. If you would like to look into it you will find the truth you seek.

When I think of the Democratic party, I'm sorry I think of Liberal, and I really can't associate Generals who wage war and kill people as liberal or a person that would share my view point. If both partys are pro-war then where does that leave us? Stupid question by me cause we both know they are. Whats this whole thing about? Why do we Fight? I think you know too!

I could name like 100 people that would be a lot better for our party and have no military credentials, which in my mind means they never killed people!"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2528973&mesg_id=2530886

And like I said before, Clark reads the blogs on his own web site:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/

Clark knows very well that most of his core support comes from Liberals and those left of center. Those are the people blogging at Clark Community Network. I think you are taking some supposed quotes from the after the fact notes taken by an intern, and blowing them way out of proportion.

[eridani]

65. Being military isn't the problem

Being pro-imperialism and pro-corporate-style "globalization" is. If we can't get ourselves a Gorbachev type who will announce our withdrawal from from imperial domination, Clark is certainly as good as anybody else on other issues.

[eridani]

66. Suspicion of the military--

--is actually proper caution about the uses of a totalitarian institution. Armies have been totalitarian ever since the Hoplites and the Roman legions creamed the individualistic warriors of barbarian tribes (at least if they didn't let their supply lines get way too long). "Sarge--about that order you just gave to take out that machine gun nest--Corporal Ramirez and I have come up with a much better option; have a look" just isn't going to work as a way for the military to operate. The problem is when that sort of social organization tends to become normalized as the way the rest of the society ought to operate.

It's hardly likely that we are going to be rid of our standing army, but it's also pretty plain that our Founding Fathers thought that the whole point of the 2nd amendment was that an armed citizenry was to be a replacement for a standing army.

http://polyticks.com/polyticks/beararms/fathers.htm

http://en.thinkexist.com/keyword/standing_army/

Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts:
"What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise a standing army upon its ruins." -- Debate, U.S. House of Representatives, August 17, 1789

Virginia Declaration of Rights 13 (June 12, 1776), drafted by George Mason: "That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."


- James Madison, Fourth Annual Message, November 4, 1812-- large and permanent military establishments which are forbidden by the principles of free government, and against the necessity of which the militia were meant to be a constitutional bulwark.


-- "A Framer," in the Independent Gazetteer, 1791 Whenever people . . . entrust the defense of their country to a regular, standing army, composed of mercenaries, the power of that country will remain under the direction of the most wealthy citizens.


Thomas Jefferson quotes (American 3rd US President (1801-09). Author of the Declaration of Independence. 1762-1826) "None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army"

James Madison quotes (American 4th US president (1809-17), and one of the founding fathers of his country. 1751-1836) A standing army is one of the greatest mischief that can possibly happen"

[Tom Rinaldo]

68. In our case the biggest problem with our standing army is

the politician sitting in the White House. Washington and Eisenhower were perhaps the two Presidents clearest about the need for Civilians to control the military, and they were both former Generals. Washington pointedly resigned his post as head of the Army to help establish the principle of civilian control in a very young Democracy, and Ike was the clearest early voice raised against the Military Industrial complex.

Unfortunately we live in a world with standing armies. In Germany and Japan those armies invaded most of the nations surrounding them. There are many things I find fault with about contemporary America, but one thing that I always give thanks for is the American tradition of civilian control over the military, and the honor shown by our nations military leaders in faithfully following that tradition. I have little doubt that wise counsel from American military leaders has most likely prevented some military adventures that civilian Presidents were tempted to launch. It is ironic isn't it that even in Bush's Administration it was the ex General, Colin Powell, who ended up being the least hawkish of the bunch.

[eridani]

69. It's true that we are stuck with standing armies

Also that we have had good luck in maintaining civilian control over ours. Still, there is no getting around the fact that the entire purpose of our existing standing army, with 700+ military bases around the world, is imperial domination. If we had devoted even a small percentage of the resources involved to our own defense, 9-11 could not have happened. Clark seems to be basically for this, including the economic imperialism of WTO, etc. If we can't get a Gorbachev type who will get us out of the imperial business for good, Clark may be as good as we can get, as he's fine on most other issues.


Imperialism through the ages--

For in the Romans is an arrogance which no submission or good behaviour can escape. Pillagers of the world, they have exhausted the land by their indiscriminate plunder, and now they ransack the sea. A rich enemy excites their cupidity; a poor one, their lust for power. East and West alike have failed to satisfy them. They are the only people on earth to whose covetousness both riches and poverty are equally tempting. To robbery, butchery, and rapine, they give the lying name of `government'; they create a desolation and call it peace.

--Tacitus ,The Agricola and the Germania, London: Penguin, 1970 pp. 80-81

.. we are not a young people with an innocent record and a scanty inheritance. We have engrossed to ourselves an altogether disproportionateshare of the wealth and traffic of the world. We have got all we want in territory, and our claim to be left in the unmolested enjoyment of vast and splendid possessions, mainly acquired by violence, largely maintained by force, often seems less reasonable to others than to us.

--Winston Churchill , "The World Crisis", released in the 1920s. Bolded words deleted before original publication


We have 50 per cent of the world's wealth, but only 6.3 per cent of its population. In this situation, our real job in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which permit us to maintain this position of disparity. To do so, we have to dispense with all sentimentality . . . we should cease thinking about human rights, the raising of living standards and democratisation.

--George Kennan, US Cold War planner, 1948 NSC-68 document
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/nsc-68/nsc68-1.htm
--Source: Naval War College Review, Vol. XXVII (May-June, 1975), pp. 51-108. Also in U.S. Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States: > 1950, Volume I.


The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist -McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the builder of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley's
technologies is called the United States Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.

--Thomas Friedman, "A Manifesto for the Fast World," The New York Times Magazine, March 28, 1999

We assert that no nation can long endure half republic and half empire, and we warn the American people that imperialism abroad will lead quickly and inevitably to despotism at home.

--Democratic National Platform, 1900

Those old platform-writing farts from 100 years ago knew a thing or three, no?

[IndianaGreen]

70. You should be afraid, very afraid

You have no idea how the military has been infiltrated by rightwing ideology and fundamentalist dogma. Even the chaplain corps, which used to be non-denominational in their conduct, are now mostly active proselytizers of their Christian dominion and reconstructionists dogmas.

[autorank]

71. There was a PAUL HACKETT too! Fighting liberal...n/t