Fortune's article on Wesley Clark : IMPORTANT to DEBUNK THIS!!

[jab105]

Ok, so I'm a little late (from 9/2/03)...but I searched on here and didn't see mention, so I thought I'd bring it up...I was in the dentist office today, and I saw Fortune magainze, and on the cover there was a blurb about "The General vs. Bush"...so I picked it up...but I got seen quickly, so didn't have a chance to start reading the article...

After I was done with the dentist, I was talking to the dental hygenist and the secretary and told them that I really liked Clark, blah blah blah...and they photocopied the article for me so that I could read it and told me that they would definitely check it out....

Well, it is a horrible article, I mean really really bad...I feel like shit that I told them to read it...its really awful...

I mean it basically glosses over most of the vietnam stuff, completely overlooks the whole degree in ECONOMICS, claims that if Clark had had his way there would have been American servicemen killed in Kosovo....then says that Clark would run just on the Iraq war, and that it wouldn't be a mess in a year (also says that he doesn't really know much about the budget problems so he wouldn't know how to combat Bush on the economy)...then it editorializes that he doesn't answer questions on Iraq as "deftly" as you'd expect....and ridicules him that he thinks that there is a statute of limitations on mhumanitarian crimes (WHICH IS NOT WHAT HE SAYS AT ALL!!!) .....and to drive home the point, says that "the image of gravitas that a general and NATO commander has begins to fray"...ugh, its really bad, and I am so pissed!!

http://www.fortune.com/fortune/articles/0,15114,480208,00.html

(in part)

Clark, then, would not be an "antibusiness" Democrat should he run. His economics are garden-variety, centrist, conventional. He doesn't like budget deficits, says the recovery underway is "jobless," and of course is critical of the Bush tax cuts. Like most of the other declared candidates, he is maddeningly vague about which parts of them he'd roll back, and when. Asked about health care, Clark goes into a disquisition about the backwardness of the incentives when it comes to health insurance. The other candidates would have their press people fax you their 14-point plan, along with seven studies on why it's the best thing for America since the lava lamp. Clark, on domestic policy anyway, is trying out lines as he goes along, seeing what works, what doesn't.

It doesn't really matter. If Clark goes, he's not going because he's all worked up about those damned deficits. He would run as general, the former NATO commander coming to restore order and reason to an American foreign policy run amuck, one that has made, he argues, the country less secure, not more, since George W. Bush took over. Iraq would be exhibit A.

And there, possibly, lies a problem. As we've seen, in politics things change. Iraq, one year from now, is not likely to be the unmitigated disaster that currently seems possible, nor the stable democracy of neoconservative dreams. It will probably be either slightly more or slightly less of a mess than it is now. For Clark, no less than for the other Democrats, the issue then gets complicated.

(snip)

Clark doesn't handle that question as deftly as you'd expect. Not even close, actually...

(snip)

At some point during this answer, the image of gravitas that a general and NATO commander has begins, shall we say, to fray a bit. It's fine to argue that the Iraq invasion was wrong. Clark may be right about that, and whoever's elected next year will have to pick up the pieces. We'll see. But a lot of people well to the left of George W. Bush—led by Tony Blair—would argue that the statute of limitations stuff is dubious. And suffice it to say that the "guys" running China now are not the same leaders who killed the students in Tiananmen Square. The recently departed General Secretary Jiang Zemin, to take but one example, was promoted from mayor of Shanghai to succeed Deng Xiaoping in part because he avoided bloodshed during Tiananmen. Yes, China's still more or less a police state. But have you ever heard of Saddam promoting someone because he avoided killing somebody?

_________

ANyways, I'm thinking of writing a letter to the editor about this one...I'm a Clark fan and a Dean supporter, but articles like this are what make the democrats lose...based on lies...

Anyone care to help me debunk this one?

[jab105]

1. I'm bumping this cause I think its important....

and no one else has brought it up at all (at least based on searching DU)

[shimmergal]

2. Obviously they don't like Clark.

Or are afraid of him. Maybe both.

Don't have many debunking facts, but . . . whether things are slightly more or slightly less of a mess in Iraq a year from now, they'll still be bad. I can't see Americans bring happy with the fact that "slightly fewer" US soldiers are being killed there. The general who got us through Kosovo with _no_ American combat deaths will look good in comparison.

[LoneStarLiberal]

3. Fortune Sucks for Politics

Like most other business publications, Fortune should stick to business and leave economics and politics to someone else. It's a milder version of the same schtick you will find in the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg Financial, or Smart Money.

The leadership of the business community typically are very anti-Dem. I mean why would they be Democratic supporters? The Bush administration gives them everything they want in a political regime: Great practical corporate breaks, great individual income tax breaks, great dividend tax breaks, eliminating or relaxing regulation, and official suppression of investigations into corporate wrongdoing.

No matter how business-friendly any Democratic candidate can be this year they are going to be drowned out by the Bush administration's total subservience to business interests.

[MidwestTransplant]

4. It's not a horrible article...

about 3/4 or more positive. The negative stuff comes at the end and it's not that negative.

[jab105]

9. You really think so?

I came away from it with a horrible taste in my mouth, if I was judging Clark based on that article, I wouldn't be interested at all...

[Cocoa]

5. Is the part about Rwanda true?

He argues further that the West, led by Clinton, should have intervened to prevent the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, when the Hutus slaughtered more than 800,000 Tutsis.

Few would disagree with that now

When I read that I thought wow, that is one radical position, Clark argues that we should have intervened in Rwanda.

But Fortune says "few would disagree with that now." That's exactly the opposite of how I understand it. In the debates last year, Bush himself answered flatly that it was correct to stay out of it, and I don't remember that being a very controversial position.

Who in Congress hold Clark's position, that Fortune says "few would argue with"? The congressional black caucus, the progressive caucus? I don't know.

Now if Clark's Rwanda position is as mainstream as Fortune says, I guess few would argue that we should be helping out the French mission in the Congo, right.

I guess I would want to also know what Clark thinks of the Congo.

[diplomats]

6. Clinton himself has said many times

he deeply regrets not taking that action in Rwanda. Clark's comments are fine with me.

[Cocoa]

7. I was more wondering about "few would argue"

His comments are ok with me too, especially since he would know the feasibility of intervention.

But I take issue with the idea that this is somehow a commonly held position.

And about Clinton, there's a long article in the Atlantic that makes it look like he knew exactly what was happening there as it was going on, and knew exactly the consequences of action or inaction.

Plus there's the question of the Congo. Did Clinton do anything there that supports his expressed regret?

[LoneStarLiberal]

8. Few Regret We Did Nothing Is More Like It

I think you are spot-on, Cocoa. There is a HUGE, MASSIVE, SIGNIFICANT difference between "we regret doing nothing" and "we would do something now if the situation presented itself once more."

No, America WOULD NOT do anything different. Call the reasons whatever you will...we are institutionally racist, there no oil in Rwanda, Burundi, or most of Congo, we have no strategic interests in central Africa, etc. The brutal fact of the matter is that we didn't then and we won't now.

The only reason the Bush administration intervened in Liberia is because they needed some positive PR to dampen the stink of the Iraqi Quagmire. For this and every other administration, the whole of the continent of Africa is all political risk and very little potential reward.

[diplomats]

11. I don't recall seeing Clinton talk about the Congo

As for the Atlantic article, I assume Clinton did know what was going on in Rwanda, for the most part. We all know he's not an intellectual doofus like Bush. I agree, though, that hindsight favoring intervention might not be a commonly held position. I don't know of any Repuke who would/would've backed it.

[jab105]

13. I'm fine with it also....

I just think the interviewer editorialized things way too much!!

[Starpass]

10. Doubt if too many blue collar workers are reading Fortune!!

But it's the same 'decor' I see in Doc and Dentists' offices, too. Gee I wonder why?? They are pandering to their nervous audience that (gasp) Georgie might be in trouble because us mindless cretins can't understand that their tax cuts are good for US. They want to keep things just the way they are; and thus, they will buy a magazine that will assure them it will be. How the hell does Bush have the skills to deal with any of the things mentioned---budget, etc.?? He's been a complete fuck up!!!

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

12. Fortune magazine is bashing Democrats?

Wow, I'm like totally surprised. I hope Clark isn't a typical, centrist, middle of the road pro-corporate type. If he is, he sure as hell won't get my vote.

[Pastiche423]

14. Excellent article!

Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

[Adjoran]

15. The Kosovo part is misleading

As I remember, Clark argued for a PLAN and mobilization for a ground force invasion, on the theory that Milosevic wouldn't give up until one was at least threatened. Clinton declined, and won on air power alone, but that was unprecedented at the time.

The one legitimate criticism of Clark's command in Kosovo concerns the incident when the Russians suddenly moved in and occupied the main airfield. Clark ordered the British commander in charge of that area to take it back immediately, and the British general refused, saying "I'm not going to start WWIII for you." The politicians quickly overruled Clark and prohibited any action against the Russian troops.

[Donna Zen]

19. Four plans

From the first there had to be a plan for ground troops especially since Europe likes ground operations and NATO was involved. IIRC there was plan A, B, B-, and some nutty plan that Cohen wanted that would take us to the outskirts of Belgrade thus starting an all out confrontation with NATO troops being out-manned. Clark said he would resign putting Cohen nose out of joint forever. Clark wanted to use the Apaches to surgically strike at the Serbs who were hiding in the mountains, and threatening Albania rather than continue to depend on aerial bombing. Cohen said "no." Remember: Cohen served at Clinton's pleasure but proudly kept an "R" after his name. Never forget the power of the VRW they were and are rabid.

[Democat]

16. The conservative corporations who put Bush in power don't like Clark?

I'm shocked!

[Cocoa]

17. Fortune was one of the few publications that got Enron right

back when everyone was gushing about Enron, the Fortune reporter Bethany McLean wrote a story entitled "Is Enron Overpriced" that questioned Enron's methods. As I recall, it bordered on ridicule.

[Donna Zen]

18. Rwanda

Yes_the US knew:

"We didn't need any more challenges in this post-Cold War world. Just during the past ten months, we had almost gone to war with North Korea, only to commence at last significant negotiations with the regime there; delivered relief spplies to Rwanda; invaded Haiti to restore its democratically elected president; and by quick action blocked Saddam Hussein's replay of the invasion of Kuwait. But we were also among the countries responsible for not permitting the UN forces in Rwanda to intervene as more than a half million people there were hacked to death with machetes, and we hadn't resolved the problems of the Balkans. Other nations looked to the United States for leadership, and we needed to work closely with them to help share the burdens that would otherwise fall on us alone." (Waging Modern War 45)

Clark does see the massacre as a failure of leadership, but he believes in alliances. Also, notice that UN forces were already in country. I guess Clark doesn't like crazies hacking 500,000 human beings to death; give me a nano second to think about my position on that.

I had read that article and noticed the turn from positive to negative at the mid-way point; however, the spin was a joke. The idea that Clark is a one dementional person has to ignore a good portion of his resume. Also notice that the writer is comfortable if Clark were to wait for four years. Why? Is Clark planning to get another degree or two? I wonder how much more comfortable the writer would have been if Clark had chosen to put an "R" after his name, especially if the partisan tables were turned?

[jab105]

20. Yes...

that's absolutely my problem with it, and its not very flattering to the other 9 Democratic candidates either...

I dont know, I mean, the editorialization of the interview is quite overdone, and they go on about the China people who aren't in power (BUT WE DIDN"T GO IN AND INVADE THEIR COUNTRY YOU ASSHOLE!!)...and then goes, oh, and Clark cant get money....

I really think it was bad, specially since I had enthusiastically encouraged 2 people at the dentists office to read it to find out about Clark for the first time...it really pissed me off that it was spun to such an extent...