Do We Need A Military Person To "Stand Toe To Toe Against Bush?"

[stopbush]

I was watching Crossfire today - Wes Clark was the guest. He was speaking in the context of his military background and made a statement during this exchange that got me thinking:

BEGALA: Well, one of the things Vice President Gore said this morning, though, General, was that Howard Dean is the only major candidate who made the right decision about the war. Well, you're certainly a major candidate. He says you made the wrong decision about the war.

(LAUGHTER)

CLARK: Well, in that case, he's wrong, because there were a lot of us who made the right decision. And I'm one of them.

But the thing about this, Paul, is that "I told you so" isn't a policy. What the real question is now is, what are we going to do and who is going to get us out of it? And who can stand toe to toe against George W. Bush and make sure we don't get into another one? And I'm that candidate.

(http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0312/09/cf.00.html)

This is something we constantly hear from Kerry and Clark - that they have served honorably in the military and are, therefore, most qualified to take the battle to bush over Iraq, What they're saying in effect is that they are in a position to put their military service/knowledge up against bush's record in Iraq.

Isn't this line of thinking sort of building up bush in a way he doesn't deserve? Why concede that he's a successful wartime president at all? He's a coward who ducked military service. Unlike other, real wartime US presidents, he actually started a war. Why not take the tact that he's failed in HIS war, a war that will be going on for a long time, no matter who wins next year? In addition, won't the repigs just take the tact against military types like Kerry and Clark that they a) went antiwar during Vietnam (Kerry) and b) got fired from their high-held position at NATO (Clark)?

Unless going toe-to-toe means slamming him for being a draft dodger, I don't see what Clark is seeing as a positive advantage.

Anyone care to 'splain it to me?

[morgan2]

1. stupid idea

obviously it gives him more credibility, but its only one small part of what makes the candidate.

[Skwmom]

5. The Democrats are perceived as weak on defense.

If we can't fix that perception the Democratic nominee is DOA.

[QC]

2. Bush would like to campaign as Patton.

It will be much harder to do that if his opponent is someone with a distinguished military record. So, one could argue, nominating Clark or Kerry deprives Bush of his favorite "issue." And, I think it is likely that either of them would be willing to bring up Bush's desertion.

[Kerridwyn]

3. My problem with Clark...

One of my main problems with Clark is that I don't trust him to be the person who will "make sure we don't get into another one" - he's never seemed too concerned about it before!

[eileen_d]

6. Can you name some of the wars Clark started?

Clark has a unique perspective on the current Iraq war... I've read about half of his book "Winning Modern Wars" and I admit, it is kind of tough for me to look at things from a military perspective. But Bush has caused a great deal of damage by engaging our military in Iraq... and it seems to me that if something like that is "broken," you call someone with a certain level of expertise and experience to fix it. And from the reviews I've read of Clark's book, he definitely is against using the military the way Bush has.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. The Military Doesn't Start Wars....

Civilian leaders do....

[tameszu]

7. You mean like when he was a head peace negotiator

in the Balkans (along with Dick Holbrooke)? And helped keep the Croats and Bosnians from slaughtering a quarter of a million more people?

He was pretty concerned about not unnecessarily going to war then, I think. And he was concerned more recently when he was the only major military analyst on cable who said that he didn't see why invading Iraq was necessary.

[La_Serpiente]

4. I think having a military background adds a different perspective

on ones life. Personally, I don't think you have to be in the military to be the president, yet it does give you an advantage that other candidates may not have.

And for the draft dodger allegations, although everyone may not share this view, I feel that for a veteran to tell someone that they are a draft dodgers can mean a lot and does have some bearing.

I would also like to add the the military service is not a trump card. McGovern was a veteran, and Nixon was not. Bush I (I think) was a veteran and Bill Clinton was not. So it can really go anyway really.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. Nixon Was A Veteran In WW2

Navy.....

[TorchTheWitch]

8. grrrrrrrrrrr

Clark was NOT fired. I'm sick to death of this lie.

[creativelcro]

9. Yeah, I don't like Clark because he was fired

it happens... nothing to be ashamed of...

[SahaleArm]

18. ok, just step away from the ledge. *nm*

[Pastiche423]

10. Would you prefer

"put out to pasture..............way EARLY"?

[Dookus]

11. ahh..

the inevitable Pastiche Clark-slam.

He was asked to step down 3 months early. You think that's WAY early?

He wasn't fired. He was honored by William Cohen and Bill Clinton afterward. But I don't expect you to ever show any concern for the facts. You're simply rabid about Clark. I don't even know who you support, but if you spent half the energy promoting him/her that you do attacking Clark, you'd be guaranteed to win.

[Pastiche423]

13. True

I am rabidly against clark becoming president.

I want someone that can execute change in our country. I want someone w/governing civilian experience. I want someone that will buck the establishment. I want someone that has balanced a civilian budget. I want someone that has a record I can look at. And I want that someone to have lived years of the Democratic ideology.

None of the above is clark.

Btw, I pour a lot more energy in rl into my candidate, than I do on this board.

[Dookus]

15. but you're only

spouting vague generalizations.

I believe Clark can execute change in this country. He's talked about it repeatedly - you just don't hear it.

As for governing experience, the governor of a small, homogenous state has a far easier job than the SACEUR. Clark WILL buck the establishment - he's the ONLY one talking about major cuts to the pentagon budget.

Clark voted for Clinton twice. How many years do you require before you get treated for rabies?

[mmonk]

30. vague generalizations

is the attack du jour concerning our candidate (even the ones about different ties with links). I could make a whole post of links to attack any of the candidates, but I don't (tried it once, but it was locked). The attacks on Clark seldom get locked (not to criticize, I like DU).

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[faithfulcitizen]

14. ABSOLUTELY!

Maybe not in 1990, 1996, or 2000, BUT YES, ABSOLUTELY in 2004! More than just military, someone who has experience in diplomacy at the highest levels, bringing allies on board, even when it's really, really tough, and someone who has a lifetime of experience in national security and protecting our country. Clark was awarded service metals in 40 different countries after leading NATO! Brits who are following American polictics prefer Clark too! Wonder why? It's truly sad that one of our most dedicated citizens and world leaders is more revered in Europe than our own country. Hey, I'm guilty of it too, didn't know who Clark was until last February. And it's a damn shame, cause I would've started working to draft him sooner! So, yes, HELL YES, we need CLARK, to stand toe to toe against Bush.

[kayleybeth]

16. He's NOT a successful wartime president

He's a coward who ducked military service.

That's exactly why it's important. Clark and Kerry could both slam him on his record and they have the credentials to back it up. Dean can't really make an issue of shrub going AWOL because Dean did not serve at all. Nor did Edwards, nor did Kucinich, nor did Lieberman, etc.

Most of the country is not even aware of shrub's AWOL adventure. They've been told by the whore media that shrub is a "former fighter pilot" and they bought it. I'd love to see shrub's military record exposed, right down to shrub being grounded for refusing to submit to drug testing.

They wouldn't be conceding that he is a successful wartime president, they'd be dispelling the myth that he's "a former fighter pilot war hero" and exposing him as the coward that he truly is. Clark and Kerry are the only ones who are really in a position to do this without it coming back at them. JMHO.

[GalleryGod]

19. Compared to ASPEN, National Guard Service Looks like "In the Thick of it"

PS: Who Up on that STAGE last night..could Dean coax to RUN with HIM?

How 'bout ANOTHER Show of Hands??:wtf:

[Scott Lee]

20. That's not Dean's fault. It was pathetic of the others to not respond

And it showed that there is no unity to unseat Bush. All of them should have raised their hands when asked that lame ass question by Turd Kopell.

So go ahead and keep vomiting your wornout one liners about Dean. As he keeps gaining in support, fundraising and drive, maybe you might take a break at some point and support your party. I mean, if you have a minute or two.

[DrFunkenstein]

21. The Question: Do You Trust This Man To Make Your Family Secure?

I know alot of knuckleheads that "made the right decision" about the war, but I wouldn't trust them to lead a global war against stateless terrorism. I'm sorry, but opposing the IWR just isn't enough.

When it comes to laying out foriegn policy, Dean's plans are unnecessarily vague - probably becomes he spends most of his time talking about having "made the right decision." When Dean was saying that Bush was a bad idea, Kerry was putting out detailed good ideas. And right now, John Kerry has the most comprehensive and far-reaching plan for dealing with terrorism.

While Clark was a military man, Kerry was chairing the Committee on Terrorism and International Relations. He wrote a book about stateless terrorism. His plans include not just slogans about the need for more diplomacy, he talks about getting to the root causes of terrorism - addressing the economic and social conditions that lead to violent desperation. Making the U.S. independent of Middle East oil, particularly Saudi oil is not a campaign afterthought like Dean's me-too 2020 plan. He has been working for years on this problem - in part, by attending every environmental summit since they began in Rio de Janeiro. Kerry also has an elaborate plan for securing nuclear material, a problem he has consumed him (with little funding) since the 80's.

And the fact is, Howard Dean cannot attack Bush over Vietnam, because Bush can actually attack Howard "Aspen" Dean. If you don't think that's possible, ask John McCain. I have always thought that Jim Jordan wasted too much time focusing on the Vietnam experience, but it is still a powerful, perhaps even decisive, tool in the shed.

[poskonig]

22. McGovern was a WWII hero.

According to some, on that alone he should have beaten Nixon in a landslide.

If people are that scared about defense, don't pick an "antiwar" general, pick a moderate like Gephardt or Lieberman who can't be attacked on the issue.

[DrFunkenstein]

23. Why Should We Pick A Centrist When A Progressive (not DK) Is Running?

And you still seem to ignore the fact that we are living in a post-9/11 world.

[Killarney]

24. Just because someone has military history does not mean they can beat Bush

McGovern.
McCain.
etc.

Here is the Republican plan:

If Dean is nominated -- attack him for foreign policy experience
If Clark is nominated -- attack him for having no political experience whatsoever

If there is a Dean/Clark ticket -- we cancel out their arguments. We have one guy with foreign policy experience and once guy with political experience. It's our way to win!

[phillybri]

25. It's not necessary, but it would help...

:dem:

[Yupster]

26. Nothing against him, but

I wish he would run for governor or senator first. President is a pretty high entry level into politics.

[RPG-7]

29. I think the idea is that the stars are like magic talismans

I don't really understand it all myself. I don't think hiding behind military service is a great thing for democrats. It reminds me of the Israeli labour party and it didn't work for them.

[HuckleB]

31. No.

That's a weak campaign point, if it's used. I don't think that Clark himself is using it, though I've heard some supporters use it.

[CWebster]

32. Clark has no advantage and zero credibility

because he was fired (Oh excuse me General, encouraged to retire early....Get real, General) from the Pentagon and was accused by a British General of trying to start WW3.

Will you people get real! There is no way this isn't going to be used against him, and I saw him on "Hardball"--he couldn't talk his way out of it, insisting on moving to other subjects.

Gees, talk about a liability.

[leesa]

33. Only if you intend to continue the immature, backward policies

of the US. Did it not occur to you that Bush has zero military experiences or expertise? Why would you possibly need to get toe-to-toe with that?
We need someone very intelligent with diplomatic and economic skills and someone who loves and respects democracy. Forget the military....put a strong people in the DOD, but don't make them our leaders or we will be at war again soon, and we will certainly be supporting the further monstrous growth of the military-industrial complex. It's an ingrained response in anyone with military training.

[CWebster]

35. Absolutely

It is what Generals are trained to do, like surgeons are trained to operate as the solution.

I wish that people could seperate the allure of the pomp and circumstance of the General with the reality.

[HFishbine]

34. If, and only if

We intend to allow Rove to define the debate. Clark was babbling on CSPAN last night after the debate about how the administration was going to make this election about national security. Hmmm. Okay, so Clark wants to play on Bush's turf. I'd rather see a candidate who defines the debate on issues important to democrats and not simply roll over to the Rovian rules of the game.

[stopbush]

36. Your's is the one response that got the thrust of my

argument. Thank you!

Look, Clark IS making a deal about his military background and comparing it to bush. The quotes above are his. If Clark's going to play the "my military record is better than your military record" card, fine. But Clark should fully expect the RW-controlled media to attack HIM for his being "fired" from NATO (it matters not one iota whether that is true or not). The RW media will stoke the story until any explanation Clark makes re: NATO, however reasonable, will be charaterized at dissembling. Hell, Tweety took this tact with Clark on Hardball the other night and wasted a good 4 minutes of Clark's appearance on the subject of his being "fired" from Nato (and truth be told, Clark's response was a bit weak and patently unclear).

I've seen at least three Clark interviews where the fair-and-balanced interviewer has trotted out the Stormin' Norman tape declaring Clark to be unfit to be pres. Clark's typical defense is "you didn't play the first half of that quote." No, they didn't. And they never will. And, if Clark does happen to get the nomination, you can bet the repigs will get Schwarzkopf (and Franks and whoever else) into a studio to read the RNC's prepared script on Clark's "unfitness," followed by a media blitz that will make one's head spin.

The bush machine smeared war hero McCain in 2000. The repig machine smeared Max Cleland in 2002. They have no problems calling all types of Dems with honorable military experience un-American (Daschle, Kerry...you name 'em). So how does having military service help any Dem candidate when the repigs have already focus-group tested their canned responses to beat that positive into a non-issue...or worse, a negative?

Let's face it, in the bizarro world of the chickenhawk repigs, REAL vets don't count and the only draft dodgers around are Dems.

[MoonRiver]

37. Clark was not conceding that.

He was just answering the question about how to deal with *'s Iraq war, which, btw, Clark DID NOT support.