Dr. Dean's Foreign Policy Team: A Clark Backer's Perspective

[LoneStarLiberal]

First, some links:

Foreign Policy Adviser Puts Aside Early Disagreement With Dean Over Iraq:

<http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/dean/articles/2003/11/02/foreign_policy_adviser_puts_aside_early_disagreement_with_dean_over_iraq/>

Dean Announces Foreign Policy, National Security Advisers:

<http://www.gendeanblog.com/archives/000583.php>

Danny E. Sebright, Associate Vice President, Cohen Group:

<http://www.cohengroup.net/team-ds.html>

Second, some discussion:

Former Defense Department official Danny Sebright, currently a foreign policy adviser for Howard Dean's campaign, is now a Cohen Group Associate Vice President. "'Cohen Group,' you say...hmmm that name sounds familiar...' As well it should...Cohen as in former Secretary of Defense William Cohen.

What were some of Sebright's accomplishments detailed in this biography?

"Danny E. Sebright joined The Cohen Group in February, 2002. Previously, Mr. Sebright served as the Defense Department's Director of the Policy Executive Secretariat for the global war on terrorism from September 2001 until January of 2002, leading a team responsible for tracking Defense Department and military actions related to the war on terrorism. He oversaw in large part Operation ENDURING FREEDOM in Afghanistan and Operation NOBLE EAGLE, the defense of the U.S.homeland in that capacity and was awarded the Defense Exceptional Civilian Service Award for his services during this time.

Mr. Sebright also served in the Office of the Under Secretary for Policy at DoD from 1995-2001, representing Department of Defense positions with other executive-branch policy offices. He conducted bilateral negotiations with foreign officials, including providing the Defense Department policy perspective on the Middle East Peace Process, regional arms sales, and counter-proliferation initiatives. Mr. Sebright cultivated extensive contacts with U.S. and foreign defense industry officials to coordinate and implement DoD weapons sales to Israel and many countries in the Middle East."

Mr. Sebright is simply one of the many Clinton-era foreign policy advisers to Dr. Dean.

To sum up the basic opposition to Clark from several Dean supporters both here on DU and local ones I've met, Wes Clark flip-flops on the war, is a Republican, and is tainted because of his military career.

Yet it's acceptable for someone who worked for Secretary Rumsfeld (a Republican), currently works for a former Republican Senator and former Clinton Secretary of Defense, and in his own biography stakes a claim to overseeing our first major war of the Bush administration to advise Howard Dean?

Additionally, it’s acceptable to have a stable of foreign policy advisers who include retired Generals, former Clinton administration State and Defense figures (including his one-time National Security Adviser Anthony Lake), and Admiral Turner (retired Navy flag officer AND former Director, Central Intelligence (that’s the head of the CIA for those reading who aren’t up on government title jargon)), yet it’s still copasetic to paste Clinton New Democrats and those who served in the military as high-ranking officers because of these same traits?

I see absolutely nothing wrong with Mr. Sebright's background just as I see nothing wrong with Wes Clark's background. I thought Professor Barber’s “Jihad vs. McWorld” was a much better book than Friedman’s “The Lexus and the Olive Tree.” Dr. Lake wrote one of the better case studies I’ve read on a Central American country with “Somoza Falling.” I don’t disagree at all with these people, their backgrounds, or the probable centrist foreign policy that they will more than likely formulate for Dr. Dean. Should he win the nomination and then the Presidency, I would be quite happy with the probable foreign policy a group of peers such as this would carve out.

In light of the many negative comments made about Wes Clark being Bill Clinton’s guy, Wes Clark being tainted because of his military career, how the host of New Democrats in this campaign are all “Democrats In Name Only” and how Dr. Dean represents the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party (therefore both implicitly and explicitly the remainder of us registered, voting Democrats are all Republicans and George Bush lovers), I would simply like to hear what some of the Dean folks out there who have leveled these charges have to say about their candidate’s foreign policy team being stacked with people from the very backgrounds they seem to disparage in other candidates.

I'll be happy to wait until after the Iowa caucuses for the big replies since your guy will be busy while mine is waiting in New Hampshire for Round 2!
:)

[MIMStigator]

1. Dean and foreign policy

sounds SO WEIRD don't it?

:hi:

[EXE619K]

4. "Clark and Domestic policy"

strange...indeed!

[Leilani]

2. Excellent post

Makes perfect sense, therefore expect few if any replies.

[EXE619K]

3. My opinion.

As I've stated several times prior, I guess, I'm one of those few people that gave the General benefit of the doubt in regards to his political leanings, whether he's a Republican or a Democrat.

Although, I would like to "take his word for it", I'm afraid a lot of others who are skeptical of the General's political "preferences" are not convinced because the General lacks the records for a definitive answer to these allegation.

I agree with you, that a candidates preference as to how his/her cabinet/adviser positions being be chosen should not be a "litmus test" in regards to the individual's political leanings.

However, General Clark is not running for a position in the State Department or other advisory departments. Gen. Clark is running for the office of the President of the United States and this makes a huge difference. The General(if elected) will be the highest executive in the land and the voters have the right to be skeptical about his political leanings because he will have to make the final decisions on his own.

Gen. Clark "says" that he voted for Bill Clinton and Al Gore. But, is there proof that he did?

Gen. Clark "says" that he was against the Iraq war. But, if he was against this war: after numerous appearances on CNN, why didn't he denounce the war in public? Only a handful of people (including Dennis Kucinich and Howard Dean) came out on record to publicly denounce this war and by doing so, bet their futures on the line.

The problem with Gen. Clark is that, throughout his entire career, he has made no executive decisions that show any evidence that he has a certain political leaning.
One could argue that he led the Kosovar campaign and as a General, he was the acting executive.

But, Generals do not have any authority to make foreign policy decisions. Generals follow directives from the Department of Defence and are ordered to carry on a campaign within these strict guidelines that originate from the White House.

I'm sure that General Clark is a fine man. But, does he have the experience as an executive to make the sound decisions as the president of our nation?


GDBB

Generals Don't Balance Budgets.

[LoneStarLiberal]

6. You Make Some Good Points

I don't feel the need to press Wes Clark for information about his vote in 2000, his disavowal of the Iraq war, his lobbying for Acxiom, his work with Stephens, or any of the other issues that are out there regarding him. I understand why clarification and evidence on these things would be in order for those uncertain about him, however.

My post was aimed in a more general (no pun intended) direction; there has emerged this idea that the Clinton-type "New Democrat," effectively a centrist liberal, is a traitor to the Democratic Party, a "Democrat In Name Only." I've seen Dean supporters apply this tar to Sens. Kerry, Lieberman, Edwards, Rep. Gephardt, and Wes Clark.

I am just curious as to how this dichotomy of backgrounds and ideas can exist without commentary. I'd think that if it's a bad thing Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman, Gephardt, and Clark to be "pawns of the DLC" and "DINOs" because they are identified with these same Clintonian New Democratic virtues and backgrounds that it would logically be unacceptable for Dr. Dean to seek advice on foreign policy from a team so heavily constructed of Clinton-era policy wonks and functionaries.

Although I know it would be easy to say I'm just trying to stir up trouble here and smear Dr. Dean, the truth is that I'm not interested in that. What I am interested in is getting this potentially venomous idea that those of us who admired Bill Clinton and his policies and those of our current candidates who internalized them and represent them are "Bush-Lite" or "DINO" out in the open and discussing it because with the Iowa caucuses in the books, the clock is now ticking on when we will need to get together as a party behind one nominee.

Personally, I don't give a good god damn about anyone or their candidate who thinks I'm a Republican for supporting a candidate in the New Democrat mold but sees nothing wrong with their candidate seeking policy advice from a collection of those very same New Democrats.

Airing this issue out is, I feel, going to be vital to the unification process after such a divisive campaign regardless of who wins the nomination.

[blm]

5. Yes. The TRUTH doesn't match the campaign rhetoric.

Again.