What is Clark's policy and history on Civil Liberties?

[arendt]

You should read this context-setting thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=63675

before reading further.

This is the fourth thread I have started trying to get facts, instead
of flames, about Clark's positions on issues important to me.

I have said that I will support any Democratic nominee, except
Lieberman. That said, I do want to know just what positions I
am voting for. I may be old-fashioned, but I look for context on
one-line policy statements that pass for platforms. (This is a
truism for all candidates, if this is interpreted as a bash, its
a bash on everyone.)

The major fear we all have is that we are well on our way
to a corporate police state at home and a military empire abroad,
and that this election is our last chance to stop it. One more term of
Bush, and America can never regain the democracy it has lost in the
last three years.

So, if there is any single issue that would sway my vote, it
is the position of the candidate on Civil Liberties and basic
Constitutional rights in a so-called "unending war on terrorism".
A second issue is the size and distribution of the military budget.

Let me expand on the latter. The US today spends more on
its military than the next ten biggest nations combined. And yet,
the Bush administration tells Americans to live in constant fear.
Candidates trip over themselves to offer more money to the
military; money for technically worthless ABM systems and for
tearing up the treaties that forbid them; money for more gold-
plated toys when soldiers lack body armor; money to privatize
the military off to contractors where it is completely out of the
control of Congress or the American public.

So, you can imagine how a peace-loving (which Bush translates
as Saddam-loving or America-hating) Democrat gets worried
when he hears that the only viable candidate for them is a
guy who spent his entire career doing a great job in the military,
a guy whose connections all derive from his military experience.
Those are my concerns, and they are legitimate. If Clark people
want to win converts, they have to show people that Clark is
more than a military resume and a bunch of talking points whipped
up by campaign consultants.

I am still trying to figure out who Clark is. I went to his website
(www.clark04.com) and looked on his issues page for statements
about Civil Liberties.

First, this is the only direct statement I found.

> Civil Liberties and the USA PATRIOT Act
>
> Using appropriate tools responsibly, for effective law enforcement
>
> I believe that law enforcement should have access to all necessary tools to deal with the
> problems of terrorism, which is why I?m calling for an immediate $40 billion investment in
> homeland security. But I don?t believe that we can win a war on terror if we give up the
> essence of who we are as Americans. That?s why I think that Congress should fully review the
> so-called USA PATRIOT Act – and repeal the provisions that go too far.
>
> The USA PATRIOT Act was jammed through Congress in a matter of weeks, when the
> country was still in shock from the horrific attacks of September 11th. It wasn?t carefully
> drafted and it wasn?t fully debated. More troubling is that, in just two years, the Act has
> grown the tentacles that many feared. Last month, a Justice Department report admitted
> that the John Ashcroft has actually expanded the substantial reach of the Act, using it to
> snoop in secrecy for evidence of crimes that have nothing to do with terrorism.
>
> Now Ashcroft is proposing the PROTECT Act. Among other curtailments, the proposed bill
> all but forbids prosecutors from agreeing to downward departures from the rigid federal
> sentencing guidelines, increasing the chance that individual punishments won?t actually
> fit individual crimes. It also instructs prosecutors to report judges that order departures
> from sentencing guidelines – creating the very real possibility that judges will be put on
> a DOJ blacklist.
>
> I am concerned that the USA PATRIOT Act goes too far in expanding the authority of government
> investigators, and that it does so without sufficient oversight. We need to make sure that we are
> taking responsible measures to meet the needs of the time. That?s why I?ll call on Congress to
> fully review each provision of the Act, study the ways in which each has been used in practice,
> and eliminate those provisions that unduly threaten our civil liberties.

This is good as far as it goes. But, as I have noted, this is campaign rhetoric.
And, he raises one NEW issue - i.e., money for HS.

QUESTION 1: , I would like to know if he proposes to get this $40 BILLION by NEW expenditures, or
by getting rid of the pork, the Star Wars BS, etc.

QUESTION 2: Will Clark reduce the current bloated budget, which is bankrupting us and is largely
being used for petroleum industry security and oil colonialism? Or will he at least re-distribute the
funding to less imperial uses, like decent pay and medical care for troops?

Second, since I reasoned that since Bush is busy trying to MILITARIZE INSIDE OUR BORDERS,
deploying ludicrously over-weaponed troops in the middle of major cities where their weapons
are more likely to kill innocents than prevent terrorism, I wanted to know if Clark would REVERSE
THIS POLICE STATE TREND. I wanted to know if Clark believes that the massive redeployment of
troops and aircraft INSIDE our country poses a threat to our Civil Liberties.


So, I read Clark's ten pledges on National Security. Except for the last pledge, they were all about
FOREIGN POLICY to "make America strong". The last pledge says:

> And finally, by these pledges and with your support, as President I will make America
> more secure than it is today.
>
> As President, I will ensure that we succeed in Iraq, that we focus our intelligence, diplomatic,
> financial, law enforcement and military resources on defeating al Qaeda, that we restore respect
> and support for America, and that we re-orient our foreign policy to meet the challenges of terrorism,
> weapons of mass destruction, international crime, and environment threats. Taken together, all of
> these steps will make America more secure.

Again, almost the entire pledge is about FOREIGN actions, which he then says will make us more secure
DOMESTICALLY. But he never addresses the MILITARIZATION of our country - the media lynchings of "un-
patriotic" people; the repression of ALL peaceful protest (witness Miami FTAA repression - PAID FOR BY
IRAQ WAR MONEY); the increasing surveillance under Fatherland Security; the endless worthless "terror
alerts".

QUESTION 3: What is Clark's position on DOMESTIC use of the military/
intelligence agencies? I want to know if he thinks the INTEGRATION AND
INTER-MINGLING of police, military, and intelligence databases WITHOUT
judicial oversight is a fine thing or if it should be reversed.

The Q above is where my paranoia about his ties to Axciom software come into play. The man had a seat
on a company in the thick of this EMERGING POLICE STATE. He said he was willing to work for Karl
Rove. Can you Clark guys acknowledge that a lot of us lefties are extremely worried about a choice
between Bush and a four-star general who is smart as a whip and tough as they come?



I'm not criticizing. I am asking for some pro-Clark person to GIVE ME A REASON to support him when these
facts are on the table. Give me a reason that I, as a lifelong Democrat and a thinking, peace-loving person
who has lived through General Alexander Haig and Colonel Oliver North can truly accept. (Its not
comparing Clark to them; its saying that the left has historically distrusted military men for good reason.)

--------

I am trying for dialogue here. I absolutely refuse to respond to flames or abuse about Dean.
Answer my questions, and I'll research your answers.

The last two weeks have been a non-stop anti-Dean shitstorm. Any attempt to get info about Clark has
been ignored as merely "looking to trash Clark". How are you people going to convert loyal Dean supporters if you
treat any inquiries as insults?

Look at it from a Dean point of view. Right now, Kerry is committing suicide trying to trash Dean, and
the only visible beneficiary of this suicide is Clark. Maybe Clark is a political genius. Maybe he gamed
this all out months ago. Maybe he could see that the DLC needs to get rid of Dean and that Clark could
be the "clean hands" beneficiary of such a fight. I mean, that kind of stuff gets taught in Army colleges -
how to defeat your enemy in detail.

You may believe that all Clark has to do to win is to blow off the liberals and play to the right wing Dems
and pissed off Rethugs. But, that is exactly the strategy that led people to embrace Dean in the first place.
You really can't afford to blow off the Dean supporters, or even give the appearance of blowing them off.

I just want some straight answers.

arendt


on edit: amplify lead in to Question 1; amplify Question 3

[SupremeBeing]

1. Please

Dean ?
you might want to change that real fast.


And a clark has no actual record on anything except maybe security maybe - but that's just my opinion.

[Renew Deal]

2. Change your term for Dean supporters

to Dean supporters or you will get a cheap deletion.

[arendt]

3. Thanks for the proof-read

I guess, on this board, you aren't allowed to insult yourself.

Well, at least you read it. I hope some Clark person gives
me some answers.

arendt

[MIMStigator]

9. Clark's record on civil liberties is he got shot 4 times defending them

eom

[arendt]

22. Cheap shot. (pun intended) Non-answer. n/t

n/t

[helleborient]

31. So any wounded soldier is strong on civil liberties by definition?

Yeah, right.

[dave29]

72. until they get locked up

with no rights or access to a lawyer, then maybe they'll change their mind.

[Lefta Dissenter]

4. Well, Damn,

I just HAD to open one more post, when I was headed to bed.

I am not going to address your entire post, since I've been up since 4:30 this morning, and I'm sure that you'll hear back from lots of Clark supporters...

However, I just couldn't go to bed without saying that I consider myself quite 'left' and I NEVER would have imagined myself supporting a military man for president. However, the more I hear from Clark, the more I know that he IS our next president!

Regarding dissent - he VALUES dissent, he feels that democracy cannot survive without it. That's part of the basis for his "New American Patriotism" platform.

I hope you get lots of good feedback, and hopefully I'll be able to add in some tomorrow, but I just couldn't hit the hay without saying that much, because it's been so important to me.

Goodnight! :hi:

[arendt]

5. OK. Its bedtime for this bonzo too

I sure hope some Clark people tell me something.
I know its late. So, I'll check in the AM.

nite

arendt

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. I respect what you are doing

Unfortunately I can't give you much help now because time is virtually up for me, I leave on a major business trip in one day, and I have TONS of things I have to get done before I leave. Mostly I'm just popping in from time to time today to read stuff and make quick comments. I can give you some easy stuff though.

(Actually I just wasted a half hour searching for an active link to an archive for the second transcript AAAARG! - I really HAVE to stop now.)

If you have not already seen it, I thought you might be interested in a few comments Michael Moore made concerning Wesley Clark and free speech, in an open letter Moore wrote Clark in September urging him to run. Here is the most relevant part:

"Dear General Wesley Clark,

I've been meaning to write to you for some time. Two days after the Oscars, when I felt very alone and somewhat frightened by the level of hatred toward me for daring to suggest that we were being led into war for "fictitious reasons," one person stuck his neck out and came to my defense on national television.

And that person was you.

Aaron Brown had just finished interviewing me by satellite on CNN, and I had made a crack about me being "the only non-general allowed on CNN all week." He ended the interview and then turned to you, as you were sitting at the desk with him. He asked you what you thought of this crazy guy, Michael Moore. And, although we were still in Week One of the war, you boldly said that my dissent was necessary and welcome, and you pointed out that I was against Bush and his "policies," not the kids in the service. I sat in Flint with the earpiece still in my ear and I was floored -- a GENERAL standing up for me and, in effect, for all the millions who were opposed to the war but had been bullied into silence."

The link: http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2003-09-12

Here is a portion of a transcript from Scarborough Country 9/11/03, where Clark was interviewed immediately after Scarborough interviewed Old War Bird General Alexander Haig. Haig spoke about anti war protesters giving aid and comfort to the enemy, and Clark was asked for is take on that. Thank God I saved this in a word document, because the transcript is now buried in MSNBC's archives, and it seems you have to email them to get help retrieving it:


CLARK ON SCARBOROUGH 9/11/03

"SCARBOROUGH: General, you, of course, sir, have served this country proudly in times of war, in times of peace. I know you were listening to General Al Haig’s words earlier about the importance of everybody lining up and supporting the president in a time of war. Do you take issue with anything he said?
CLARK: Well, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with dissent. In fact, I think it’s important in time of war. It’s one of the things I fought for during the Vietnam War.
I fought for my people who were in uniform over there searching their country. But I also fought for the right of people to take to the streets and protest that war, because I don’t think you can stop democracy because the country is under challenge. When the country is under challenge, I think you need democracy. You need to hold on to your fundamental values even more strongly.
If you take the position that General Haig gave-and I have the greatest respect and admiration for General Haig-he was my boss. And I learned a tremendous amount from him. And I think he has been a fantastic leader and made a great contribution, and still making it to this country.
But that having been said, I just couldn’t accept the idea that, if you have a different idea, you can’t express it publicly, because that leaves all of the authority and all of the challenge within the administration. Does it mean there shouldn’t be an election when there’s a war? And if it’s a war of indefinite duration, should we give up our democracy?
Look, we did this during 2002 in the election. We went into and supported a congressional resolution to go into Iraq. I was one of the skeptics. I doubted. I couldn’t quite see the evidence that compelled it. But, OK, we all went along with it. It turns out that there wasn’t an imminent threat. At least, no evidence has been produced to suggest that. It turns out that the operation was not planned effectively. It turns out that dissent, questioning, open challenge, would have produced a stronger, more effective operation, might have saved lives, would have certainly saved our fortune, and would have helped this country to be successful.
And so I think the dissent and criticism can have a very constructive purpose. And, indeed, it’s essential in a democracy to do that."

[revcarol]

7. I am really distressed at his work with Axciom.

There is another thread on this, but to think that he would be a lobbyist cozying up to the Bushies to try to get privacy invading IT through really boggles the mind.I will have to read up on it.

So is he off the civil liberties hook? He will "review" the Patriot Act" but doesn't say that he will ask for proof that any or all parts have actually caught terrorists or prevented anything.Maybe he should talk to the ACLU and some of the innocents jailed, then released months later with no charges. Very lame IMHO, mostly talks about sentencing, making the punishment be allowed to be individually determined, not minimum, but where is the concern for the presumption of innocence...Kinda makes me think he doesn't live in the real world, where we have been seeing violations of rights on the part of the government DAILY and violations of privacy DAILY...

He talks a good game, but...

Rant over.

[Eric J in MN]

8. I was reluctant to support him because he isn't

I was reluctant to support Clark because he isn't that strong on civil liberties.

There is the lobbying on Axciom and his support of a "flag desecration" amendment.

Eventually, I decided to contribute to Clark and not Dean anyway, because I think Clark is more electable, and getting a Democrat in the White House is the most important thing for civil liberties.

[DIBL]

10. Review of the Patriot Act

Revcarol, my impression is that Clark is genuinely concerned about the dangers posed by the Patriot Act on our basic civil liberties and is sensitive to the gross violations you refer to.

Here's what he had to say about it in his 60 Minutes interview back in November.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/19/60II/main584554.shtml

"We would suspend the portions that have to do with search and seizure. We would open the whole act up for public review through the Congress and into the public. We'd like to see where it's been used, why it's been used, why nothing else could have done it. What's been the effect of it's being used and you know, it's already clear that it's been used far beyond terrorism cases. It's just become a tool of convenience for law enforcement, and I'm sure if I were a law enforcement officer, it would be a pain in the neck to go to a judge in the middle of the night and argue why you had to have a judicial warrant. And you'd say, “'Why can't I just, you know, phone it in on Monday morning after I've done it? This is a-- Sunday night, you know it's my family time. And we know these-- these perps and so forth.” And you wouldn't, but democracy rests and depends on the guarantees in the Constitution. The system of checks and balances. And we don't wanna surrender our liberties in return for some notion of security unless it's absolutely essential. But this administration hasn't established that. So I'm worried about that."

[arendt]

23. Welcome to DU, DIBL

Yes, I sense that Clark is genuine about "liberties". But,
he is also genuine about a strong military.

My question is, when the two collide - like funding
intrusive Fatherland Security data collection and stationing
of over-armed troops inside the country - which side
will he come down on?

He talks about the obvious issues; but he dodges the
funding and policy DETAILS that determine whether or
not the issues will ever come up in reality.

Its a nice quote, but it doesn't answer my questions.

Thanks for sharing it.

arendt

[Turkw]

37. Here are some parts of his speech to the Arab Amercian Institute

Leadership Confrence:

"Let's start at home. I know that you'd agree, the 9/11 world we live in today demands a radically different approach to domestic policy. To protect all Americans, we have to be tougher and wiser in how we defend our country and keep our borders secure. We must do everything possible to make sure that those who aspire to commit acts of terrorism - those who have no place in this nation or any other nation - do not get in or stay in. There is no question that we need unflinching law enforcement and sound immigration policies. But in whatever steps we take, we must never forget: there is a very fine balance between enforcing our laws and protecting our civil liberties.

This Administration has lost that balance. And our civil rights have been the first casualty -- often at little gain for our security.

The slew of arrests, arbitrary detentions, and racial profiling has turned up less than a handful of leads -- and they've diverted crucial resources from legitimate investigations. Whatever happened to the basic legal standard of probable cause? The Bush Administration seems to have adopted a blanket strategy of treating an entire population as a threat. Not only does this fail to improve our security -- it also antagonizes the very population with the skills, expertise and perspective we need to combat terrorism.

America has always prided itself on being a beacon of justice, freedom and liberty. A place for those who have escaped oppressive regimes -- regimes that arbitrarily detain citizens, and base their trials secret evidence. A place for those who want to exercise the right of free speech and participation in public debate. Sadly, today we find ourselves in a country where repressive tactics are packaged and sold as the "Patriot Act." And where anyone with the courage to dissent is labeled by our leaders as "unpatriotic."

Now, I'm not a lawyer. But I do know wrong from right - and what this administration is doing does not reflect American values. I'll say this: as far as I can tell, John Ashcroft isn't much of an attorney. I know he's not a general. And I think that he's set this country on a dangerous and divisive course."

[Turkw]

39. The last paragraph is a great sound bite nt

[arendt]

45. Again, thanks for good quote, but it doesn't answer my questions

> Sadly, today we find ourselves in a country where repressive
> tactics are packaged and sold as the "Patriot Act." And where
> anyone with the courage to dissent is labeled by our leaders
> as "unpatriotic."

This is good rhetoric, and good analysis of what *Bush
and Ashcroft* have done to justice in America.

But my question is about what Clark would do, specifically
about intrusive HS and internal militarization.

The words

> the 9/11 world we live in today demands a radically different
> approach to domestic policy.

buy right into the whole 911 strawman. This kind of "war
on terror" is just like the "war on drugs". It is an
invitation to McCarthyism (Joe, not Gene). Not that Clark
is a McCarthyite, but that this kind of rhetoric marginalizes
liberals as "weak" on terrorism. It says that only generals
can be in charge.

I'm sorry, but other than the bare facts of buildings and
airplanes destroyed, we know NOTHING about 911. I find the
whole event full of unexplained events, bogus timelines,
and official obfuscation. It is not clear to me that the
correct response is to militarize our society, ala Israel;
or to turn our military into a bunch of black ops goon
squads, as Rumsfeld is doing.

Clark's bland acceptance of the "911 changed everything"
mantra is not reassuring to me.

arendt

[imhotep]

11. Dont expect any answers

from Clark or his supporters.
All they have is platitudes such as " I am against unemployment".....

[SahaleArm]

16. You have the power! n/t

[NV1962]

12. Don't expect any answers

Especially not from RNC plants - but fortunately, they're easily recognized by their inability to spell "don't"

[catherineD]

13. He was endorsed Sunday by the (female) head of the Commission

on Civil Rights. Here is the link. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2004-01-05-clark-women_x.htm Clark joined with others several years ago, I think, in a brief to the Supreme Court asking that the Supreme Court keep affirmative action. He recently gave a speech about the need for affirmative action and the need to make sure that every vote is counted in the next election, because he said that essentially discrimination is still keeping African-Americans from being allowed to vote. He has a plan to train volunteers to monitor the election at potential trouble spots. There were several other elements to the plan to make sure that in the next election all African-American votes count. Try news.google with some of this and you should be able to find it, it was only a few weeks ago.

I think Clark has a deep empathy for people. He's shown much greater sensitivity than Dean on the issue so far. He's supported by Charles Rangel and Andrew Young, among others. He talked yesterday about the need for us to help people in countries before they start to fall apart, and he mentioned Liberia and several other African countries as examples. He's said that the genocide in Rwanda affected him deeply and we all know how he prevented 1.5 million Albanians from being the victim of genocide. So I'd say that he would not be a president deciding what to do based solely on America's perceived interests, our pocket book, and his re-election chances. Does that help?

[helleborient]

32. Civil Rights and Civil Liberties are not the same thing...

Civil Liberties have to do primarily with First Amendment protections...you're barking up a different tree.

Look to Patriot Act issues instead.

[catherineD]

14. And Civilian Presidents and Congress routinely ask for more military

spending than the Pentagon does. Congress does it to bring money into their districts/states. I think presidents may just do it because it makes them feel powerful. Clark has said before that he wouldn't be cutting people from the military, but that the weapons systems need trimming. You know how it is when you take your car to a mechanic and you don't know anything about cars? Sometimes the mechanic tells you the truth and sometimes he doesn't and you don't know which is which, but you pay through the nose either way. Now you could say that Clark knows something about cars. When Congress or the Pentagon comes to him wanting to fund expensive things, Clark will know who is lying about their necessity and who is not. He will know just what kind of systems we need post cold war and just which ones we should let go. And the Pentagon and the Congress won't be able to accuse him of being soft or otherwise intimidate him. Think about it.

[arendt]

25. Interesting, but no citation

Thanks for responding positively.

> Clark has said before that he wouldn't be cutting people from the military,
> but that the weapons systems need trimming.

Where is a link that supports this?

> You know how it is when you take your car to a mechanic and you don't
> know anything about cars? Sometimes the mechanic tells you the truth and
> sometimes he doesn't and you don't know which is which, but you pay
> through the nose either way. Now you could say that Clark knows
> something about cars.

And that is exactly why I asked a few car mechanic questions about
Fatherland Security and Posse Comitatus. He should be able to
answer such questions because he is such an expert. I mean, he
worked for Axciom.

So, what are his answers to my SPECIFIC questions?

arendt

[CWebster]

15. good points, arendt

Posts like this is what keeps me still checking out DU.

[incapsulated]

17. Ok, I will try as best I can

Although I'm tired.

"This is good as far as it goes. But, as I have noted, this is campaign rhetoric."

First off, if you are going to blow off anything he says as "campaign rhetoric", there is little I can do for you. You either believe him or not, like any other candidate making statements on what their policy would be.



Here are some statements that Clark has made on various issues:

"One of the things about the war on terror that I am disturbed about is that we've essentially suspended habeas corpus. Which is something that's only been done once in American history and then only for a very brief period. When I go back and think about the atmosphere in which the PATRIOT Act was passed, it begs for a reconsideration and review. And it should be done. Law enforcement agencies will always chafe at any restriction whatsoever when they're in the business of trying to get their job done. But in practice we've always balanced the need for law enforcement with our own protection of our constitutional rights and that's a balance that will need to be reviewed.”

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/03/24/clark/index.html)

“ He compared Bush to Nixon in abusing his power to bully Congress and U.S. allies. ‘This is an administration which has moved in a way we have not seen any administration since Nixon to abuse executive authority to scheme, manipulate, intimidate and maneuver,’ Clark said.” (Source: Esquire Magazine, August 1, 2003)

“ I’m concerned about the lock-up policy, the 3-strikes policy, putting people in jails and the way we’ve treated people in prison. We’ve got to look seriously at the American penal system and what it does when it returns people…to the streets.”

http//www.onpointradio.org/shows/2003/06/20030619_a_main.asp)

“ He said he supports . . . a "freeze" on Bush's tax cuts that have yet to take effect for people earning $150,000 or more. ” (Source: Washington Post, September 19, 2003
“ The tax cuts weren’t fair… the people that need the money and deserve the money are the people who are paying less, not the people who are paying more. I thought this country was founded on a principle of progressive taxation. In other words, it’s not only that the more you make, the more you give, but proportionately more because when you don’t have very much money, you need to spend it on the necessities of life. When you have more money, you have room for the luxuries and you should—one of the luxuries and one of the privileges we enjoy is living in this great country.”

Meet The Press http://www.draftwesleyclark.com/defaultoldDWC.htm

“ The solution to terrorism is not going to be found in bullets…It’s not going to be found in precision ordnance or targeted strikes. It’s really going to be found in changing the conditions. It’s going to be found in establishing a global safety net that starts with security and goes to economic development and political development and the kinds of modernization which let others enjoy the fruits of modernization that we as Americans enjoy… Our best protection is not going to build a wall around America. It’s not going to be to create a missile-defense impenetrable shield. It’s going to be, instead, to create a community of common values and shared responsibilities and shared interests in which nations and people get along. That really is ultimately the only protection.”

http//www.temple.edu/cenfad/strategicvisions-3-1.html


Clark has also stated he would make cuts in the military budget. His support of veterans issues is well documented on his site, and pretty unsuprising given his background.

“ General Clark said his domestic priorities would include health insurance and rolling back parts of Mr. Bush's tax cuts. ‘I don't see why we can't have health insurance for every single American,’ he said. Asked how he would pay for it, General Clark said he was open to some cuts in the budget he is more familiar with — the Pentagon's. ‘The armed forces are a want machine,’ he said. ‘They are structured to develop want.’” New York Times, September 19, 2003

[incapsulated]

18. And now...

Since your post contained what I consider to be hypocritical statements about Clark supporters, and quite an attitude when it comes to demanding any info from anybody, I'm posting a little of the article from Time Magazine on Dean and Civil Rights.

By VIVECA NOVAK


TIME Magazine, Thursday, Oct. 30, 2003


Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean has rarely missed a chance — in debates and smaller forums, as well as on his website — to hammer the Bush administration's handling of civil liberties since the 2001 terrorist attacks. He's even taken other Democrats to task: "Too many in my party voted for the Patriot Act," he said last June in a not-so-veiled jab at some of his opponents in the presidential race. "They believed that it was more important to show bipartisan support for President Bush during a moment of crisis than to stand up for the basic values of our constitution."

But on Sept. 12, 2001, Dean had quite a different reaction. He told the Vermont press corps he believed the terrorist hijackings would "require a re-evaluation of the importance of some of our specific civil liberties. I think there are going to be debates about what can be said where, what can be printed where, what kind of freedom of movement people have and whether it's OK for a policeman to ask for your ID just because you're walking down the street…I think that's a debate that we will have."


<snip>

Dean made it clear early in his tenure that he thought alleged criminals were cut too much slack. "My view is that the justice system is not fair," Dean said in 1991 during his first week as governor. "It bends over backwards to help defendants and is totally unfair to victims and to society as a whole." Robert Appel, former head of the state's public defender system, said he had constant clashes with Dean over funding for the service. According to Appel, Dean said on at least one public occasion that the state should spend less money providing the accused with legal representation, saying that "95% of criminal defendants are guilty anyway." (Carson says the comment was meant as a joke, but Appel counters that even if it was, "the underlying message was pretty clear.")

Which may be one reason why Dean, in 1999, wanted to refuse a $150,000 federal grant to the public defender's office for aiding mentally disabled defendants. "That was unusual, to say the least," says Appel. The state legislature overrode Dean's opposition. Dean spokesman Carson responded that Dean didn't want to create a program that the state couldn't afford to fund if federal money disappeared in the future. But he did not disavow Dean's anti-defendant bent. "This is a governor who was tough on crime and is a big believer in victims' rights," Carson says.

[arendt]

21. I'm going to do a Kennedy/Cuban Missile Crisis thing here...

I responded to your constructive post; but I'm not going to
respond to this bellicose one. You did exactly what I said
I wouldn't respond to.

So I won't

arendt

[arendt]

20. Thanks for trying, but you only directly addressed ONE of my questions

> Clark has also stated he would make cuts in the military budget.

Is the temple.edu URL the one for that? I haven't got time to check
right now.

Basically, the words you quote are in response to the SPECIFIC
questions I asked. Yes, I get that he is anti-Bush. But, my questions
are specific, and they are about the DOMESTIC policy regarding
funding and powers of Fatherland Security and the military vis-a-vis
Posse Comitatus.

I'm still waiting for answers instead of soundbites.

Thanks for responding

arendt

[HFishbine]

24. Don't blame his supporters

Clark hasn't properly armed then on this matter. There is a credibility gap between Clark's campaign statements on the Patriot Act and his work as a lobbyist for Acxiom. Until Clark addresses it, his supporters cannot answer your questions.

[arendt]

26. You are saying that there is nothing published about my questions? n/t

n/t

[HFishbine]

27. Your questions

are wider ranging than the Acxiom issue alone. It is a particular issue on which I've seen no words from Clark.

[BootinUp]

30. Clark is for constitutional protections

of privacy. He wants to reverse some of the Patriot Act and push for a full review. One of Clark's strong messages since early in the summer has been his concern for the use of Patriot Act provisions for other than terrorists investigations. He has often made strong statements for protecting our constitution from rash changes in response to 9/11 attracks.

On the other hand he wants to increase spending on Homeland Security as part of his 100 billion dollar jobs program.

http://clark04.com/issues/americanjobs/

snip....
Invest in homeland and hometown security. First, I'll create a $40 billion Homeland Security Fund. We'll use the fund to take crucial, immediate steps to secure the country-and create jobs in the process.

Most of the candidates also push for increased security spending at home, it is a policy that most Americans are going to agree with.

I am not sure this answers your questions, let me know.

[CWebster]

28. How does clark reconcile saying this

"I believe that law enforcement should have access to all necessary tools to deal with the
> problems of terrorism, which is why I'm calling for an immediate $40 billion investment in
> homeland security."

With this:

"Law enforcement agencies will always chafe at any restriction whatsoever when they're in the business of trying to get their job done. But in practice we've always balanced the need for law enforcement with our own protection of our constitutional rights and that's a balance that will need to be reviewed.”

[Turkw]

35. Two different issues- funding and over site, our law enforcement does need

to have the tools and training to combat crime, they also need the training to do so in a manner which is in accordance to the constitution and the proper tools to do so.

MY main problem with a lot of the Patriot Act is that new tools are given WITHOUT proper over site, and over site is taken away from some of the old tools. Law enforcement needs to be able to gather the information to combat crime and stop terrorists, but they should not be unrestricted use.

One of the problems with Bush's agenda is that he wants to spend money on things like missile defense rather than on police and fire departments. Clark's priorities are the opposite.

[Turkw]

36. Here is the policy on civil justice

Ensuring citizens' ability to seek meaningful redress for legitimate harm

America has the finest and fairest system of civil justice in the world. At its best, it is blind to the gender, color, religion and relative power of litigants. It gives every citizen the right to call to account anyone he believes has committed a wrong against him or an error that has harmed him. And it places in the hands of our fellow Americans the determination as to whether, and to what extent, we have suffered harm.

[CWebster]

40. And?

yes, and?

[Turkw]

43. The ability of civilians to take law enforcement, and other government

bodies is one of the important ways we civilians can limit and seek compensation for abuse by those government bodies. Clark endorses this, unlike Bush which seeks to protect the government form civilian redress.

[CWebster]

38. Aren't you just reading that into it?

It is a construction on your point to cover for that fact that Clark offers little more than political platitudes which don't amount to much then vague pronouncements. That is why his supporters have such difficulty in defending or elucidating Clark's specific positions---there is just not that much there.

I believe that law enforcement should have access to all necessary tools to deal with the
> problems of terrorism, which is why I'm calling for an immediate $40 billion investment in
> homeland security."



"Law enforcement agencies will always chafe at any restriction whatsoever when they're in the business of trying to get their job done.

It contradicts.

[Turkw]

41. The necessary tools are needed, but that does not mean unrestricted use

And lack of over site. Funding, equipment, training and PROPER over site are what they need. Law enforcement may like a blank check, but acknowledging that they need tools is not the same as saying no over site or restrictions. It is a construction on your part.

One of the things that many Clark detractors use is a suggestion of the sinister when you do not have actual examples of any abuses.

[BootinUp]

44. Not really

In one case Clark is talking about first responders having resources they need, its part of his jobs program, he is saying we need to hire more cops, firemen, and others that contribute to security on the streets.

In the other he is talking about protecting our constitution. see my other post on that.

[BootinUp]

42. I think one thing you can take from Clark

Is that he doesn't say he has all the answers. He wants Americans involved in the process and is pushing for a review of the Patriot Act. He is for protecting our constitution from rash changes. Frankly, I'd rather have someone that is for open debate and doesn't stifle it. Quite a refreshing change from the Bush kingdom.

Most Americans will support additional spending for our first responders (police, firemen). Clark views this as part of his economic stimulus plan as well.

[arendt]

47. You can say the same for every dem, except maybe Lieberman

Yes, Clark wants to review the Patriot Act.
That is good, that is clear.

But it does not answer any of the questions I posed.

arendt

[CWebster]

48. That is what he says...

while this is what he does:

Last June, retired Gen. Wesley Clark told NBC's "Meet the Press" that he was concerned about the effect of the war on terrorism on civil liberties. He said, "I think one of the risks you have in is that you're giving up some of the essentials of what it is in America to have justice, liberty and the rule of law. I think you've got to be very, very careful when you abridge those rights to prosecute the war on terrorists." As a politician, Wesley Clark has tried to portray himself as a liberal ready to reign in the excesses of Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon and John Ashcroft's Justice Department.

But as a businessman, Clark has been involved in helping companies sell the Pentagon and the Transportation Security Administration technologies that may threaten the civil liberties and privacy rights of Americans. In a recent profile, the Wall Street Journal reported that "Since retiring from a 34-year Army career in 2000, Gen. Clark has become: chairman of a suburban Washington technology-corridor start-up, managing director at an investment firm, a director at four other firms around the country and an advisory-board member for two others. For most, he was hired to help boost the companies' military business. After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Gen. Clark counseled clients on how to pitch commercial technologies to the government for homeland-security applications.


http://www.counterpunch.org/donahue10012003.html

[arendt]

52. Interesting article. States facts about Axciom, asks Clark to clarify

The article is a good source of what *Axciom* did.

The question I asked still is open. What are Clark's
intentions with regard to Homeland Security *projects*
like this, as opposed to specific violations of the
law by Ashcroft's DOJ, the FBI, the Miami Police, etc?

arendt

[BootinUp]

53. I think you have to start

by deciding whether there is any justifiable use for the Government to track information in an attempt to thwart terrorists. If the answer is yes then you implement it in light of the consitutional protections. You monitor it to ensure it is not abused.

Clark has strongly stated that we must review law enforcements use of these new tools, I.E. force the justice department to open the records. Frankly, as Tom states below, he has expressed awareness of the issue and a desire to protect our rights probably more than any other candidate. He has been saying this since before his official campaign started.

[arendt]

55. Can I draw you out a bit on that?

> by deciding whether there is any justifiable use for the Government
> to track information in an attempt to thwart terrorists. If the
> answer is yes then you implement it in light of the consitutional
> protections. You monitor it to ensure it is not abused.

But, the abuse was going on before 911. For example:

There is a guy named John Gage, who is a founder of Sun
Microsystems. (He was also a member of the Berkeley free
speech movement.)

Back in the 90s, he was refused passage on an airline because
he would not produce a picture ID.

He said "what law gives you that right? Where does it say
I have to present a photo ID, like some internal passport?"

Gage stopped flying to protest. I never heard how his lawsuit
against the airline and the government came out. I googled
for it, and the event can't be found. Scary.

My point is that this arbitrary rule acquired the force of
law, and that was before the Patriot Act.

----

So, when you say "monitor to ensure it is not abused", that
seems after the fact. If the statute is clearly written, the
courts can effectively monitor things by upholding the law.

When you say "implement in light of constitutional protections",
I assume you mean write a clear law that can be enforced by
a court (even a secret court).

If you mean otherwise, I would appreciate an explanation.
But, in general, it still comes back to what are Clark's
INTENTIONS behind all this campaign rhetoric. Unless he
says, I will propose such and such a definition of what
can be investigated/prosecuted as terrorism, we are right
back to Cointelpro.

Mind you, I'm not accusing Clark of that. I like his direct
references to Habeus Corpus. I just think he ought to name
a few more laws that he wants upheld, and name a few places
where Ashcroft ought to be indicted for breaking the law.

arendt

[BootinUp]

59. Clark is saying that

that he favors congressional review of the justice department's use of new legislation like the patriot act. That is what I meant by monitoring.

He would leave it to Congress and by connection us to determine if it has been misused, and that is not including the parts he would repeal immediately.

On other matters of privacy prior to 9/11, I think this gets lost in the debate to a certain extent. But with Clark's leadership I believe he will encourage prople to speak out to their representatives on this issue.

Perhaps you might want to pose your questions to the campaign directly as well.

[CWebster]

56. Then you have just violated civil liberties.

that is the point. You can not violate liberties or increase police powers and then claim the violation has to be monitored as if it was legitimate.

The only approach to terrorism is to deal with the issues which foment it--in the Middle-East, the I/P situation, for example. But on that front, Clark maintains the hawkish status quo - so what good in battling the symptoms?

[BootinUp]

58. I just totally disagree with you

about Clark's hawkishness. You might want to review his ten pledges specifically number 2.

http://clark04.com/issues/10pledges/

snip.....

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.
.....

On the civil liberties point, there is a debate in this country about this issue, Clark has not put forth anything that would infringe on our current rights, and instead wants to reverse the Bush actions in this regard. I am not sure I understand your problem with monitoring. That is a historical role of congress with regard to the Executive Branch and therefore the AG. This is what he is talking about. Having Congressional hearings to review the impact of the Patriot Act.

[Tom Rinaldo]

51. There is nothing controversial in those statements to reconcile.

Unless you "fill in the blanks" with your own projections of something ominous that you assume Clark has in mind. The concept of "balance", is just that, a core concept of American Democracy. We talk about "checks and balances", the need to balance the needs of the individual with that of society, of balancing the rights of the minority against the rights of the majority, etc.

I suppose you are "assuming", or "questioning" whether Clark in saying "law enforcement should have access to all necessary tools..." that he therefor advocates any and all means to combat terror, screw the Constitution. That really really is a stretch, and a convoluted one at that in the context of all of Clark's other statements. It is the rhetorical equivalent of a Democrat saying "I support our troops serving their country in Iraq, and I support giving them everything they need to do their job" IN THE CONTEXT of than going on to say that he or she will not write Bush a blank 86 Billion dollar check to do whatever he wants in Iraq, and that we need a policy that will get them safely and successfully home from Iraq, not an open ended blueprint for an endless occupation.

Clark starts out with the core principle of Constitutional protections as his starting point. It is what he defines as the essence of our nation that we must hold closely to even under attack. You may think I am being naive if you choose, fine go ahead, but when Clark says "all necessary tools" he means it in that context JUST LIKE all other politicians who comment on fighting universally recognized evils. It means he will find the money to upgrade security at nuclear power plants, for example.

"Law enforcement agencies will always chafe at any restriction whatsoever when they're in the business of trying to get their job done. But in practice we've always balanced the need for law enforcement with our own protection of our constitutional rights and that's a balance that will need to be reviewed.”

Well, duh, ain't that first sentence the truth? I'm glad that Clark knows their operational bias. The second sentence is equally true. Our society does allow searches with "reasonable suspicions" that must hold up in court. Our society does allow wiretaps, with judicial overview and legal protections to guard against abuse.

There is stuff to talk about under the larger theme of this thread, certainly. But the "conflict" you point to is not unique to Clark, nor do his comments indicate any lesser reason to trust him relative to anyone else, actually the reverse because he shows awareness of the issue.

[CWebster]

54. Here is the key though, Tom

'Unless you "fill in the blanks" with your own projections of something ominous that you assume Clark has in mind.'

If your approach is that Clark is the savior because he can beat the Republicans at their own game, and his image is what appeals to you--you will project what you want to see, but if your approach is wary and apprehensive about supporting a candidate who has spent a lifetime entrenched in that game, you might see it differently.

You could argue, for example, that we need to support the troops. That sounds good, but by extension, does that mean we support what the troops actually do in wartime--can you seperate the player from the play? So, it sounds good to say you support the constitution and civil rights, but if waging a political war on terrorism requires violating civil rights fundamentally - it is just politicalized rhetoric---epecially when past involvement of the politician make his star spangled sentiments suspect.

Most likely both statements are little more than generalized boilerplate, but personally I don't want a candidate who triangulates Republican positions, believing that is a winning formula. It has cost the Democrats their identity.

[arendt]

57. Yes. Could we please pop up a level?

> There is stuff to talk about under the larger theme of this thread,
> certainly.

And, I would like to go back there.

This Clark (or Dean) as Rohrshack blot or cargo cult is
merely personal opinion.

I started the thread to get some citations, because my
Rohrshack blot is that career military makes me nervous.
That's my personal bias, and I know it. So, I'm looking
for some facts to contain my projections.

This entire sub-thread is "reading in".

But, I do appreciate the polite tone that has evolved here.
Thank you Tom and CWebster.

arendt

[Tom Rinaldo]

65. I applaud your looking for specifics

And God Bless you and those who have time to sincerely help you here in that search (as opposed to the cut and paste assassins who are always on the lookout for biased commentary or quotes that sound juicy when lifted out of context). We all need hooks to hang our opinionated hats on. Ultimately though there is a degree of subjective interpretation and assessment of, yup, character and integrity that comes into play. Words are very cheap, and many actions are capable of being cloaked. I listen to words, and I look at actions, and I try to understand the person behind them. In my opinion it simply is a part of the necessary equation of decision making to do so.

I've looked into the Axciom link enough to not be overly concerned about it. Some concern, maybe, not so much though. Clark is and was not a real mover and shaker in that operation (obviously he was of some use to them or they wouldn't have wanted his assistance). There are multi levels to the projects they touched, and I am sure that some work was done for both good and evil. I am NOT opposed to all increased anti-terror initiatives, including some forms of screening. Terror is now real. One or two more planes into buildings and the Air Travel business will crater again. That throws lots of people out of jobs. That means more rent payments aren't met, and more houses are foreclosed on etc. Not to mention the people who would be killed in another Al Quada attack.

In my region of Meet Up, one of the lead local volunteer organizers for Clark is a woman who has a leading voice in the Wittenberg Center, NGO Committee on the United Nations International Decade of the World's Indigenous Peoples. (here's a link to some of their work:
http://www.awa.com/video/witctr.txt )

She has worked extensively for years with a number of other Non Governmental Organizations (NGO's) with UN status. These include many of the groups organizing humanitarian relief to refugees in the former Yugoslavia. She tells me everyone she knows in those groups, who have met with and worked closely with Wesley Clark on the ground dealing with a real life humanitarian crisis, has nothing but the highest praise for Wesley Clark as a human being, for the respect he showed their efforts, and for the full cooperation he gave them. What does that have to say about Clark and Civil Liberties? Nothing. Or everything, depending on how you look at it. Because I am always also looking at the man behind the words.

Those two television anecdotes I relayed to you in an earlier post matter to me, because they were unscripted. Anyone can write a position paper for a candidate. I have been at several functions with Wesley Clark, and I've watched him closely when he talks about the importance of the U.S. Constitution, and of honoring and protecting it. I really think he means it. Clark just won the endorsement of the Native American Times. A major reason that he did is based on the support he gives to Native American Sovereignty based on the specific clauses spelled out in the United States Constitution that grant it. There is a thread of consistency running through Clark's life, dealing with what it is about this country that he loves and was willing to fight for. I was initially surprised when I recognized it, but I think Clark is a patriot for much the same reasons that I, a life long protester, am. He loves the ideals of this country, and compared to your average politician, I think he would fight more than most to honor them.

For what it's worth, I was organizing protests during the Viet Nam War, and my activism has continued over the decades. I do not take lightly my support for a former General.

[arendt]

67. Isn't it sad - we are all reduced to looking for "unscripted" moments...

that is the sum total impact of all this "communications"
technology.

Everyone is scripted 24/7.

For the present, there are no hard citations to answer
my questions. But, I feel that some Clark supporters
might be motivated by this thread to find them.

I would like to humanize Clark, because he is simply
too perfect, too scripted, too on message for me not
to be on guard.

But, in today's media environment, such an unscripted
moment is all too likely to be scripted :-).

Clark's late entry increases this problem. He jumped
from political obscurity into the limelight with no
period from which you can find stories that reveal
who he is out of the context of being a general or
being a presidential candidate.

The most intriguing disconnect for me is that someone
so talented accepted such a low salary for so long when
the roaring 90s were making gazillionaires out of
20 year old nerds. That certainly says something,
but I'm not sure what.

When he finally goes for the money, his rank is so high
that he gets these big deals, mostly for access - so he
winds up looking like Neil Bush. (Trying to express how
it looks. I in no way compare Clark to that piece of
human slime.) This says something else, again I'm not
sure what.

I guess I'm saying I do not understand what motivates
Clark. If it was the Army, then his life would appear
to have ended when he decomissioned. If it was money,
why did he stay in the army so long? If it is national
service, why did he jump at the money so hard only to
back off two years later? If it is power, then god help
us.

Want to take a crack at pop psychology? I'm willing to
listen to a Viet War demonstrator with NGO friends.

arendt

[Tom Rinaldo]

68. Check back later

Gotta run and take care of some things now, also have Meet Up tonight, not sure when I can reply in full but I will some time today or tonight. I appreciate this dialog. Thanks for all your open efforts. By the way, I think you're crediting me with being a veteran of the Anti Viet Nam War movement, not a veteran of the war. I know many great actual war vets, just want to be clear that I am not one. Would have gone to Canada if push came to shove, but drew a high lottery number.

[arendt]

69. OK...

> I think you're crediting me with being a veteran of the Anti Viet
> Nam War movement, not a veteran of the war. I know many great
> actual war vets, just want to be clear that I am not one. Would
> have gone to Canada if push came to shove, but drew a high lottery
> number.

I inferred you were a "Viet War demonstrator". I'm confused.
You are saying you are not a vet and you did not demonstrate?
Please clarify.

Myself, I also got a high number. I went to a few demonstrations,
including the one in DC after Kent State. But, I was really
naive about politics at the time. Certainly no firebrand.
Just a kid.

arendt

[Tom Rinaldo]

71. Time for this quickie I guess

I never served in the military. Like I said, during the Vietnam War I would have gone to Canada first. However I am a "veteran" of the Anti-War movement. I particularly enjoyed surrounding the Pentagon in 1967, and shutting down (only for 15 minutes) the Long Island Expressway in 1970.

[Tom Rinaldo]

88. As we sink deeper into the realm of tea leaf reading

It's nice on occasion to be able to say "this is what I think is going on", without having to prove anything LOL.

I am finding your posts consistently thoughtful. I guess there is a role for both inductive and deductive reasoning here. I strongly connect with this comment of yours:

"The most intriguing disconnect for me is that someone
so talented accepted such a low salary for so long when
the roaring 90s were making gazillionaires out of
20 year old nerds. That certainly says something,
but I'm not sure what."

Exactly. This is a key building block for me. A key clue to understanding the puzzle so to speak. In "an American Son", the 15 min. Bio film produced about Clark, his wife Gert comments on that, she essentially says that big money offers were on the table well before the 90's in fact. There aren't many people capable of Clark's academic achievements, but that's not the kicker. I know some extremely bright people, and most of them lack a degree of focus, discipline, and dogged determination to persevere against all odds. Clark is not unique, but the set of personal attributes he possesses, combined with his outgoing ease of presentation and comfort with command decisions, are pure gold. Clark could have become filthy rich if he wanted to, I have no doubt of that.

I'll talk more about what I understand were Clark's initial post military and retirement plans shortly. I find something familiar in Clark's character as reflected in his personal economic choices. Clark was content to remain on military pay for 34 years, and would have done so longer were it not for certain enemies he made. Clark has the profile of a true believer. Believer in what of course is a relevant question, but I'll try to get there soon.

I know and understand true believers, and I am not talking about Religion though religion certainly has some. I mean secular true believers. At the moment I am self employed with a small cottage industry of sorts, but for most of my life I did various alternative movement work, or generalized community organizing, or I worked inside of Mental Health and Community Service enterprises. I was a founding member of various collective projects. I have known and worked with many remarkably talented people, and most of them were lucky to approach any semblance of a middle class lifestyle. We lived for our work because we believed in the work we were doing. Money was at most a tertiary consideration. It goes a level beyond choosing to work in the non profit rather than profit making sectors. It is mission oriented; fulfillment via dedication to a cause. Having been through that for so long, I pick up on it when I see it. Believe me, I was shocked when I started seeing that in a retired General, Wes Clark. I was looking for a candidate with reasonable policies who I thought could beat Bush. I really wasn't looking for what I now think I found. Talk about finding treasure in unexpected places...

OK, for what I am sketching out here to hold any water, Wes Clark would have to be a very unusual person. And that is what I am seeing, Wes Clark is a very unusual person. That quality runs through his whole life story. It's not the opportunities he received, it's the opportunities he made, and I mean the stuff that you just can't fake. I don't know if sports as a metaphor or indicator works for you, but winning a stare wide championship in anything is a remarkable achievement. When Clark's high school swimming team won the State championship in a relay event, it was only because Clark insisted on swimming two separate legs when the team was about to forfeit for being one swimmer short. OK, that was in High School.

When Wes Clark graduated first from West Point, as is customary he was given his pick of assignments in a public ceremony of sorts. The other cadets erupted in a spontaneous ovation because he picked one of the most dangerous assignments possible. Wes Clark was given his medal for bravery in Viet Nam for standing his ground and leading his troops after being shot 4 times. When he was in Bosnia, with 3 stars on his shoulders, he risked his life again trying to save lives. This was a true unscripted moment, a spontaneous action. I got this link from another DU post:

"Here are pages 9 through 16 of Richard Holbrooke's book "To End a War". These pages describe the scene on Mount Igman when General Clark rapelled the mountain in order to retrieve the remains of two comrades in the APC that had gone over the side of the cliff.

http://www.philadelphiaforclark.com/holbrooke.pdf

takes a while to download to Acrobat Reader"

OK, so a case can be made that Clark is a legitimate hero, for whatever that term is worth, and you know, I do think that term still means something when it is genuinely applied. Still, heroes are uncommon but they are not unique, and being a hero does not in and of itself qualify you to be President of the United States, but it DOES give some insight into the human being behind the resume.

(I can tell this is going to be a two part post with hours separating the parts)

From what I understand it was hard on Clark to leave the military when and how he did. By the way I am one of those who think Clark is MORE trustworthy because of the reasons behind the treatment he received from Shelton and Cohen, not less, but that's another story. I guess you can say that one of the things Clark did, at a very high level, was "play the stock market" through his business associations. I have some radical friends who did exactly that, also in the late 90's by "day trading", as a way of bringing in money that they intended to direct toward more noble ends. Clark did not make a great deal of money as a lobbyist, not for someone of his stature and value to the military complex. Most of his income came from speaking engagements and writing. Kind of like Clinton I suppose.

Clark started an organization called "Leadership for America" which is unfortunately completely shut down now, in the wake of his entry into the Presidential race. I just learned about it a little at the very end, so I don't have much I can say about it, perhaps you can research it. Here are some comments on it though from someone on DU who participated in it, followed to the link for the thread the comments were posted on:

" I am so glad you asked this question because it brings back so many things. I remember being really disgusted at the time, seeing Wesley Clark on CNN, and turning to the internet to find out more about him. Boy, was I rewarded! I found loads of info, but the the most important thing - the thing that drastically affected my life, was "Leadership for America". As long as I live, I will never forget that forum.

It was non-partisan. There were five leading questions posted in five different categories by General Clark. Each was an open-ended question which was designed to provoke though and long responses. Members of the forum were able to post new questions in each category. I was welcomed and participated in the most invigorating and amazing conversations of my life. I was never made to feel stupid for asking questions or not knowing as much about a topic as someone else. It was my very first experience with an online forum."

Here's that link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=57139&mesg_id=58855&page=

I heard Clark speak once, I think it was on NH public radio, about his post military plans. He fully intended to make 10 or so million dollars. He was planning to use most of that money to establish a foundation (maybe related to "Leadership for America" - I'm not sure) and teach himself Golf. The Draft Clark movement scrambled all of those plans.

I have to stop for now to get ready for going out. I plan to write more later, and will share more of my own opinions about who and why Clark is...

Edited to add a link

[Tom Rinaldo]

94. An important summary P.S. to above thread

I just realized that I didn't make the connection to what I think is most significant about a "true believer" in the context of this thread. "True believers" come in every conceivable form, from Martin Luther King to Adolf Hitler. But there is something relevant that they have in common. They are drawn to wards actually saying what they really believe, because they are proud of what they really believe. They get passionate about what they really believe. Yes they may sometimes engage in strategic deceptions, but that is more the exception than the rule. If you want to know what a true believer really believes in, listen to him or her and they will tell you. That's why listening to Clark speak resonates for me. I think he means what he says. In his case, I like what he says, which is not always the case with all "true believers". When it is though, you have found a potential inspirational leader for an important cause.

[Tom Rinaldo]

99. Clark's motivation.

I don't think Clark has ever sought power for the sake of power. I think in America more real power resides in the civilian sector than in the military one. If Clark wanted power he would have taken a central seat early in a corporate empire, or left the military much earlier, completely on his own volition, to pursue a career in politics. I certainly don't think Clark was ever really motivated by money, as we both commented on above. Nor did Clark pick a career path that accented fame as a measure of success, so I don't think fame was it either. It was not at all predictable that Clark might have been in charge of NATO's first war. Most high ranking military officers retire to semi obscurity, in relationship to the general public anyway.

Clark does come from fairly humble roots. He was never a Prince in waiting the way George W Bush was. He never knew special treatment, nor does he have family alumni from Yale or Harvard. Clark never expected ruling class privileges as a birth right. He could have fought his way into those circles, by way of his brilliance, if that was what he wanted. I gather he never gave it any thought. When he found out he couldn't be an astronaut because he needed glasses, he settled on West Point, and never looked back.

So what do I think motivates Wes Clark? For one thing I think Clark has always been motivated by a desire to excel in all matters that he applies himself to. He sets the highest conceivable personal goals for himself and then he works to reach and/or exceed them. Great athletes often have that quality, think Tiger Woods, or Serena Williams. That quality by itself is ideologically neutral. It is an idealistic streak in Clark, when added to that, which makes Clark such a fascinating person. I know a number of brilliant but literally impoverished social change activists who willingly accept their chronic poverty in return for the freedom to do what they really believe in. Virtually all of them would be thrilled to accept a middle class income were it possible to be paid one while pursuing their calling, but the calling always comes first.

Clark's calling was the military, which drives most progressives bonkers to get a handle on. "The Military" and "Idealism" do not coexist well for us as a rule. When I was 16, I was a hawk. I wanted to volunteer to fight in Viet Nam. I wanted to defend other people's liberties. I wanted to stop Communists from "enslaving the free world". OK, obviously I was brainwashed, and that phase did not last very long. By 17 I was heading down a radical road. But I have always remembered what that short period felt like. The honor of being willing to risk my own life to defend others.

Clark came of age earlier than I, and in a different cultural setting. I grew up on Long Island New York, he grew up in Little Rock. The world as we know it almost ended when Clark was in High School. The Cuban Missile Crisis was terrifyingly real. Communism wasn't some sandal wearing peasants fighting in the jungles of their own homeland. Communism was the Berlin Wall, and guards shooting civilians as they tried to escape from the real oppression of East Germany. Communism was Nikita Kruschev with his finger on the button. Idealism was John and Robert Kennedy, and they were semi-enlightened cold war hawks, and it was John who said "Ask not what your country..."

Even today there still are nuclear tipped missiles, and some of them are pointed at our cities (maybe just the Chinese ones now, the Russians and us I think have an agreement not to directly target each other). It is a very small minority of Americans who believe in totally disbanding our military, hence there is an overwhelming agreement among Americans that the United States should retain Armed Forces. Clark served most of his career in the military during the cold war, when deterrence, nuclear or otherwise, against the Soviet Bloc was an accepted part of conventional political wisdom by both political parties, pro or anti Viet Nam War, regardless. Even someone like Ron Dellums saw a need for some U.S. military.

I accept that Clark has dedicated his life to the service of his country, in the United States Army, to the absolute best of his abilities, because he saw it as an honorable thing to do. I don't doubt that for a second. I think Clark is keenly motivated by service to a cause larger than himself, and his cause is basically the well being of our nation, which he initially approached through a national security context. In the post cold war era I think Clark's vision expanded to the point where sending troops into Rwanda for the sole reason of stopping genocide there, in his mind, would have well served our broadly defined national interests. And now that Clark has entered civilian life, I believe that his vision extends further to include issues of social and economic justice.

Clark is an idealist, kind of an old fashioned straight arrow type, but an idealist just the same. That is no guarantee that his policies or politics is best for our nation, but that wasn't the question posed in this side dialog of ours. We were questioning Clark's motivations. Now that Clark has accepted the personal challenge of running for the office of President, he takes that challenge as seriously as he does any prior challenge in his life. It is the responsibility of the President to uphold the Constitution and look after the welfare of the American people, and that is exactly what I think Clark intends to do to the best of his ability should he win the office. That is now the mission he has accepted, and he will do everything in his power to succeed at that.

So yeah, when Clark says that he honors and respects the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, I think he's sincere. And should he believe that anything, the Patriot Act or anything else, threatens the very nature of American Democracy, I believe he would fight that. And I think Clark would make a damn good fighter for our side, based on everything else he has already accomplished in his life.

That's my honest opinion, and no I don't have proof of that. That is why I care this much about an individual candidate for the first time since Robert F. Kennedy. Given the divisions in our country, I don't think there is anyone else who comes close to being the right man for what America needs at this turning point in history. Did I mention that I have a CD of a conversation Clark had with an interviewer where he mused that we are at a historical turning point analogous to when the Roman Republic descended into the Roman Empire? He was talking about stolen elections, and the subversion of our freedoms. Clark fears for our future, and so do I.

So, I will not engage further here now in anti military related debates, or reexaminations of the details of Clark's prior Commands. Not because I think such study is unworthy, or unnecessary, but simply because I have been party to all of that already, many many times on numerous DU threads, and I simply don't have any more time for that. I am leaving now on a work trip, and when I return my energy will be solely directed to the nuts and bolts of helping Clark do as well as possible in the upcoming Primaries. Besides posting on DU threads, I volunteer in Clark's campaign.

Something about the openness of your questions made me think, ah what the hell. Just once I'll say what I really feel and think, sarcasm off, shields down, hope triumphant over cynicism.

This post is a sitting duck for flames, but frankly, I don't give a damn. Whichever Democratic candidate wins, I'll be working for him this summer and fall.

[arendt]

100. Your sincerity is to be encouraged

> Something about the openness of your questions made me think, ah what the hell.
> Just once I'll say what I really feel and think, sarcasm off, shields down, hope
> triumphant over cynicism.

I cannot tell you how much I appreciate an honest communication, without the ever-
present "ironic distance" so popular of late. The loss of idealism is a major contributor
to the sorry state this country is in. I will do my best to respect your openness by
not scoring *cheap* points. That doesn't mean I agree with all you say, just that you
have every right to say it without being mocked. Unless we elevate the political
discourse in this country, no one is going to be able to distinguish a decent politician
from a posing, cynical apparatchik again.

> I don't think Clark has ever sought power for the sake of power. I think in America
> more real power resides in the civilian sector than in the military one...Most high
> ranking military officers retire to semi obscurity,
>...
> I accept that Clark has dedicated his life to the service of his country, in the United
> States Army, to the absolute best of his abilities, because he saw it as an honorable
> thing to do.

> Clark is an idealist, kind of an old fashioned straight arrow type...
> Clark's calling was the military, which drives most progressives bonkers to
> get a handle on. "The Military" and "Idealism" do not coexist well for us as a rule.

This is a tough one. We are talking about forty years, during which the culture of our
country has been turned inside out twice. Certainly, when Clark went to West Point,
America was full of idealism and the post-WW2 military was held in high esteem, with
Eisenhower as recent president. The country was middle class, unions were powerful,
and government was respected.

Nam cruelly crushed all that idealism. Wrong war, wrong enemy, lies and deceit up
and down the chain of command. Four o'clock follies, fragging, dope dealing, drug
running.

After the Viet Nam/Watergate trashing of all the old institutions, including the military,
the older soldiers worked hard to rebuild a tradition that still had the power to motivate.
They kept their idealism. America was still a truly middle-class country.

But, after Reagan came to office, corporate power assaulted and finally toppled government
power and union power. The all-volunteer military began to be an increasingly underpaid
refuge for the talented of the underclass. (How many today are on foodstamps or whatever
is equivalent in the military?) The middle and upper class presence dwindled. The pay and
prestige of general staff fell far behind equivalent, bloated corporate compensation.

By the 90s, the military had changed from being representative of middle class America
of the mid-century to being representative of the third-world America that is now upon us.
The troops were ever less educated, ever poorer, ever more of color - even to the point of
not being US citizens! Meanwhile, the rump of the middle class Army had followed
normal actuarial patterns and either retired or made it to the top, to general staff rank.

Now, I certainly do not blame any senior person in today's military for its Wal-Martization.
They were just soldiers doing their jobs. And, if you rose through the ranks inside the middle
class "bubble", the world may have looked unchanged. You could keep your idealism. You
could be proud of rebuilding the Army after Nam, proud of the most color-blind institution
in America.

In Gulf War 1, I was impressed by the education and training levels (at least of those
people who got interviewed on camera). They seemed "professional". Of course, they
were mostly pilots because we mostly fight with planes and missiles.

But, by the Iraq Invasion, the troops on camera seemed like poorly educated, bloodthirsty
yahoos in comparison to the disciplined, intelligent British troops. You don't see much
footage of the British troops on US TV. The comparison is probably too blatant to spin.

Today, our troops are treated like Wal Mart employees: "Pay 'em shit and stiff 'em on
benefits. Who cares what they think? Let 'em get their kicks out of being cruel to sand niggers".

God save us from the karma we are making for ourselves.

None of this do I blame on Clark. But, I do need to see what form his idealism took in
the 1990s. So, I suppose, now, I have to go read what Clark thinks of today's military to
see if he has come to similar conclusions.

> I think Clark has always been motivated by a desire to excel in all matters that he applies
> himself to. He sets the highest conceivable personal goals for himself and then he works to
> reach and/or exceed them.

The need to excel is easy to accept. The true goals are what my questions are about.

> I know a number of brilliant but literally impoverished social change activists who willingly
> accept their chronic poverty in return for the freedom to do what they really believe in.
> Virtually all of them would be thrilled to accept a middle class income were it possible to be
> paid one while pursuing their calling,

If you follow what I said above, I would suggest that this relative poverty was forced upon
Clark by institutional factors. At his length of service, he was locked in. He had, when young
and certainly idealistic, invested decades of his life. He rode out the low pay because he
was achieving his goal of command rank. I think it is overblown to say that he knowingly
set out to impoverish himself to pursue an ideal. Circumstances changed, he stuck it out.

Nothing wrong with that, its just nothing saintly. I'm now an unemployed techie. I refuse to
go to business school and become some slimeball in a suit, just to get a paycheck. I could
say I chose this voluntary poverty because I'm an idealistic techie who wants to change the
world. But that would be puffery.

> I think Clark is keenly motivated by service to a cause larger than himself, and his cause is
> basically the well being of our nation, which he initially approached through a national security
> context. In the post cold war era I think Clark's vision expanded

> It is the responsibility of the President to uphold the Constitution and look after the welfare
> of the American people, and that is exactly what I think Clark intends to do

And there's the rub. There are all kinds of ways to uphold the Constitution. Historically,
many of those ways have been very hard on social liberals.

Can't help myself to a historical analogy. After the English Civil War, in the Restoration
under Charles II, everyone knew that Parliament was supreme, that the king must defer
to it. But, there was a lot of wiggle room. The king constantly tried to use Royal Prerogative
to negate the Laws of Parliament. Parliament tried to strip the king of his powers. Just
as in the Civil War, both sides could produce precedents to argue that their interpretation
of the law was the correct one.

Unfortunately, at this sad point in our history, we have allowed the GOP to create the
closest thing to unchecked monarchy this country has ever seen. The first thing I need
from a President is that he wants to GIVE BACK some of the governmental power to the
Congress, that he wants to de-politicize the packed Federal court system, that he does
not want to go on divisive witch hunts against a literal handful of flag burners.

Under Charles II, the British had the memory of the Civil War fresh in their minds. The
cruelty and bloodshed made them more willing to compromise, to be tolerant. Still, it
was a difficult time. And, then James II became king and tried to stamp out the Parliament
and the Episcopacy at the same time. The result was almost a second round of Civil
War. Fortunately, the Parliamentary leaders had a spine, if not power. They called for
William of Orange, and the rest is history.

I don't know that Wes Clark is William of Orange, but we sure do need a Glorious
Revolution around here somewhere.

I don't know if I'm a Dissenter or a Whig or an Episcopal scientist. Like all Civil War
situations, it is hopeless confused and internecine.

If you know anything about the English Civil War period, you know that it was full of
double-dealers, plotters, regicides, charlatans, fanatics, opportunists, parasites, and
profiteers. So pardon me if I sniff around Gen. Clark for a while. He has the capability
of being a Macchiavelian if he so chose. Macchiavellians do not generally have this fact
tattooed on their foreheads. My diligence level here is going to be very high.

----

Thanks again for your openness and willingness to take a risk. We need more of that
if we are to survive. The flame wars and circular firing squads have got to stop if we
have any chance to win.

Just remember that, as of now, I support Dean; and I am willing to support the Dem
nominee. Bush must be defeated. ( in the sense of: Cartago delenda est.)

Hey, what do you think of "arbusto delenda est" as a campaign slogan? The freepers
will never figure it out.

arendt

[sfecap]

19. He has no record.

Unless you count his paid lobbying for Acxiom, a corporation that compiles private databases on Americans and sells them to the government, among other clients.

He does, however have a bunch of position papers written by his staff if you find that kind of thing interesting...

[NV1962]

29. Another hat in the ring

Q1: I don't see how one can consider it either "new" or "old" money when the federal budget is subject to change. So technically, I think it's most appropriate to consider it "new." However, the biggie here is what the overall spending on HS-related issues will be, which stretches across many departments, among which -- as you intimated -- DoD plays an important role. And Wes Clark has already made a clear commitment to go through DoD spending with a fine comb, so you can bet that Cold War-type Dino-projects will feel the axe. And there's very little doubt on my mind that DoD-related "structural" spending (so, aside from relatively "incidental" or operational issues related to Iraq, for example) will have a freeze, at best - if it won't be clipped down, that is. So, I see little room for HS-related spend increases there. On another tack, what Wes Clark has stressed a lot in his HS-related budgetary comments, has mostly to do with personnel-related costs: ensuring that enough people, decently paid people, adequately equipped people, and properly trained people can do the job - and that's always a hefty spending item, even with a $40bn increase. Bottom line, I think the "new" money will only be marginally drawn from absolute increases, and mostly from "reshuffles."

Q2: Comprehensive tax reform proposal t.b.a. today - I don't think I can say much before that.

Q3: I have a feeling you're referring mostly to the "wall" that was torn down, according to which CIA has access to domestic info, while FBI can access information the other way. I believe that this is an issue that will be settled pretty quickly - by reinstating FISA courts (as opaque and vaguely accountable as they are/were) as guarantors of due process, requiring their approval for a much broader set of cases than is the case with Ashcroft's much narrower job description for them, when he gave law enforcement agencies a pretty astounding breadth of interpretation margin for info requests on domestic persons (i.e., taps) as well as (perhaps the most troubling aspect) a lot of leeway to "protect" the information gathering methods used during trial. There's no doubt on my mind that these issues - as much as they are of "technical" nature, as I don't think that they've been "implemented" yet - will be clarified, and redefined to adhere much more to the "spirit" of the Constitution. A wholly different can of worms is the "Guantanamo" situation, where hundreds (possibly thousands, who knows) people have been put in legal limbo, pulling a rather questionable rabbit of "enemy combatants" out of the presidential hat. In my opinion, a "regularization" into "ordinary" POW status is likely; given the scant amount of "actionable" intelligence that seems to have come out of that "experiment" so far, based on the apparent results "on the battlefield" I think that's not a huge leap. And very much in line with Wes Clark's ideas, as far as I understand / read them correctly.

Now, my question: what do you see as a (the) substantial difference with Howard Dean? Do you see significant difference there?

I ask that, because I don't think these issues will prove particularly "divisive" between the two... So I don't expect substantial differences. But I'm curious if you do, and if so, where/which ones.

[arendt]

49. This is the best response so far

> Wes Clark has already made a clear commitment to go through DoD
> spending with a fine comb,

Can you give me a cite, please?

> Q2: Comprehensive tax reform proposal t.b.a. today

OK, that's a cite.

> I have a feeling you're referring mostly to the "wall" that was
> torn down, according to which CIA has access to domestic info,
> while FBI can access information the other way.

Yes, hat's one part of the issue - the lack of control over
intelligence gathering. Another part is the overt militarization
of our cities.

> I believe that this is an issue that will be settled pretty
> quickly - by reinstating FISA courts

What makes you "believe" this is what will happen? Cite?

My bottom line is that Clark is a high-ranking military guy
who knows all about intelligence gathering. He should be
putting as much as he knows that is not classified on the
table in order to clear the fog of fear that Bushco has
created. If I saw that he was pushing this envelope harder
than any other candidate specifically because he had the
knowledge that others don't, THEN I would say his military
background is a plus. But, if his rhetoric doesn't go any
farther than others, and its just "trust me", then I am
not impressed.

arendt

[NV1962]

75. A few additions

Thanks for looking into my comments. I'll get to the meat:

Q1: "As Commander in Chief of the United States, I will carefully examine our defense budget to ensure that we are providing our military the money and support it needs to adapt to the new challenges America faces and to have the strongest, best-trained, best-equipped military in the world." (From: Wes Clark's Ten Pledges

This pledge to "carefully examine" the DoD budget is, I believe, the most "ironclad" rendition of my "fine comb" remark.

There is an indirect source stating Clark's willingness to apply the knife to the DoD budget - but since I don't know if you'd agree with its credibility, I will simply offer you a link to the question (look specifically at #5, that's the pertaining bit) and its answer, given just below. And finally, to give you an impression on where/how Wes Clark approaches the budgetary reality of "transformation" (an oft-used euphemism for, uh, "rightsizing" among the military) I think this is an interesting and pertaining article, written by Wes Clark himself (in April last year.)

Q2: I suppose (and hope) that the flurry of releases today -- on top of the pertinent info on www.clark04.com -- will at least for the moment satisfy your quest for a more deeply substantiated underpinning of Clark's approach of the federal budget.

Q3: Wes Clark's position on the "urban militarization" issue, I think, is best illustrated by his emphasis on making sure that the so-called "first responders" are adequately equipped. If law enforcement, for example, has the "right" level of means, preparation and personnel available, and (counter) intelligence agencies (domestic and abroad) do their job efficiently within an appropriately honed organization, there's no need to send soldiers (Nat'l Guard) out on the street. In fact, one of Wes Clark's most persistent points of criticism towards the B* administration is its woefully inadequate handling of (counter) terrorism, even so long after 9-11. And, at the peril of straying too far for your interest here, I'd also point out that Clark is hammering on the B* junta's failure to deliver on its own promise to have the twelve agencies operate as a virtual entity - delivering a virtually unified "product" (intelligence.) I think this is important, not only because it highlights yet another credibility gap in the B* record, but also because there was a fairly comprehensive strategy in place during the Clinton era - including comprehensive, detailed and interdepartmental (co-operative among agencies, including for example FEMA) prevention, intervention and response scenarios for instances of what then was termed "hyperterrorism" (one such scenario was known as the Conplan - might want to Google that as I can't find it where it used to be, pre-9/11) And that "masterplan" also had an eye on "strategically sensitive" targets. Point here: it's not as if government first walked into the idea under B* that having a well-thought out "pre-emptive and responsive" plan for hyper-terrorism is, well, a good idea. (Added in later edit: So, Wes Clark not only has the "head" to grasp the tremendous complexity and dynamics involved in this more realistic interpretation of "readiness" - he's able to provide the necessary leadership to steer such a complex and project into a functional and reasonably efficient enterprise.)

Ok, I'll shaddap now - hope that wasn't all-too superfluous.

[arendt]

77. Thanks for the cites. Interesting, but...

the naivete about Harold Bloom is scary to me.


The beginning of this URL says:

> October 14, 2003
> Cometh the Hour ... The American Empire needs a general in the
> White House. This great piece from Yale Sterling Professor of
> Humanities Harold Bloom, may only be available for free at Opinion
> Journal through the rest of today. Check it out.

But, one of the responders later points out:

> It's not surprising that Bloom's piece has generated negative
> comment. He has no inclination to "deplore" the Iraq war, even
> though he admits that "its motivations remain obscure." Bloom's
> underlying premise--that the U.S. is exercising imperial power in
> the Middle East and must continue to do so--will inevitably lead to
> further Arab resentment and add fuel to the fire. This piece will
> be highly controversial within the progressive wing of the party.
> I don't recommend wide distribution of it.


I'm with the responder.

Harold Bloom is part of the U. of Chicago intellectual mafia
(can you say Leo Strauss?). Bloom is a big promoter of Great
Books style of education - very Platonic. He wrote "The Closing
of the American Mind", which was a big anti-PC book of the
1980s. He is deep, deep in the neocon cabal.

You REALLY don't want to cite this guy as a character reference
for Clark. Believe me.

arendt

[NV1962]

80. Well...

I cited him for a purpose.

Clark is capable of gathering the sufficiently broad support that is necessary to sweep B* and his mob out, in a resounding electoral victory.

Necessary, because next (after the WH) comes the reconquest of Congress.

I'm not ashamed of citing a conservative backer - neither is Wes Clark. "We" (ahem) agree that a solidly progressive package of political premises for the presidency, laid out in clear-cut and effective policy, is what really unites people in support.

Clark isn't looking for winning the gold medal for having the ideologically most pure followers - he wants to lead this country into the right direction, which is firmly to the left of the current mad junta.

Sounds like a good plan to me, which is why I recommend it without reservation.

[arendt]

83. This is your final answer? Harold Bloom is OK?

> I'm not ashamed of citing a conservative backer -

Bloom isn't a conservative, he's another crypto-neocon
buddy of Leo Strauss.

Look. The fear is that Clark is really a conservative
dressing up as a liberal.

Bloom is right down there with William Bennett as a
phony moralizer and conservative political agitator.
He is very in tight with all the neocon academics, like
Sam (clash of civilizations) Huntington, who is PNAC.

Sure you want to get on the same bandwagon with Harold
Bloom? And quote him from the WSJ soapbox.

For me, you might as well quote Oral Roberts speaking
at Bob Jones University.

If this is why people are supporting Clark, they have
a lot of nerve calling Dean's supporters "deluded".

arendt

[NV1962]

85. Following one's conscience isn't deluded

Opinions can, however, include the view that "the other" has a deluded conscience - which is an all too common starting point for senseless piefights.

Dean's campaign suffers most from that; and because of that same all too common editorial weapon of mass distraction, the other contenders (notably Kucinich, but in fact each and every one of them) also lose opportunities necessary to get their message across, and present voters with their arguments to vote for them.

Is Harold Bloom OK? Frankly, I think that's the question backwards. "Is it OK to consider ourselves succesful, when we also have support of Harold Bloom?"

Put in more prosaic terms: do we want to win big (BIG!) with the best possible platform and without compromising out tenets?

To that, my answer is: with Wes, we can!

That's not delusional - it's what my conscience tells me is the right thing to do.

[arendt]

86. Five seconds to self-destruct. Woop! Woop! Woop! This thread is unstable.

All I asked you to do was acknowledge who Harold Bloom is.
And, after a day worth of my posting politely about Clark,
you are ready to flame me. This forum is hopeless.

Clark didn't ask for his endorsement, and AFAIK, has not
thanked Mr. Bloom for it. This is not about Clark or what
Clark thinks. Its off topic. Its a different topic: its
about Clark's supporters' willingness to use an ur-neocon
in support of their man.

Imagine the howls if Dean supporters posted Paul Wolfowitz
praising Dean and the Dean supporters said "fine" with us.

This is about to descend into a flame fest. I won't go there
over the sorry ass of Harold Bloom.

Lets just stop this particular sub-thread. Agreed?

arendt

[NV1962]

90. Uhhh... How about a pre-emptive apology?

Maybe we're both sensitive. I am. Been flamed too often already (considering my tender post count...)

I didn't want to even suggest a flame - you mean the "delusional" part? I picked that up more in play with one bit of a sentence you wrote, than as a projectile, honest. So if that's what set off the alarm... I meant no harm.

But if you look up (or down?) a few threads, you'll see it's a "draw" already, as far I'm considered.

Deal?

[arendt]

92. Great idea. Like a random act of kindness.

Yes. I completely understand. Its like road rage.
I've been ultra-polite all day, and it has been
tough.

Sorry that I was so sensitive.
You are also extremely polite (for a DUer :-)).

I hope you will not shy away from my threads in the
future. In the meantime, I will do some more "due
diligence" on Clark.

Thanks,

arendt

[robforclark]

93. How the hell...

...do you think Foucault and Derrida and Said were educated? GREAT BOOKS! The leading postmodern/postcolonial thinkers of the 20th Century were all educated via a Great Books style of education.

Sorry if that first part sounded harsh. I just think we as liberals tend to lose focus of the fact that those thinkers who crafted the intellectual underpinnings of many of our views of society and politics could only do so after studying the Great Books. And reading any of the postmodernists without a grasp of their oh-so-Platonic philosophic predecessors (whose advocacy you deplore) places them within an untenable intellectual vacuum.

[arendt]

98. Welcome to DU, robforclark

Nice to see you aren't shy.

> I just think we as liberals tend to lose focus of the fact that those thinkers
> who crafted the intellectual underpinnings of many of our views of society
> and politics could only do so after studying the Great Books.

I am referring to a very specific curiculum at the U of Chicago.

My wife went to the U of C and had a bad experience.
It is a twisted place, and has been since it was founded by
Rockefeller money. The U of C gave us Milton Friedman
and his destructive monetarist economics, the whole idiotic
concept of applying economics to the legal decision making
process as if money equals justice, and the U of C version
of the Great Books, which attracted Leo Strauss and all
his neocon buddies, and their cult of Plato and the cave,
and the Philosopher Kings.

My beef is with the U of C and their Straussian cult of the
great books, not with the concept that a book can be "great"
or worthy of study. I have no problem with "dead white men",
if that is what you are on about.

I have no clue what kind of Great Books program they have
in France, or for that matter, at any university other than U
of C. But, I have first hand knowledge of U of C, and it is
one awful place. It chews up and spits out decent people,
and it attracts power-hungry sickos.

> And reading any of the postmodernists without a grasp of their oh-so-
> Platonic philosophic predecessors (whose advocacy you deplore) places
> them within an untenable intellectual vacuum.

Why do I always get postmodernists mucking up my threads? :-)

Who says you have to take a great books curiculum to read Plato?
My wife read him at age 12. She didn't need permission. I thought
postmodernists didn't need permision, either.

Have you ever read "The Closing of the American Mind" by
Harold Bloom, which is the focus of this sub-thread? If so,
what do you think of his "canon"? If not, why are you bashing
me?


arendt

P.S. Sorry if this post sounds like: "Welcome to NJ, now gedoudda here."
But, this forum is the Rahway, NJ of DU.

[arendt]

79. Re "urban militarization"

> I'd also point out that Clark is hammering on the B* junta's
> failure to deliver on its own promise to have the twelve agencies
> operate as a virtual entity - delivering a virtually
> unified "product" (intelligence.)

This is what I keep running up against. A unified DOMESTIC
intelligence system is very scary. I don't doubt Clark is
qualified to run it. The problem is that such a thing ever
gets created, we will sooner or later lose control of it,
just as we have lost control of the CIA (by self-funding
drug running and BCCI-style bank fraud). Then, its Kafka
time.

I don't hear Clark talking about the downside risk of creating
more government surveilance. What is conservative about
creating a "panopticon" for our country? Is the gain in
tracking down the officially-defined "terrorists" worth
the loss of Civil Liberties? That is the question I keep
asking.

All I get is assurances that Clark can handle the bureaucracy.
But that is exactly my concern. Clark will carry out the
mission without questioning if the mission is worth carrying
out.

After 50 years of CIA horrors, where is the awareness of
the bad side, instead of the buy-in to "911 changed everything"?

arendt

[NV1962]

82. That's where "the Wall" comes into play

"Rule of Law" isn't a slogan. It's the Constitution, period.

I think Wes Clark has made it abundantly clear that he can work very well with (and within) Mr Franklin's wise warning, about those willing to sacrifice a bit of freedom for some temporary security not deserving either.

Is that the most "restrictive" (or its opposite, "liberal") position one could adopt on security matters? Nope.

But again - I think it's a most effective, efficient, and overall sound ("responsible") plan. And that makes it, I believe, "trustworthy" enough to mandate a President and through him the federal government, rendering it accountable again.

I believe that's a most attractive idea - if however you see a candidate who can deliver more... Pick him.

Long live democracy.

[arendt]

84. Your answer assumes exactly what scares me

You do not respond to my litany of intelligence agency
abuses. You merely state your faith that Clark will respect
the Constitution.

You do not question the need for more co-ordination of
intelligence. Instead, you roll the whole issue up under
"security matters". Sorry, but its Civil Liberties as
well. Liberties are living things. Once you kill them,
its not easy to bring them back to life. You don't get
to say "oops".

Did 911 really "hurt" America in an irretrievable way?
The total damage estimates are about $100 B. The GDP is
what? $9 Trillion? It probably did as much damage as a
major hurricane. We have those, and we survive.

But, if we turn our internal security over to some military/
intelligence computer system, liberty could be gone as fast
as you can say "Diebold".

And that is what scares me. The conversation is all about
security mechanisms, and the whole liberties thing is some
vague veto that I am supposed to trust Clark to cast.

I am trying to have a conversation about choosing between
security and liberty. I am trying to suggest that the right
choice is not to choose more security. The right choice is
to stop stealing oil from halfway around the world, and
running sweatshops in China. America can have a good economy
by inventing reusable energy and bringing jobs back home.

Instead, we seem intent on building our own panopticon prison
and living in it, while we watch reruns of Apocalypse Now
and reality TV of our brave soldiers getting shot by faceless
guerillas in countries where we don't belong.

I am not reassured.

arendt

[NV1962]

89. I see & share that point

And please, don't see that as "I feel your pain." I don't mean it that way.

Let me make this closing point, before I step out now that we've homed in on an unsurmountable difference of criterium -- i.e., consideration of Clark as trustworhty or not.

Clark has made clear that he'll place the USA Patriot Act (that name alone!) on the blocks for closer, full congressional inspection. That law "begat" a host of others - so it being "revisited" by parliament is a very fundamental opportunity to test its constitutional and electoral support. I believe that's a more "constitutionally transparent" form of revision for a highly contentious (and IMO suspicious) package of laws, than announcing a singlehanded reversal, as if by Executive Order.

Precisely this offer, to put it on the congressional blocks, is a wonderful example of why a "big win" is a must: it's not just the WH, it's a whole political generation that needs a deep change.

So again, in conclusion, my final submission to you...

It's not 2000 anymore; unlike then, we're not running "only" against B* but also the insanity that he signed into law. So we'd better come packed and crammed with ballots - or risk another "contentious electoral fracas" (doubly tragic: for the constitutional discredit, and for repeating mistakes successively.)

Now let's get the vote out - for whoever the Dem nominee will be!

And thanks for the civil exchange, too. That's a good experience, and I appreciate it.

[arendt]

91. Agreed. A very civil exchange.

> now that we've homed in on an unsurmountable difference of
> criterium -- i.e., consideration of Clark as trustworhty or not.

Please, don't misunderstand. My mind is still open on Clark.
He may be worthy of my trust. It took me months to decide
Kerry was useless. It took me more months to decide Dean
was doing some good. Now that Kerry has committed Hari-Kerry,
leaving his fief to Clark, I have to see if the inheritee
is worthy.

I agree things are in a terrible state, which is why this
circular firing squad is so worrisome.

I hope you understand that, in this thread, I was genuinely
seeking some answers, and failing that, to raise some consciousness
on the Clark side about how scared liberals are of MORE
security,

<rant> when security most often gets used to lock up troublesome
"protestors" or to bug Democratic mayoral candidates, but
it can't seem to force six known reporters to cough up
the name of a treasonous source in "wartime".

Hell, if Bush wanted to, he could declare those six reporters
enemy combatants and send them to Gitmo. I'd love to see
that. I mean, the freepers ought to love sending the librul
press to the cooler.
</rant>

Sorry. Got carried away.

Up the Dems, down the Pubs.
Keep the Dem fights clean. Save the dirt for the Pubs.

arendt

[Turkw]

33. From the issues page of forclark.com on civil liberties

Using appropriate tools responsibly, for effective law enforcement

I believe that law enforcement should have access to all necessary tools to deal with the problems of terrorism, which is why I'm calling for an immediate $40 billion investment in homeland security. But I don't believe that we can win a war on terror if we give up the essence of who we are as Americans. That's why I think that Congress should fully review the so-called USA PATRIOT Act - and repeal the provisions that go too far.

The USA PATRIOT Act was jammed through Congress in a matter of weeks, when the country was still in shock from the horrific attacks of September 11th. It wasn't carefully drafted and it wasn't fully debated. More troubling is that, in just two years, the Act has grown the tentacles that many feared. Last month, a Justice Department report admitted that the John Ashcroft has actually expanded the substantial reach of the Act, using it to snoop in secrecy for evidence of crimes that have nothing to do with terrorism.

Now Ashcroft is proposing the PROTECT Act. Among other curtailments, the proposed bill all but forbids prosecutors from agreeing to downward departures from the rigid federal sentencing guidelines, increasing the chance that individual punishments won't actually fit individual crimes. It also instructs prosecutors to report judges that order departures from sentencing guidelines - creating the very real possibility that judges will be put on a DOJ blacklist.

I am concerned that the USA PATRIOT Act goes too far in expanding the authority of government investigators, and that it does so without sufficient oversight. We need to make sure that we are taking responsible measures to meet the needs of the time. That's why I'll call on Congress to fully review each provision of the Act, study the ways in which each has been used in practice, and eliminate those provisions that unduly threaten our civil liberties.

[arendt]

46. I had this in my original post n/t

n/t

[Turkw]

34. Here is a quick quote about military spending from a position paper on

the economy:

"On defense, Wes Clark supports every dime needed to keep America strong, but he won't tolerate billions of dollars in waste or inefficiency just because it has a military label on it."

I have heard him mention the military other times when talking about waste, it does seem to be a real concern for him. I know a lot of people are saying that just because he is a military man he will throw money at the pentagon. I believe that having seen and experienced wast in the military, it is probably an issue that has frustrated him in the past. I think that he will be able to better determine what is a sound investment and what is a wast of money and time.

He wants a strong, efficient military, wasteful programs that enrich the contractors do not gain that. In fact these kind of programs tend to make flawed equipment that endanger soldiers- i.e. the Sergeant York.

[arendt]

50. No offense, but there's no meat in...

the one sentence of campaign rhetoric you quoted or in your
*opinions* about Clark. I am asking for cites. I am not
trying to be hard on you personally. I just am looking for
some solid facts that tell me what Clark has said he would
do.


Nice rhetoric:

> "On defense, Wes Clark supports every dime needed to keep America
> strong, but he won't tolerate billions of dollars in waste or
> inefficiency just because it has a military label on it."

Your opinion:

> ...it does seem to be a real concern for him...
> ...I believe that...
> ...it is probably an issue that has frustrated him in the past.
> ...I think that he...

Please understand that I'm just trying to avoid opinion-fests
in this thread. I appreciate your enthusiastic responses.

arendt

[kang]

60. One Clark supporter's answers

Hi,
I'm sorry if you already got a ton of responses that cover what I'm about to say, but I didn't have adequate time to read them all.

I'm a lawyer and an ACLU member who shares similar concerns as you do. While I disagree entirely with General Clark's statement saying that he would sign an amendment to ban flag-burning IF such an amendment was passed by Congress (zero chance), I came to support him after measuring him up on a whole range of issues I'm concerned with.
However, I will try to help you with your specific questions.

On National Missile Defense, I find it hard to believe that General Clark would support going further without (a) evidence that it was needed and a top priority; (b) proof that it was the most efficient use of Defense dollars; and (c) that it could be made to work. Since you and I both know the answers to all of these points, I don't think he would come to any other conclusion. Clark is concerned about America's REAL security, not the perception of security. I don't think he'd stand for some uber expensive and idealogically driven defense program when veterans are having their benefits cut and are denied honor guards at their funerals. A better question on this one is who as president can stand up to the strong Defense industry and convince the American public that our priorities should lie elsewhere.

He's also been critical of the privatization of our military service or outsourcing of support roles. Clark's a huge believer in public service and has been very critical of the GOP's belief that everything can be run better by the private sector (another ideologically-driven policy by the neo-cons). We will save money here as well by preventing big companies from charging us enormous fees for what the US Army could do much better and cheaper.

As for reliance on oil, Clark has said many times (as recent as his 12/18 house party conference call) that we need to be come less reliant on foreign oil by harnessing and applying new technologies. He wants invest in R&D and make America the creator and exporter of new alternative energy sources. I'm not a science person so he usually loses me here at some point, but I know he's gone on the record plenty of times talking up the need for America to reduce our overall consumption.

And of course he will take care of the troops. More than any other candidate, he understands how tough serving can be and what kind of hardships military families endure. As an officer, he was sent to bases with low morale and was asked to turn them around. His record speaks for itself on this.

As for your Patriot Act and police state fears, I share them to some extent. In law school, I wrote a seminar paper on the growing number and use of SWAT teams across the country. In many places, police culture has unfortunately been infected with too much admiration for the military mindset; confusing admiration for professionalism and honor with an overall "us versus them" mindset.

While I know that Clark will freeze the Patriot Act and ask that it be reviewed by Congress (without the threat of Patriotism witch hunts), I don't know what his stance is about the growing militarization of police culture and tactics. He's a patriot who loves the military, but I don't think that necessarily translates into thinking that the military should be involved with domestic law enforcement or security. The Posse Comitatus Act still exists and I know that he will take his oath to protect the Constitution seriously.

Perhaps you can try writing in a question to Little Rock.

If I find out more on this issue, I'll try posting out here.

[arendt]

66. I appreciate your opinions. I'm beginning to realize cites don't exist...

or someone would have sent one by now.

Let me summarize what you believe he would/would avoid doing.

1) no money for Star Wars or useless toys
but money for military personnel.

2) no privatization of military

3) for alternative energy over more oil

All good things, but no cites.

> I don't know what his stance is about the growing militarization of
> police culture and tactics. He's a patriot who loves the military,
> but I don't think that necessarily translates into thinking that
> the military should be involved with domestic law enforcement or
> security. The Posse Comitatus Act still exists and I know that he
> will take his oath to protect the Constitution seriously.

I think that summarizes what has emerged from this thread.
But no cites.

Thanks for participating. If you find out more, just post it.

arendt

[maxr4clark]

74. Best way to understand Clark

is to read his books. I didn't read "Waging Modern Wars"; I assumed it was about the military and how it should be structured, and I'm not as interested in that. I received "Winning Modern Wars" for Christmas, and have read it.

The last chapter would probably be most relevant for you (there's your citation). He talks about ideas of empire, including the neocon view of a military-based American Empire. He presents good, reasoned arguments that military-based empire is a Bad Thing for America. He points to the most successful military empire in history, the Roman Empire, and proceeds to say how our economic situation is nothing like theirs. Our Army is nothing like the Roman army, and is incapable of sustaining such an empire even if we wanted to.

He discusses how American success in the 20th century was based on building ties between nations, not breaking them down. How the encouragement of democracy through forming international organizations and treaties has worked, but the military takeover and conversion of countries to democracy has not.

At some point in the earlier part of the book (actually several times, I believe), he makes strong statements that, while the military has and needs a strong chain of command, the civilian government is democratic and needs to have discussion and dissent in order to arrive at the right direction in which to guide the use of the military. So, his book is not about civil liberties; it is largely about what he knows from his background, which is primarily foreign policy. But you get a good image of how he thinks from what he has written.

Remember that Clark has seen the governments of Serbia, Georgia, Turkey, and the European Union up close. It is clear to me that he has a better understanding of what America could be like, if it had a chosen either a different kind of democracy, or a more dictatorial government. He has seen people living in second-world and third-world poverty, and has a good appreciation for how most of America has risen above that level of poverty. Clark has also probably dealt with the typical poor American, as represented by the people who enlist in the Army, more than any of the other candidates, and he has had to deal with their issues of healthcare, childcare, housing, and economics where they were stationed abroad.

His history in the military is a history of sponsoring humanitarian uses of the armed forces, not conquest. It is this background that I believe supports his patriotism, his belief in American democracy, and his choice to join the Democratic party.

Clark was known in the military for being a brilliant strategist. A military strategy has to take a no-nonsense approach to all the contingencies that may occur, in order of their likelihood of happening. It has to include plans for people's movements, morale, and basic necessities. Part of what Clark says about Modern War is that the media and public opinion, both at home and abroad, must be taken into account in any plans that are made. In short, a good military strategist has to make plans in the same way that a politician should, but rarely does--sticking to the no-nonsense, practical reality of what can be done, how fast, and by whom. Since I am convinced that Clark is not a gung-ho, shoot everything in sight type military man, I think his background would actually make him a very effective President. I think teaming up with a Senator as a running mate, Kerry for example, would give him the credibility and the effectiveness in the legislature to be even more effective.

There are two other things I really like about Clark. One, he isn't beholden to any specific special interest group, except the military; and getting out of the mess in Iraq and Afghanistan will take at least four years, so what he will do there is very easily predictable. And two, I don't believe he is interested in becoming a career politician; if elected to the Presidency, he might seek reelection, but after that he would be out of politics anyway. Thus, he doesn't have any political friends to try to please, either. All of that means he is free to work toward his agenda. And he has convinced me that his agenda is to undo the damage Bush has done to our foreign relations, and get America back on the path to being a shining example of an open, caring, democratic society for the rest of the world to follow.

[evil_orange_cat]

61. Civil Liberties? Clark would support amendment banning flag burning...

that a strike I have against Clark... I still like him though :D

[mumishka]

Clark not a real democrat

Dean's comment about "real democrats" should be applied to Clark.

We all know that Wesley Clark voted for both Nixon and Reagan---- a sure sign that he is not a democrat at heart

We all know that Wesley Clark was and remains a supporter of that scandalous School of the Americas which the Pentagon used to teach South American leaders like Noriega to torture and assassinate the indigenoous leaders in those poor countries---- No real democrat would support that school

We all know that Wesley Clark was a federal lobbyist, and not just a federal lobbyist but a lobbyist for military corporations. Real democrats are for reducing the influence of the special interests in DC but Wesley Clark represents the inner circle among special interests and he earned millions doing it---- no real democrat comes from that background.

And we all know that Wesley Clark was not registered as a democrat until he decided to run for president. What they call a last minute conversion

Why should any democratic voter trust Wesley Clark to represent the traditional interests of democrats??? The answer is that we shouldn't trust Clark to stand up for working Americans. The democratic base will not come out for Clark.

[mumishka]

62. Clark not a real democrat

Dean's comment about "real democrats" should be applied to Clark.

We all know that Wesley Clark voted for both Nixon and Reagan---- a sure sign that he is not a democrat at heart

We all know that Wesley Clark was and remains a supporter of that scandalous School of the Americas which the Pentagon used to teach South American leaders like Noriega to torture and assassinate the indigenoous leaders in those poor countries---- No real democrat would support that school

We all know that Wesley Clark was a federal lobbyist, and not just a federal lobbyist but a lobbyist for military corporations. Real democrats are for reducing the influence of the special interests in DC but Wesley Clark represents the inner circle among special interests and he earned millions doing it---- no real democrat comes from that background.

And we all know that Wesley Clark was not registered as a democrat until he decided to run for president. What they call a last minute conversion

Why should any democratic voter trust Wesley Clark to represent the traditional interests of democrats??? The answer is that we shouldn't trust Clark to stand up for working Americans. The democratic base will not come out for Clark.

[arendt]

64. Welcome to DU, mimishka. Could you please edit the triplicate posts?

The whole point of this thread is to provide "cites"
or links to actual statements, documents of record,
etc. about Clark's position.

> We all know that Wesley Clark was and remains a supporter of that
> scandalous School of the Americas

I've heard the charge. Do you have a cite? Does a Clark
supporter have a rebuttal cite?

The rest of your post is about perceptions.

Thanks for playing in this very rough forum. Don't be
surprised if someone tries to tear your face off.

arendt

[RichardRay]

70. What is a 'cite' in your estimation?

I don't know that I can find any, but others have 'cited' position papers, speeches, statements from respected individuals whom one might expect to object and various other information sources.

Since none of these fulfill your requirement for a 'cite' could you please let know know just what would? I certainly don't expect you to find one for me, just make up something that, if it were found, would fullfill your requirements.

[arendt]

73. Fair question

A cite could be a "pledge" by the candidate,
which is why I quoted one of Clark's ten pledges
on National Security.

But, it can not just be any word the candidate
is quoted as saying. Its easy to weasel out of a
sentence these days, if the press lets you. Witness
our bum, *, and his 16 dirty words.

So, I look for:

Things the candidate has stood for his entire career:
tough to find for Clark.

Things the candidate has proposed in detail, like
a budget listing with totals AND details or any
other detailed plan.

Statements by the candidate to "close","veto", "eliminate"
some specific law, program, facility. Or to "revive",
"create", or "fund" a specific law, program, or facility.
To be more than rhetoric, its got to have more detail
than "I will restore dignity to America." Or "I will
fund the recovery of America."

----

A cite could also be an investigative story with *real*
evidence (not the crap Ken Starr kept doing for years)
that a candidate did some specific thing.

----

I hope this helps you, as a newbie, to understand why people
here often seem to be arguing about how many angels can dance on the
head of a pin. Its all because no one trusts the media anymore.
Everyone has to validate the news from the ground up, filtering
out spin, spam, disinformation, rumor, fear-mongering, etc.

Citations are an essential part of proving your case. For
that very reason, the whole issue of what constitutes a
citation is often hotly debated.

Welcome to news from the internet.

arendt

[mumishka]

63. Clark not a real democrat

Dean's comment about "real democrats" should be applied to Clark.

We all know that Wesley Clark voted for both Nixon and Reagan---- a sure sign that he is not a democrat at heart

We all know that Wesley Clark was and remains a supporter of that scandalous School of the Americas which the Pentagon used to teach South American leaders like Noriega to torture and assassinate the indigenoous leaders in those poor countries---- No real democrat would support that school

We all know that Wesley Clark was a federal lobbyist, and not just a federal lobbyist but a lobbyist for military corporations. Real democrats are for reducing the influence of the special interests in DC but Wesley Clark represents the inner circle among special interests and he earned millions doing it---- no real democrat comes from that background.

And we all know that Wesley Clark was not registered as a democrat until he decided to run for president. What they call a last minute conversion

Why should any democratic voter trust Wesley Clark to represent the traditional interests of democrats??? The answer is that we shouldn't trust Clark to stand up for working Americans. The democratic base will not come out for Clark.

[poskonig]

76. Aren't you a little green to be talking trash?

I mean, you have 24 posts!

[NV1962]

78. "We all know that..." (blah blah)

Funny, that's one of the most-used introductions of blatant lies, flagrant nonsense or simply innocent humorous remarks.

I recommend reading this interview with Wes Clark, this well-researched article about him, and finally this well-argued appeal to Wes Clark to run for office - which garnered this load of bullcaca as, let's say, less edifying responses. Note the similarities with the nonsense above, introduced by what seems intended as a sedative, but really is a somniferous disclaimer: "We all know that..."

Yeah, we all know about that - been there, heard it before, done already.

Why don't you run a list of favorable points instead for your preferred candidate: W...

[arendt]

81. Interesting cites. Thanks.

BTW - thanks for fulfilling my prophecy to the newbie
in a most polite way. More plastic surgery than horror
movie murder. Very elegant.

arendt

P.S. It will be interesting to read something from the
NYROB. You know that forty years ago, William F. Buckley
hung one on them that has stuck to this day:

"The NY Review of Books is the last court of appeal for
highbrow screwballs."

I love what an absolute free-for-all these Rohrshack
blot candidates (Dean, Clark) have created. Conservatives
citing NYROB; liberals citing WSJ and Harold Bloom.

Tis truly surreal.

arendt

[TexasSissy]

87. I was going to respond, but I don't have time to read a book.

Maybe you could send another, shorter post, summarizing this one?

[DrBB]

95. He has spoken out repeatedly against USAPATRIOT ACT

His official position statement about it is on his website here: http://americansforclark.com/issues/patriotact/

I realize you're asking for more than just his position statements. All I can say is that I've heard him speak against the act in interviews, and wanted to check what his official statement was, which brought me to that page. The in-person stuff seems quite sincere and uncompromising.

[mmonk]

96. You're worrying over the wrong democrat

you need to worry about the ones voting through provisions of the Patriot Act and ask them if they are for a police state.

[arewethereyet]

97. might have a policy but there is no history

might as well face it, the guy is a crap shoot.