A Liberal Slant on Wesley Clark

[stickdog]

http://www.liberalslant.com/jc100603.htm

Any military organization functions a great deal like a Soviet-style government. Direction comes from above, the Pentagon representing the quintessence of a centrally-planned economy. Waste and inefficiency come on a colossal scale. The waste goes largely unquestioned, because patriotism covers a many evils or, at any rate, intimidates a multitude of critics. Civilian government simply does not work that way. There is more than a tinge of wishful thinking that people who bark orders can "make the trains run on time." It rarely turns out that way.

(snip)

What do we know about Clark? He discovered what party he belonged to in a kind of epiphany at about sixty years of age. This suggests either retardation or lying, and I'm pretty sure he is a bright fellow. What a silly nonsense to believe this. Has he never voted in elections or contributed to a party? Of course, what has really happened is that only the Democrats offer Clark the opportunity to rise to Commander-in-Chief.

Clark senses Bush is increasingly vulnerable, and I believe he is right. Bush's vulnerability will increase as the staggering costs of invading and occupying Iraq become apparent and as months of melodramatic reports of ambushed Americans continue.

(snip)

Yes, Bush will be vulnerable. So why waste the opportunity on Clark? There have to be better people.


*****


I think this article is an interesting, although the author's criticisms of Wesley Clark's candidacy -- other than the bolded passage -- are rather facile and generalized.

[union_maid]

1. Well, it's his opinion

He's entitled to that, but there's nothing really there except for his opinion, including what's in the bolded paragraph. In fact, since what Clark has done in previous elections has been the subject of much discussion, a lot of that paragraph is nonsense. Yes, he's voted, but probably not in every one of them. It was mostly by absentee ballot. He's voted for both Republicans and Democrats. He campaigned for Democrats most recently. The writer doesn't know what Clark's thought process in all this is. He's coming to conclusions based on his own frame of reference alone.

[Jivenwail]

5. The General was quite eloquent

In the Iowa town meeting hosted by Sen. Harkin last night when he addressed these issues. I watched then entire event last night on C-SPAN.

The first question he faced was from someone who even quoted what Gen. Clark had said in 2001 about there being a good team in place of Cheney, Rummy and Powell. The questioner even asked if he was "a republican in democratic clothing". Clark stated that he had known them and worked with them through his military career and through the various administrations under which he served. And that is how he felt at that time, in May 2001. But he never said he supported Bush. He said that things changed after 9/11. He questioned the Patriot Act and why were we forced to give up our rights and liberties. He answered yes, he voted for both Reagan and Bush Sr. But had voted for Gore in 2000. He clearly stated that he is a Democrat. He also went on to say that most of his votes were cast absentee because he was in the military. And after what happened in Florida in 2000 he now has serious doubts as to whether or not his votes ever counted at all. Additionally, he said that he went to West Point because of JFK's speech about "not what this country can do for you, what you can do for your country". He left no doubt in my mind, and I truly believe in the minds of those in that hall, that he is a Democrat first, and foremost.

I have to say very honestly that I was very, very impressed with him last night. I think he clearly stated his convictions without hesitation. He answered every question honestly and openly. I may have disagreed with him on only one issue, but overall he left me believing his candidacy is legitimate and well founded. His beliefs and the plans he laid left no doubt where he stands, what he will do and where his focus is.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm, Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh,

Yawwwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn


You need new material.......



Love,


Brian

[Democrats unite]

3. Give it a brak how many different posts are you going to do?

eom

[CoffeePlease1947]

4. Opps!!!, Look you dropped something

Supporting a candidate instead always attacking one.

Mike

[TacticalPeek]

6. A real head-scratcher.

[Bread and Circus]

7. It's my opinion....

That Clark has the best chance of
beating Bush. And with all of the black
box voting and Jeb Bush election fixing
that might occur, why take a chance?

I want to win the election and that means
winning electorally. I think Clark has the
best chance of that.

[wyldwolf]

8. looks like some of the Clark conspiracy theorists who post the same crap

...everyday, are losing steam.

They're like a stand up comic who has been doing the same routine for months. Funny at first, then mildly entertaining, then a little annoying, and finally just sad.

[WilliamPitt]

9. Clark stayed out of the Pentagon

and worked in the Operations wing so he never had to do time in 'The Building.' For whatever that's worth.

[boxster]

10. This example of intentional ignorance isn't helping anyone.

First, using an article that states, "This suggests either retardation or lying" isn't going to convince anyone of anything.

Second, contrary to your assertion, the bolded paragraph is even more generalized than the remainder. It says nothing. It's the easy copout of an author who can't be bothered with research.

Third, the author claims that civilian government does not work like a military organization and therefore, does not suffer from inefficiency and waste.

To use a similar comparison to that made by the author, the author is either ignorant or is an idiot. The amount of waste and inefficiency in civilian government is on par, if not greater than, that in the military. Need an example? The Homeland Security Department. Does nothing; costs billions.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

11. You're right! Kucinich in 2004

Why waste this opportunity on yet another neo-liberal centrist?

[maha]

12. Look at History, Dammit!!!

It isn't as if there haven't been career generals in the White House before, although it's been a while.

The fact is that the three prior career generals to have become President (without other political experience) were non-authoritarian in the White House.

The argument that "he's a general, so he will turn into a dictator if he's President" just doesn't hold water. It didn't happen before; why should it happen now?

West Point graduates in particular (with some exceptions) are devoted to the ideal of civilian authority -- the people rule. If anything, they can be less power-hungry than some career politicians;

Quickie history lesson here:

http://www.mahablog.com/2003.09.14_arch.html#1063725626338

Another interesting thing about the career warriors is that they worked very hard to maintain peace -- harder than many of our presidents with no military experience.

[yellowdawgdem]

13. Clark on Patriot act (a change)

I noticed that, when he first started his campaign, he said that one of the first things he'd do after being elected, was to dismantle the patriot act. Yet in Iowa, he waffled a bit more, saying first that it should be read and discussed and voted on by congress- or discussed and analyzed by the American people. Then he said we should do all that before getting into the Patriot 2 Act. I was concerned by this change, though he still basically sounds like a fine candidate. At least he likes to read.

[KittyWampus]

14. Specifically, He Said It Needs Legislative Review

And that the American People should be made familiar with what it says.

Actually, his spiel in Iowa was almost the same as I'd heard before.

I had NEVER heard him say he would dismantle the Patriot Act.

Not every provision in the Patriot Act is an anathema.

[yellowdawgdem]

15. didn't say dismantle?

Oh. Well, that makes me feel better. I had heard that, but good to know he is consistent. :+ He seems like a solid, and viable candidate in many ways.