Kucinich and Clark, fundamental differences

[diamondsoul]

Wandering around the GD board this morning, I ran across a link to an older thread which was locked at some point. In that thread two things were brought out, one that Kucinich had made a comment about why he would not select General Wesley Clark as a running mate, and two my own thoughts about military training.

Now I read a different thread where a poster I personally think highly of suggests that Kucinich's remark was a "dig" at Clark. Kucinich's statement was this- "General Clark has served his country well, but I'm not looking to confirm the primacy of the Pentagon," Kucinich said. "I have a fundamentally different view."

I honestly cannot say I percieve this as a "dig" at General Clark (whom I also admire and respect a great deal. Enough so that it breaks my heart to have to choose between him and Kucinich.), nor would I percieve the reverse as a "dig" at Kucinich. It's a statement of simple fact, imho. Something else I always keep uppermost in my mind when Congressman Kucinich makes a statement like that, he's an open-minded man, and I believe if General Clark advances the positions I fully expect him to advance, Congressman Kucinich may well revise his opinion of the man. Going further than that, I've no idea whether Congressman Kucinich has ever met General Clark or not. If he had he might already have a different perspective on the man, as I do after having met him and seeing him in action on a regular basis.

I'm not certain I think my candidates statement was wise, or even really accurate, however he like the rest of us is entitled to form an opinion even without having all pertinent facts at hand. I suspect this is likely the reason for his reluctance to endorse General Clark as good leadership material in a Federal Government capacity. I personally think he's in error on that score, but perhaps time and some exposure to the General will alter his perspective. I hope it does, as I personally have the impression that General Clark is closer to the Kucinich platform than any other, based on my experience in the past.

In the locked thread, a question was posed to me that I'd like to answer now.

I mentioned having been in the military, and that I believe military trainign is a vast "brainwashing excercise". I still believe that. In response to that assertion, another poster asked me "If you've been in the military, how is that you are not brainwashed?". My answer to that question- I AM brainwashed to a certain degree. There are aspects of the military that I simply DON'T and essentially CAN'T bring myself to question because of my training. I was taught not to question those things. I had the added influence of living with a WWII Veteran for the first 6 years of my life, followed by being adopted by a career enlisted man. After that, I married a career soldier. I have military blood, and military thinking as a base foundation.

I understand military methods from a foot-soldiers perspective, a bit less so on the Officer side of the coin, but for the most part, I understand that side as well. I understand it enough to know how to make my objections known without getting into trouble for insubordination. I understand it enough to know when and how to stand up to a high ranking Officer and when to shut my mouth and bide my time. I understand it enough to know how good Commanders think and how bad Commanders think. General Clark is a first rate, exceptionally GOOD Commander. I've seen that with my own eyes.

This is why I haven't been able to blame those who voted in favor of the war resolution. Military Intelligence is one of those things most military personnel won't question, at least the enlisted foot-soldiers won't. We're trained to rely on the intelligence experts without question. We HAVE to be able to rely on them since they can't divulge anything to those without a security clearance, and since every action taken by foot-soldiers (I include Mech and other such support divisions- perhaps I should switch to field-soldiers) is defined by intelligence information, we have to have a very potent level of trust in those individuals.

Yes, I AM brainwashed, and so are thousands upon thousands of other military and ex-military people. That fact is a great part of what makes me so angry about the deception leading to the Iraq invasion. Military members trust in the intelligence community has been shot to hell and nobody seems to be aware of that. How is the field-soldier ordered to take control of an airport supposed to trust the intelligence he's being fed now? He can't if he wants to survive, and all because the worthless scum on the Hill had to lie, fabricate and embellish to justify the orders they handed down.

Given all of the above, is it so difficult to comprehend that an intelligent, thinking and caring man such as Congressman Kucinich might have developed some serious reservations about trusting a high-ranking Officer and someone who has been directly touched by the Intelligence community? I can't see how.

I may not share his reservations for this particular Officer, but I most assuredly understand them and consider them to be valid.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

1. I understand exactly what Kucinich meant

The "primacy of the Pentagon" is a serious problem, as Eisenhower warned us.

[CWebster]

2. Why should Kucinich revise his statement?

to do so would violate everything he represents. His statement was unquestionably right-on. Kucinich is the candidate proposing the "dept of peace" opposed to the DOD which used to be the War Dept. It is a fundamental philosophical difference.

It is curious that you support Kucinich...?

[diamondsoul]

4. I never said revise his statement.

I said perhaps he'll re-evaluate his opinions of General Clark PERSONALLY once he's had some exposure to the man and his platforms.

"Kucinich is the candidate proposing the "dept of peace" opposed to the DOD which used to be the War Dept."

Except that it's not completely "opposed" to the DoD. It's a counter to the mission of the DoD, opposing pressure to avoid war, the very thing which feeds the advancement of the DoD. There is no balance for the push to use our weapons systems, and that's the purpose of the DoP.

Kucinich is well aware that National Security must be protected, and is willing to use military force to do so. He considers it two things, one a failure of diplomacy, and two a LAST resort. Guess what? So does General Clark!

I mentioned good commanders and bad commanders, and stated that General Clark is emphatically a GOOD Commander. Here's why-

Bad Commanders consider field-soldiers expendable commodities. These are the Officers promoting the cannon-fodder thinking. General Clark otoh, along with hundreds, if not thousands of other good Commanders, puts the lives and well-being of those in his command above all else. He struggled with the decision to lend his equipment and personnel to the Waco situation because he was concerned for their safety. He didn't like the way it was playing out, and he didn't like being put under the gun so to speak. He weighed the options and the potential harm if these people were not contained and/or stopped from leaving the compound and determined it was better for the public to have military force protecting them.

General Clark is not a typical Pentagon "warmonger". His statements over the past week and throughout the Iraq invasion prove that to me beyond a shadow of doubt. General Clark publicly put forth my own fears, worries and concerns for the soldiers themselves, the combat soldiers and troops who would be facing the greatest danger. Those were the people, along with Iraqi civilians, I was so worried about. General Clark shared those worries and did so publicly, at a time when that sort of thinking was "unAmerican".

Now, having said all that, why is it so strange that I support Kucinich?

I oppose war except as a last resort or response to a direct attack on US soil by another nation. I oppose NAFTA and the WTO as badly written agreements which cannot be fixed in any meaningful way. I support Unions and workers rights across the globe. I support nuclear disarmament for EVERY Nation across the globe. I support rejoining, and rededicating our efforts within, the UN towards global peace initiatives. I support raising the standards of HUMAN rights for everyone everywhere and reducing the destruction of our ecology.

Everything Kucinich stands for I am in total agreement with. That's why I support him. Understanding other mind-sets and other ways of thinking changes nothing about what I value the most in humanity and in a candidate.

[CWebster]

7. Was the statement a personal one?

or a difference in outlook?

[Paulie]

3. I will not trust Clark until I know where he stands...

...on which side of the fence:

From: Col. John Boyd

"One day you will come to a fork in the road. And you're going to have to make a decision about what direction you want to go." raised his hand and pointed. "If you go that way you can be somebody. You will have to make compromises and you will have to turn your back on your friends. But you will be a member of the club and you will get promoted and you will get good assignments." Then Boyd raised the other hand and pointed another direction. "Or you can go that way and you can do something - something for your country and for your Air Force and for yourself. If you decide to do something, you may not get promoted and you may not get the good assignments and you certainly will not be a favorite of your superiors. But you won't have to compromise yourself. You will be true to your friends and to yourself. And your work might make a difference." He paused and stared. "To be somebody or to do something. In life there is often a roll call. That's when you will have to make a decision. To be or to do? Which way will you go?"


I want to know how he played the game at the Pentagon. You don't get that many stars on your shoulder unless you are on the wrong side. Colin Powel played the game correctly, that's why he made it to JCS.

WHICH SIDE WHERE YOU ON MR. CLARK? MY SUPPORT DEPENDS ON YOUR ANSWER!!!

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

5. General Clark, Which Side are you On?

Compromise is fine with me. But wishy-washy statements about NAFTA and attacking universal health care isn't going to convince me that you're on our side (anymore).

Time is running out General.

[CWebster]

8. flash in the pan

Whew, that was fast. The new kid is losing his shine gosh darn fast.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

9. Yep - he is starting to sound like Dean more and more everday

It seems Clark's statements on NAFTA are just like Dean's, and his anti-universal health care stand is just like Dean's. Is Clark Dean with medals?

Clark is certainly more electable than Dean of course.

[CWebster]

10. or

just following in the footsteps of the leader?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

13. Actually, Gephardt is the leader, not Dean

According to the latest Gallup polls, Gephardt the traditional pro-union liberal candidate is ahead of Dean. Nice try though!

[CWebster]

14. not that kind of leader

nice try though

[diamondsoul]

6. Paulie, I understand exactly what you mean.

Kucinich is my first choice, Clark is my second. I'd so love to see them come together because they just are NOT as far apart as some would like to think.

There is a way to "play the game" within the Military structure and avoid compromise. It's difficult, but it can be done. Clark and Powell are fundamentally different men, period, and I say that knowing a great deal about both of them.

General Clark would never have taken a position within the Bush cabinet, period. I have no doubt this is why he was not asked in Powell's place. Powell could be counted on to protect the military powers that be, Clark could not, and especially so if he suspected foul play.

Powell has the cannon-fodder mentality, Clark has the view that all those in his command are human beings and should never be placed in harms way without a legitimate cause. He didn't see that in Iraq and said so repeatedly.

There is a point, once the orders have come down and action is taking place when you hit the crossroad you mentioned. False intelligence, lies and fabrications tainted that operation. That, along with poor planning, has resulted in the ruination of our military, our chain of command, and our Nation's integrity. General Clark sees that while Powell is still playing into Bush's hands. Clark was the first experienced person I ever heard denounce Cheney's claim we had enough forces on the ground to do what we had promised. He said outright exactly what I was thinking. We can't rescind the orders, but we can sure as hell question the integrity of the planning for this disaster and make people think about that!

There is a point of no return, and that was it. Clark responded in the only way he could to defend the best interests of troops he wasn't even commanding, and I adore him for that. Kucinich did the same in his own way, while Powell kissed ass and sold the field-soldiers down the river.

[Terwilliger]

12. Clark is your second?

talk about disappointing :eyes:

[diamondsoul]

16. Ter, I get the distinct impression-

you won't be happy with anything I say anyway. All your responses to me have been less than open to discuss anything, less than agreeable, just plain nasty at times.

Never claimed I could please all the people all of the time, but by all I hold dear, I try to be reasonable and considerate.

Yes, Clark is my second, at this moment. That's subject to change, as is my first, should Kucinich ever make a statement at odds with what we stand for today. I'm not playing in this race. Kucinich is not playing, and personally, I don't believe Clark is playing either.

Why not just talk to me instead of blindly insulting me?

[Terwilliger]

18. diamondsoul

I mean no offense

I'm upset, and that's not going to change until it does. Who knows, maybe next time, we'll only kill 6 instead of 8 thousand civilians. Iran or North Korea? Or, will it be better when were attacking the problem with capitalism instead of bombs?

I have nothing against you, but I am not very happy with Democrats. I'm trying to hold on to wanting to vote for Dennis. That's the best *I* can do.

[diamondsoul]

22. I think I can understand that.

I have my moments of feeling the same, sometimes weeks at a time instead of moments or hours.

The whole situation is upsetting, sickening, frightening, and just plain horrid.

One of the things always in my mind about it is the fact that a total lack of reason and common sense is how we came to be where we are. The current occupiers of the WH don't use either one, and quite probably don't even know what they mean.

I have opinions on Clark based on having come into contact with him directly. Surprisingly, he's the only one of the 10 I have met directly. I just realized that. I understand Dennis' position on Clark, I just don't happen to agree with him completely in this instance. I think this is the first time I've ever seen anything from Kucinich I can't totally agree with.

I just don't see Kucinich and Clark as being that dramatically different in their positions and views. That's me, and based on my own instincts and past experience. For now I'm going to trust my instincts. When and if something comes along to call them into question, I'll consider that, but for now I stick with what I know. In any case, I hope you start feeling a little better about things soon, and in the meanwhile, I'll try not to take your posts too personally.

[Julien Sorel]

11. The dig is in tying Clark to the Pentagon.

It's another Military-Industrial Complex jab, just not worded so directly. But the net effect was to marginalize Clark by focusing on only one dimension of him: his Pentagon ties. That's unflattering.

You kind of said this yourself:

Given all of the above, is it so difficult to comprehend that an intelligent, thinking and caring man such as Congressman Kucinich might have developed some serious reservations about trusting a high-ranking Officer and someone who has been directly touched by the Intelligence community? I can't see how.

Lack of trust is hardly an endorsement. The polite thing to say here would be to keep your options open (Kucinich had been asked about Clark as his VP choice); instead, Kucinich chose to highlight Clark's military career, and then reject him based on that -- a dig.

Let's turn it around: if Clark had been asked about Kucinich, and had said something like, 'While I admire Dennis' passion and years of public service, I'm not interested in endorsing socialism' it would obviously be a slam at Kucinich.

*On edit, and before I leave for a very long day, there's also a bit of the wife-beating fallacy at work here. Exactly how does Clark represent 'the primacy of the Pentagon?' He worked for the military, true, but Dean is a doctor, as is his wife: does Dean represent the 'primacy of the AMA?' The 'primacy of the pharmaceutical industry?' Looking at what Clark has said, I don't see him as representing the interests of the Pentagon all that much.

[Terwilliger]

15. a disagreement

You folks tout Clark because he's a general. I tout Kucinich because he's an everyman who's actually lived the life most Americans have, as opposed to your military matriculated hero of deadly board games.

some people don't like the military...because we're un-American? No. Frankly, because we're American!

Clark is being selected for his being a general...there is nothing to suggest he can run a government, and he has no experience

Let's turn it around: if Clark had been asked about Kucinich, and had said something like, 'While I admire Dennis' passion and years of public service, I'm not interested in endorsing socialism' it would obviously be a slam at Kucinich.

while that could be true... 1) Clark would never say that, and if he did, Kucinich could run all over him with it. 2) Clark can't deny that the military has a much more sour image than a system guaranteed to help the most people.

[diamondsoul]

17. Kick n/t

[Julien Sorel]

19. Wrong premise.

I don't promote Clark because he's a general. I wouldn't support lots of people who were generals. I support Clark because of his positions, his speaking ability, his drive, his intellect, the values I've seen him espouse -- that's why I support him. The fact that he's a general helps him, but it isn't enough in and of itself -- although his being a general obviously prompts a kneejerk reaction for people like yourself and Kucinich: 'General -- Bad!' 'Military industrial complex! Influence of the Pentagon!' The uniform shuts down the brain for some people. That's your loss, and certainly your problem: I'm not your mirror image; neither are most Clark supporters.

some people don't like the military...because we're un-American? No. Frankly, because we're American!

OK. I guess. Yeah. Good... point? Is that what it was? Does this have anything to do with anything? Did I say disliking the military makes one 'un-American?' Did Kucinich? Why did you bother?

Clark is being selected for his being a general...there is nothing to suggest he can run a government, and he has no experience

Opinion disguised as fact. Considering the source of the opinion, by the way, it's particularly meaningless. It is also, like your previous sentence, totally unrelated to the discussion at hand, which has to do with Kucinich and his dismissal of Clark because of his Pentagon ties, and his concern about 'the primacy of the Pentagon,' not the preparation that a military career does, or does not do, for a career in politics. Stay on topic, for God's sake.


while that could be true... 1) Clark would never say that, and if he did, Kucinich could run all over him with it. 2) Clark can't deny that the military has a much more sour image than a system guaranteed to help the most people.

Yet again, totally off the point. Do you have the ability to understand the flow of an argument? You haven't demonstrated it in this post. I used the example to illustrate that Kucinich's similar statement was a jab at Clark, not to discuss the potential fallout from it. Your post actually backs my point up: Clark wouldn't say it because it would be perceived as a slight -- just as Kucinich's statement was a slight.

But not only did you go off on a tangent here, you made a gross error in fact doing it. Politicians(which is presumably 'the system' you were talking about in that mess of a paragraph?) have one of the lowest approval ratings as a profession in the country, coming out, on average, just above used-car salesmen. The military, on the other hand, is viewed with respect. Amusingly, you yourself tacitly acknowledge this by saying Clark's only selling point is that he was in the military! Now it has a 'sour image.' Make up your mind! If military service has a 'sour image,' how could Clark be running on his military credentials?

[Paulie]

20. My problem isn't his military service...

...It's his high rank in the military. I honestly don't get warm and fuzzies with the reputation of the brass in the Pentagon.

I've read the biographies of John Boyd (which is why I keep posting his "To be or To do" speech), and also James Burton's book, and Chuck Spinney's work at www.d-n-i.net . What goes on in the Pentagon (whos job is to procure weapons) is maddening.

I want to know if he played the game to get his rank. It's a trust issue, even before I'll listen to his policies.

If either Burton or Spinney comes out and says that Wesley Clark was on the right side, I'll give him a chance.

[Terwilliger]

21. Clark's selling point

you're just admitting to it

Make up your mind! If military service has a 'sour image,' how could Clark be running on his military credentials?

You admit that the right-wing has defined your reality. :-(

and for fucks sake, I didn't ask you to be my mirror. And HEY, more power to you if you like that choice of candidates and qualifications. etc. etc. I vote for what I vote for.

If Clark doesn't want to challenge Kucinich, why should he? If us fringies don't matter, why are you so bothered by us? Why don't you go fight with Deanies and other "mainstream" types.

You can always put me on ignore.

[Julien Sorel]

23. I don't think even you know what you're trying to say here.

By the way, I told you long ago why I don't put you on ignore: you entertain me too damn much.

[Terwilliger]

24. poor Billy

ego problems?