Wesley Clark supports a flag-burning amendment

[jobycom]

Q: Should the Constitution be amended to prohibit burning the American flag?

A: I support measures to protect the American flag. The flag is deeply personal to me. I have led men into battle and combat under that flag. I believe that a very narrow protection for the flag will not undermine anyone's ability to express the full range of their views about America.

http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Wesley_Clark_Civil_Rights.htm

Speaking on Veteran's Day, he sent his handlers into spin control mode when he said he would support a Constitutional amendment banning flag burning, a civil liberties stance at odds with his repeatedly stated belief in the necessity of democratic dissent. When given a chance to clarify (i.e. repudiate) his remarks a few days later, Clark explained what the flag meant to him and that if "the American people want it (the flag burning amendment), I will support it."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/11/18_clark.html

[lojasmo]

1. Eh. I'm not using my rights anyway. Thanks Wes. EOM

[mattclearing]

No. Sacred cows must be flammable...they taste better that way.

That's my personal reading of the First Amendment. :D

[AX10]

2. This is one of the very few points that I disagree with Clark on.

Still, I support Wesley Clark for President!

:dem:

[in_cog_ni_to]

3. I know. He's always said that and it sucks.

I assume it stems from being in the Military...who knows.

[Nashyra]

8. At least he's honest about it

I did not read anywhere that he said that he would introduce an amendment, I've read that if the American people wanted an amendment that he would support it

[jobycom]

10. Here's a mopre forceful statement by him

"I'm absolutely in favor of anything that strengthens the American flag," Clark said. "I'm in favor of the American flag amendment."

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/000842.html

I'm not sure what your comment about honesty means.

[mrhopeforwes]

14. it means that Wes knows it'll alienate some people, but that's his honest

opinion.

[ultraist]

38. It's not just that he'd support it if people want it...

He has a strong personal opinion about it.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/clark/articles/2003/11/12/clark_backs_a_ban_on_flag_burning/


Clark backs a ban on flag burning
Candidate who praises dissent also defends proposed amendment
By Joanna Weiss, Globe Staff, 11/12/2003

MANCHESTER, N.H. -- Retired Army General Wesley K. Clark, who has repeatedly decried the Bush administration for discouraging dissent, said yesterday he would support a constitutional amendment that outlawed desecration of the American flag.

Clark offered his view in response to a voter's question at an American Legion post in Manchester, on a day when he campaigned at several veterans-related events. It was the first time Clark had voiced a public opinion on the proposed amendment, and it was news to some of his aides -- who quickly said the position was an emotional response.

"The flag is something that is very deep and personal to him, as he has led men into battle and combat under the flag," said Chris Lehane, a Clark communications strategist.

But at speeches and town hall meetings throughout his campaign, Clark also has praised dissent as a patriotic act. "Democracy demands discussion, disagreement, and dissent," Clark said in an Oct. 22 speech in Manchester. "There is nothing more American -- nothing more patriotic -- than speaking out in defense of freedom, questioning authority, and holding your leaders accountable."

Matt Bennett, Clark's communications director, said Clark saw flag-burning as a "very, very, very particularized form of dissent that he simply can't abide. I guess he is carving out a little bit, but not very much. For the most part he is a very strong proponent of civil liberties."

[BOSSHOG]

12. I think his motivation is more political

although I don't know why. I spent 24 years in the canoe club and I have no problem with someone burning the flag. I guess its that supporting and defending the constitution stuff that I so graciously swore to do. I would never burn the flag. I was presented with one at the time of my retirement and it is encased in glass and proudly displayed in my office. However if a fellow citizen wanted to show his displeasure at what our government is doing, like keeping people who love each other from getting married, or having our kids slaughtered in the desert of Iraq for no apparent reason by burning that flag, more power to him. Burn the cloth. Fuck with the constitution; that's when this old Vet will get medieval with your ass. It must suck getting into the political arena when every word must be processed.

[mrhopeforwes]

16. well said. and of course his motivation is political...he's a realist

and people in the military often are not capable of discussing this rationally. Clark gets that. ...and on this he walks the fine line between both sides perfectly. ...and for those who would hold this against him, gotta look at the bigger picture and PICK YOUR BATTLES. ...and remember that we're not holding all of the cards.

[Adelante]

46. No, it's personal

He loves the flag and believes it should be honored. That's it.

I was not happy with this in 2003, but I decided to let him have it since it means so much to him.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. "Congress shall make NO law abridging the freedom of speech.."

Perhaps old Wes should try reading what he was allegedly defending.

[MADem]

5. See, there is nuance in everything

Hillary's cosponsoring of the Senate bill, which basically doesn't create new law at all, but instead applies existing law to the act of flag burning (in other words, there's no new law in the bill), is designed to AVOID the Constitutional amendment faux fight that the GOP will probably pull out and wave like a bloody shirt if Iraq keeps getting worse.

If you are fighting about flag burning, you aren't talking about those kids coming home in aluminum boxes covered by a flag, are ya?

If Clark keeps that up, he'll start to get the Hillary treatment from the far left...all things being equal, of course!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. Deservedly so, if he's against free speech.

[jobycom]

9. He said this in 2004. I'm just counterpointing his treatment with Hillary'

Hillary is getting blasted by some DUers for a bill meant to weaken support for an amendment, and yet Clark wins on every poll around here for our 2008 candidate. He's far to the right of Hillary, and he keeps getting painted as the liberal choice, and her as the conservative one.

[MADem]

20. Well, you are right

I've seen it too. But I sometimes have to just sit back, and consider the source(s). Not all, but some, are quite fresh to this place, and unusually vociferous on this one subject.

Sometimes I wonder if what is wafting our way is the smell of astroturf in the morning!

[jobycom]

22. One does wonder. nt

[jonnyblitz]

21. you believe Clark is far to the right of Hillary? interesting...

I am no fan of either one but I would suspect many on here would disagree with you on that point. I DO agree Clark get's a pass on lots of these issues here at DU ,such as how to deal with the Iraq war...

[Clark2008]

25. How to deal with the Iraqi War?

I happen to agree with Clark - so why would I have to "give him a pass?"

I've never said "out now," because I remember Afghanistan.

[jonnyblitz]

29. we are STILL in afghanistan, you always use afghanistan

as an example of why we can't cut and run in Iraq. the media focus is the only thing that "cut and ran" in afghanistan. We have soldiers over there still dying. people post threads here at DU on it.

as for the other issue, I am NOT talking about people like you who agree with Wes Clark about staying and fixing the mess, I am talking about people who want "out now", who criticize all the other DEMS who might suggest "staying the course", or "staying to fix things" but give CLark a pass and don't criticize him. that is what i meant and what the OP was referring to.

to put it in simple terms, I believe Clark's plan is akin to re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. the longer we stay, the worse it gets no matter what we attempt. the iraqis want us gone yesterday. Just my opinion..

[Clark2008]

30. I meant Afghanistan in the 1990s not after 9/11. Duh.

I mean after the CIA trained bin Laden, told him we would support the country if the Mujahadeen kicked out the Russians and then left them without a pot to piss in.

That's what ushered in Al-Qaeda and the Taliban and others who DID help fund 9/11 and unleashed terrorists on the Western World (if you believe 9/11 was an al-Qaeda plot, which I do, but also believe that BushCo. knew about it and didn't want to prevent it). That the US promised aid and didn't give it after tearing apart that country is some, if not most, of the reason we're BACK in that country and that al-Qaeda was birthed.

Iraq would be left in much the same way and the only people who will run it would be thugs who would hurt the women and children of Iraq and would do everything - and worse than they are now - to harm us.

Believe me, I don't want to be there, but we're there and we can't leave a whole generation high and dry and resentful of us. Clark's right in that we need to get the region involved AS we pull down to keep the FUTURE peace.

God - learn some history before spouting off to me.

P.S. And, I'm sure your "rearranging of the deck chairs" quote is appreciated by Terra Y Liberal, who originally said it. Also, if I want to learn how to win wars and drop troop levels, I believe I'm going to rely on the most decorated war hero since Eisenhower over some dope on a message board. What Army did you command?

[Clark2008]

24. Yeah, but Clark doesn't run right 5 times out of 10.

It's this ONE issue. Hillary runs right far too often. That's the reason for the vitriol against her.

[jobycom]

32. That's not what I've seen, on either side.

Hillary has almost perfect liberal cred on abortion, women's right, the environment, labor, taxes, animal rights, health care, civil rights (according to the NAACP who has given her a 100 every year she's been in office), and most issues. She's called for a timetable for withdrawal from IraqShe's been blasted lately as a war supporter (her record is the same as Kerry's and better than Edwards' on Iraq), as attacking or trying to censor video games (she didn't) and now for trying to ban flag burning (she isn't).

On the other side, Clark equivocated on Iraq up until he began running, praised Bush and Blair for their perserverance on the issue, praised the results of the war, and intermixed those statements with misgivings.

SOrry, but Hillary has been more consistently liberal than Clark, no matter how many people try to misrepresent what Hillary says, for whatever agenda.

[Clark2008]

35. He never equivocated on Iraq.

You've been reading too many far right and/or far left sites.

He TESTIFIED in front of the HASC in Sept. 2002 that it would be a BIG mistake to go into Iraq while we're still fighting a war in Afghanistan and that Saddam was contained and we should let the inspectors do their jobs. If they found something, then we deal with Saddam.

Once it was clear we were going to war come hell or high water, yes, he supported measurements that would make the war fast and safe for the troops. What do you expect a retired general to do? Support policy that didn't?

And, if you'll read the entire article where he allegedly praises Bush and Blair for the perserverance, you'll find that the whole article is a back-handed smackdown at their lousy policies. Stop reading a quote here and there.

In fact, I can't even FIND the original article that hasn't parsed by far left and far right web sites. I have it linked on my home computer, but not here. It was in the London Times if you care to search. I don't have time.

Hillary, however, is running further and further to the right as Clark gets on national television and calls himself a liberal. Some consistancy on here part. :eyes:

[Clark2008]

43. FINALLY... I found a FULL reprint

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm

Now - how is this a praise of Bush?

Is this victory? Certainly the soldiers and generals can claim success. And surely, for the Iraqis there is a new-found sense of freedom. But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven’t yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed.

Let’s have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue — but don’t demobilize yet. There’s a lot yet to be done, and not only by the diplomats.

BTW, that's what he says in the paragraphs just AFTER that paragraph you cherry-picked.

Some "praise." :eyes:

[ProudToBeLiberal]

6. Torpedoing the First Amendment, I see. nt

[tabasco]

11. Chipping away at the First Amendment until it's gone.

Sorry to hear that Clark doesn't comprehend the value of protecting political speech that one disagrees with.

If we only protect the speech we agree with, it's not free speech !

[iamjoy]

13. Does He Know About Precedent

There is no such thing as a "narrow" Constitutional Amendment. Not really. So, hypothetically speaking, let's say we get a Constitutional Amendment that one cannot desecrate the flag (including details defining desecration); even a clause that this should not apply to other forms of expression will not stop some right-wing judicial activist (maybe a generation from now) from doing just that.

The flag is to be honored. Do not desecrate it....
The President of the United States is to be honored and not demeaned. Boom, calling the President a liar can be a crime.

OK, maybe it isn't that easy, but still...

[mattclearing]

17. You raise a valid point, though. n/t

[quinnox]

15. Most of the American public does in polls

To me it is a super minor issue, but Wes Clark and Hillary have the pulse of the American public at large on this one.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. The first amendment is hardly a "minor issue". Except to politicians.

[ultraist]

41. Most of the American public does not support the amendment

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=15418

63% oppose flag-burning amendment, new survey shows
News release

By the First Amendment Center
06.10.05
NASHVILLE, Tenn. — The number of Americans who oppose a constitutional amendment that would give Congress the power to punish flag-burning as protest is up sharply from 2004, according to a survey released today by the First Amendment Center.

The “State of the First Amendment 2005” survey, conducted in May, shows:


63% of those sampled said the U.S. Constitution “should not be amended to prohibit burning or desecrating the American flag,” up from 53% in 2004 and the highest number against the proposed amendment since the annual survey began in 1997.

35% said the Constitution “should be amended” — down from 45% in 2004

http://www.tcn.net/~opticom/Steve/recent.htm

According to the findings of a poll released today by the American Bar Association, although a majority of Americans oppose flag burning, a majority would also oppose amending the Constitution to restrict freedom of speech and political protest.

[mrhopeforwes]

19. hello!!! Bigger picture, people.

considering that Wes' last words on the matter were: "if the American people want it (the flag burning amendment), I will support it."

How is that not good enough for you????? Especially after he a) didn't undermine Moore when he called W a desserter, and, b) he said he'll have monthly town hall meetings, and c) has been extolling the virtue of dissent since he arrived on the scene.

If Wes is merely pandering for the sake of recognizing how much he'd alienate vets and such, then, pander away!!! Then when he gets in office he'll be able to make sure that these vets get their full healthcare and remind them about the concept of priorities.

You all need to remember that people who think less clearly than us are allowed to vote.

[jobycom]

26. Actually, that wasn't his last word

He's made more definitive statements on the issue.

I wasn't really condemning Clark, who I like but fervently hope never becomes president, I was just countering his statements to Hillary's, and comparing his treatment around here to hers.

[mrhopeforwes]

48. wow, you "fervently" hope Clark never becomes president...

please tell me why, cuz I'm about to have a short story published about what a mistake it was not to have him as the nominee and it addresses every reservation I've yet to come across. So what's yours?
....and who among the dems did you think was better?

[Clark2008]

23. The only thing I disagree with him on.

It's not like he cozies up to the Reich-wing every other day like some of the other Dems out there.

I think Wes supports this because of the respect for the flag that was drilled into him in the Army. I doubt it has anything to do with attracting votes or alienating people.

In any case, if this is the only thing I disagree with him on, I'll take the other 99 percent.

And I knew about this before this post. Whoopee.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

27. Another reason to love Wes.

You'd prefer if a patriotic former general fully supported the right to burn his country's flag? Uh..

Other than extremists in other nations, who exactly will be stifled by such a law? Are there people out in full force today utilizing their right to burn the American flag on American soil?

[WI_DEM]

28. Most politicians who want to be president will support the amendment

why? the repukes will tar and feather them as they did Michael Dukakis in '88. While I personally don't think we need an amendment to the constitution on protecting the flag--politically speaking most voters are not as enlightened as many on the left and will fall for the Republican tactics. They can never run on their records so they have to use wedge issues like gay marriage and protecting the flag to win.

[Freddie Stubbs]

34. Not Hilary Clinton

She opposes amending the Constitution for this.

[ultraist]

36. Kerrry and Edwards didn't & don't support the Constitional amdmt

They both made that clear during the campaign.

[FreedomAngel82]

31. Boy this is becoming

idol worship. It's a piece of cloth! Good grief.

[Clark2008]

37. What's becoming idol worship?

The flag?

Oh, you must mean that people actually like Clark around here. You dislike Clark because you like mealy-mouth many-time-elected politicians instead of proven leaders. I forgot. :eyes:

[Pastiche423]

44. What proven leaders?

If you're talking about clarke, he is not a proven leader of civilians.

[robbedvoter]

33. So did Kuchinich, Dean & the others. Not Holly Joe though

So, if that's your criteria, go have Joe!
I'm more interested in views on war and civil rights which are actually relevant - not RW bait. (He didn't go out of his way to express this support, was asked by mediawhores who were seeking this DU's reaction)

[Greyhound]

39. Everybody's wrong sometimes. n/t

[Hyernel]

40. It's meaningless puffery.

There's not a lot of flag burning in this country. Even the hardest core protestors understand that burning a flag does not help their cause.

So being anti-flag burning is a relatively harmless stand that a politician can take that helps appeal to the brainless, symbolism-based red state morons. In reality, it means very little.

[ultraist]

42. Amending the Constitution is not "meaningless puffery" n/t

[Terran1212]

45. He's a ******** General!

I know DU worships him, but he still has the Establishment streak. Supreme Allied Commander ring a bell?

[DemCam]

47. The only thing I don't give a s**t about, folks.

Let 'em have it. Give it up for this one. Am so tired of this cropping up with all its blustering nonsense on both sides. Let 'em try to amend the constitution. This is the one where I bend in the wind like a blade of grass. I choose other things to make my stand.

I step aside and watch them sail on by. So Hillary and Wes are for it...so let 'em. So far, they're my two favorite Dems, so maybe they're onto sumthin' big here...if not important. Has anybody been burning flags lately?

oy

[Tom Rinaldo]

49. This isn't a finger to the wind position of his, it is deeply felt

I'll repeat what I wrote on a different thread about why Clark made his initial comment about this:

"Clark was asked at a Town Hall meeting where he spoke during his 2004 Campaign if he would support such an amendment. It wasn't a part of his platform or anything he was planning to address, but true to nature he gave an honest reply of his first reaction. Clark was running mostly to the Left during the primaries, with endorsements from people like Gaylord Nelson, George McGovern, and Michael Moore. His activist base that he was counting on to raise money for him did not like that answer one bit, and he knew it.

Clark explained that the flag holds very deep meaning for him. It was his job in the Army to build cohesion among very diverse soldiers; some middle class, some poor, some White, some Black, some Northern, some Southern, some well educated, some poorly educated etc. He did that under an American flag which he taught belonged equally to each and every one of them. They fought together as a team, and some died, under an American flag; and when soldiers died he personally handed the American flag to many grieving families at funerals held for them. Clark also believes that protests against our government can and should be held with the American flag proudly displayed by dissidents, because the right to protest is deeply American. Clark thinks our nation needs a symbol of what joins us together as a people. The Bill of Rights is part of the fabric of Clark's American Flag.

Maybe it is for Hillary also, but I doubt she has literally bled under the American flag, and watched soldiers die under the American flag. I disagree with Clark on this, but I allow him this difference out of respect."

Like I and some others have said, I come down differently than Clark on this issue. We disagree, but Clark has consistently supported the right of dissent in America when many more experienced Democrats were busy reading the polls to see how much distance thay needed to put between themselves and whoever was being villified by the media and the Right at the moment.