Clark can't have it both ways. Read on.

[Hawkeye-X]

First of all, I'm a Dean supporter, and I have a lot of respect for Clark, and this isn't a bash thread, but just something that has been nagging me all day and needed to be pointed out.

I know most of you Clark supporters obviously like General Clark, but being in the military shows that he knows how to lead a war, yes, but he can't be anti-war. Why? He has already experienced the Kosovo campaign and other campaigns that he may have directed.

Yes, before you point out that he's retired and everything, but remember this: Clark has been in the military for 34 years, and that's quite a long time to be in the military. How can he, as a CNN analyst during the illegal Iraq war, cheerlead and then be suddenly anti-war? This smells like a big problem to me.

If you don't believe me. Watch any CNN tapes during that period where Clark is on TV analyzing stuff. I can tell you that he was pro-war and was explaining how the military goes and stuff. That part disturbs me, and that's why it's nagging me all day.

Suddenly, by virtue of a draft Wesley movement, this general agrees and accepts the urging to run an presidential campaign based on his military virtues, effectively neutralizing Kerry (for which I think Clark deserves a lot of credit for), but what else is he good for other than military matters (and economics as well as I know Clark is an econ professor at West Point).

Remember, this is the United States we're talking about. Not Iraq. Also, how will Clark guarantee we won't be living like a military state such as Pakistan or something? This is exactly what the Commander-in-Chief was created for -- in a civilian role. Yes, I know (again) Clark is retired, but he's still military. We aren't Iraqi citizens, and domestic, economic, job creation, health care, and much more needs to be attended to before Iraq, and that's the reality of it if we are going to maintain the health of the United States in the long term.

Just something to think about, and if Clark is an eventual nominee, he will get my support and my money, but this above statement is something to think about.

Hawkeye-X

[SahaleArm]

1. Stop sniffing yourself...

You're complaining because he was impartial in his CNN analysis?

From Sept-26, 2002: http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html

Force should be used as the last resort; after all diplomatic means have been exhausted, unless information indicates that further delay would present an immediate risk to the assembled forces and organizations. This action should not be categorized as “preemptive.”

Once initiated, any military operation should aim for the most rapid accomplishment of its operational aims and prompt turnover to follow-on organizations and agencies.

If we proceed as outlined above, we may be able to minimize the disruption to the ongoing campaign against Al Qaeda, reduce the impact on friendly governments in the region, and even contribute to the resolution of other regional issues such as the Arab-Israeli conflict, Iranian efforts to develop nuclear capabilities, and Saudi funding for terrorism. But there are no guarantees. The war is unpredictable and could be difficult and costly. And what is at risk in the aftermath is an open-ended American ground commitment in Iraq and an even deeper sense of humiliation in the Arab world, which could intensify our problems in the region and elsewhere.

[Hawkeye-X]

2. Still doesn't explain the cheerleading he did in CNN

*sigh*

Hawkeye-X

[SahaleArm]

6. Is that what you call telling it like it is?

The tactical military action was successful and the post-war plan was non-existant. If you read the House report you'll realize how right Clark was and how * did the opposite right down the list.

[Jack_Dawson]

35. "Cheerleading"?

That's an ignorant statement.

[Tom Rinaldo]

62. Consider the choices

American men and women are sent into combat in large numbers, directly following the explicit orders given them by their civilian Commander in Chief, the President of the United States. And then:

1) They get slaughtered in the thousands, their weapons malfunction, their leadership uses tactics perfected for World War I which sends young men and women to certain death. Syria becomes emboldened by American ineptness. Militants in Egypt and Pakistan take to the streets in the capitals of those nations...

OR

2) Our military performs exactly as expected, they are well trained, well led, and well disciplined. They achieve their military objectives with very few losses. Husseein is deposed. The oil fields, which Iraq as well as the U.S. economilcally need, were protected from being destroyed during the major fighting.

Regardless of whether one thinks it was a Good or Bad idea to invade Iraq the way we did, why we did, when we did, which of those two scenarios were you "rooting" for, once the invasion was underway?

Maybe more to the point, who do you think the American public would be more likely to relate to and vote into office, someone who was pleased about option Number Two, or someone who would have been pleased about Number One?

[goobergunch]

67. Losses by who?

I don't think the Iraqi people will agree with you that there were few losses...remember "Shock and Awe"?

[Tom Rinaldo]

69. You avoided the question.

We shouldn't have invaded Iraq why we did, when we did, the way we did. Agreed. Go back and read the original question though.

As for war, it sucks. And it kills. There are some rare times when I think it is justified, and from an American perspective, this was not one of them.

From an Iraqi perspective, honestly I am not sure of the answer to the question, are they better off? Hussein sucked, and he killed. He killed far more Iraqi's (granted over a longer period of time) than the Americans have. That's direct deaths, as in gasing of Kurdish villages, execution of opponents, crushing of revolts in the southern swamps and Basra etc. Then there are the deaths brought about by Husseins Nationalist Imperialist policies. Specifically all the deaths that happened during his War with Iran (I know, Hussein was "our guy" then), and the one with Kuwait. I don't give Hussein a total bye on those deaths either.

In either case, Clark did not approve of invading Iraq. Bush did, it seems Lieberman did also. Some Democrats are accused of not doing enouth to stop it, and that is a fair topic for debate. But the original question I asked was, once our troops were in Iraq fighting, would you have been happier with them winning or losing their struggle to depose Hussein? Clark was glad they pulled it off. I think 95% of the American public agree with Clark AND ALL OF OUR OTHER CANDIDATES about that narrow point.

[Democrats unite]

3. The more I saw him on CNN the more I wanted the...

Draft clark to suceed. I wonder what they thought of Washington, Grant, Eisenhower, these Generals are sure going to get us into trouble?

[shivaji]

27. why is it that Dean leads Clark 3:1 in national polls, but here on DU

Clark supporters lead Dean 3:1?

Something is fishy.

May be Clark supporters are all computer geeks while Dean supporters are wearing out their shoe leather.

[Jack_Dawson]

36. Because those "Polls"

Are of the "Push" variety.

[robbedvoter]

43. Or maybe the Meet-up numbers are phony since no one gets unsubscribed

All the former Deanies are still listed there. As for the polls, don't get me started. Maybe we should wait for the voting polls to see what exactly is fishy in the "Anointed one" media coverage.

[Jerseycoa]

64. True

I can't get myself out of Dean's Meetup.

[edzontar]

54. I think a number of Dean supporters have left DU for a while...

The atmosphere has been pretty thick lately.

Most of them will probably come back when the nominee is decided.

[LuminousX]

56. I can confirm this, and also there is a general Dean supporter boycott

of DU polls. Nothing organized, just a general malaise.

[SahaleArm]

76. Did you confirm this with your cystal ball? n/t

[Scott Lee]

74. Because there is a stark divide between DU and the real world.

Several long time users, including Mr. Pitt, have stressed this a number of times.

[ibegurpard]

4. Whoa!

I didn't realize he was an economics professor! Economics wonks scare me...they have a tendency to rely heavily upon economic theory without taking into account the effects on people.

[SahaleArm]

7. Like Krugman?

Economic Plan: http://clark04.com/issues/economicplan/

[Jack_Dawson]

39. LOL

Exactly

[JVS]

41. Krugman has a much stronger economics background than Clark

[SahaleArm]

71. He was complaining about lack of 'real-world experience'

Which of course is absurd, Clark has spent the last 3 years in the private-sector including time at a tech start-up.

[JVS]

40. Generally a Masters in Economics does not qualify one to be a professor

at least not at most universities. West point though isn't like most universities. I'd be interested to see what Clark studied and read his masters thesis if anyone has a link.

[Donna Zen]

48. Several master's thesis

Clark's masters is from Oxford which might make a difference...who knows? Anyway, his mainly taught Political Philosophy at West Point; Plato to Marx. Clark did work in the Ford WH as an assistent in the Office of the Budget. His superiors as usual refer to his work as "brilliant."


A friend of mine with a PHD in American History (social and cultural studies) is researching Clark's thesis. It seems he took the Pentagon Papers and traced back every decision that resulted in bad decisions, to 1945. He then made suggested policy changes to correct and open up the way the process should be changed. My friend knew about Clark's work, because while the thesis is not online, she said that the paper is referred to in various documents where Clark's recommendations where implemented.

West Point to the best of my knowledge is considered an excellent school and very difficult to get into. Clark orginally enrolled in math and physics, but discovered his love of foreign policy while researching orginal documents for a paper in his Russian language class. Clark was then 18, which means that Clark's knowlege base is a 41 year pursuit. His masters from Oxford is in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics.

I don't know what you were doing at 18, but I confess that I was a complete slacker as compared to Clark.

[SahaleArm]

70. Non-professor lecturers are not uncommon.

At any university, many of of them are post-docs or candidates.

[QC]

72. All it takes for accreditation purposes is

a Master's and 18 graduate hours in the field in which you teach.

At research universities, even elite ones, upwards of 50% and sometimes even 70% of classroom teaching is done by grad students and adjuncts who do not have doctorates.

[Code_Name_D]

5. I concure

I have also been forced to draw the same conclusion as you have. While Clark has painted himself as the anti-war canadate. His polici speaches seem to betray this very argument. Especualy when you read between the line. Clark for example as expresed the "well, we are there now" additued with the Iraq war. And his "plans to use the UN" seem to hold about as much water as Bush's plans to use the UN. In that Clark seems to thing that his presence along will compel the UN to resume the bowing and scraping that they did for us in the past.

But most disterbingly, Clark suports the policy of premptive warfare. A fact that always bgings out the "best" Clark supporters clark supporters. Some times, there attempts to defend his positions runs shockingly close to arguments would would see from freepers. The argument of semantics that Clark actualy supports premptive stricks. (To bad never said that he supported premptive warfare. But the truth dosn't seem to hold much sway around here.)

Even more bothersom to me is this. I remeber when Clark first came out of the shoot as a pro-war canadate. He even said he supported the Iraq War Resolution, and would of voted for it. Litterly withen hours, he changed his story a complet 180, and tried to pretend that he didn't change his mind. The notion that Clark being anti war was a complet media fabrication, while Clark let them put words in his mouth for that all important plasabule diniability. A clasic repiblican ploy.

I now return you to your reguerly sceduled flaim war.

[QC]

14. "Clark suports the policy of premptive warfare."

You do have some evidence for that, right?

[Mattforclark]

16. He has said that he would support

a pre-emptive attack if some enemy massed millions of troops on our border with Canada or something. That seems rather sensible to me, personally.

He has also stressed how this contingency never had any rational relationship to Iraq. Yet another example of the Bush administration redefining existant terms for its purposes. Like 'clean air.'

[SahaleArm]

18. Exactly - it's nonsense.

From the House report (link above):

Force should be used as the last resort; after all diplomatic means have been exhausted, unless information indicates that further delay would present an immediate risk to the assembled forces and organizations. This action should not be categorized as “preemptive.”

[Mattforclark]

20. preventative is the word he used

for Iraq.

There is a difference between preventative and pre-emptive war. Bush has subverted this distinction, to the great dismay of many people who possess various clues.

[Leilani]

8. What else is he good for?

Leadership!

What is the most important quality needed by a President?
Leadership!

I'm so tired of anti-military mindset. It takes courage, bravery, people skills to lead people into battle. And isn't this race a battle?

Remember, according to our constitution, the Pres is Commander-in-Chief, & his 1st responsibility is to protect & keep us safe. You may not be concerned with the terrorism threat we face, but most Americans are scared, or at least uneasy. They need to have confidence in the President to protect us.

I'm afraid to say it, but Americans don't trust Dems to keep them safe, & this is why Clark's candidacy is so powerful, & a chance to turn things around for the party. National security can become a winner for us.

[Mattforclark]

21. He is also good for

pro-choice, affirmative action, medical marijuana, no 3 strikes laws, health care, better (non NCLB) education and not teaching to the test, and equal rights for GLBT, among many other things.

And much more:

http://www.clark04.com/issues

[goobergunch]

68. The President is the Commander in Chief of the military, not the people

IMHO, the primary job of the President is to uphold the laws...not support the military.

In fact, the reason that the President is the Commander in Chief of the military is so that the military would be led by a civilian.

[neuvocat]

9. Yes he is still of a military mind as was Eisenhower

who campaigned consistently for peace. If you have ever served you would know that the last thing anyone in the armed forces would want to do is go to war. Clark has said so repeatedly and also said that top-of-the-line decisions should not be made without understand the bottom-of-the-line impact.

I don't think it is fair to argue the wartime actions or capabilities of a President before he or she would be elected. Dean didn't serve in the military but that is no indicator of how he would handle going to war. After all, Clinton's lack of military service did not deter him from being an exttremely capable commander in chief.

[Mattforclark]

19. Chicken hawks vs. people who have been shot

People who have been shot at themselves are less likely to support unnecessarily exposing others to stray bullets than those who have not. If you anyone does not believe that this is true, I invite you to expose yourself to stray bullets and then think about how it changed your views on war. Having been shot oneself, the only way that one would unnecessarily give orders causing other people to be shot is if one is sadistic. If one wishes to argue that Clark is sadistic, one will need to ignore the fact that he wished to do something to save the lives of ~1 million now dead Rwandans in 1994, among other things.

[jjmalonejr]

10. Clark is not anti-war (he was a General for God's sake!)

But he WAS against the war in Iraq. His record on this is pretty clear and consistent.

The so-called "cheerleading" that you are referring to was entirely in reference to the performance of our troops on the ground. He was hired by CNN to provide commentary about the military operation, not to discuss his political views.

When he discusses his political views, he has always criticized the Bush Administration's pursuit of the war.

[SahaleArm]

11. His political viewpoint on CNN...

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/timep.iraq.viewpoints.tm/index.html

The key issue about Iraq has never been whether weshould act if Saddam doesn't comply with U.N. resolutions anddisarm. Rather, the problems are how we should act, and when. As for the how, the answer is clear--multilaterally, with friends and allies, with every possible effort to avoid the appearance of yet another Christian and Jewish stab at an Islamic country, with force as a last resort, and with a post-conflict plan in place to assure that the consequences of our action do not supercharge the al-Qaeda recruiting machine. As for the when, let's take the time to plan, organize and do the whole job the right way. This will only take a few more weeks, and it's important. It's not just about winning a war--it's also about winning the peace.

[Myra]

13. Thanks SahaleArm. Quotes serve General Clark well.

I notice there were no quotes in the initial post
accusing him of "cheerleading."

[Myra]

12. You're spreading propaganda Hawkeye-X. "Read on."

General Clark was not "cheerleading."
Please supply a quote, in context, to support your claim of "cheerleading" on his part.

[SahaleArm]

17. Maybe this is the supposed chearleadaing?

The scenario of a quick coalition victory in Iraq is "not going to happen," according to retired U.S. Army Gen. Wesley Clark, a CNN analyst and former NATO supreme allied commander.

Mar-26, 2003: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/26/sprj.irq.generals.clark/index.html

[ClarkUeberAlles]

15. Clark becoming a military dictator?

That is the most asinine sentiment that I've seen expressed about clark on DU. Even if the military brass were inclined to support a military dictatorship, do you really believe the rank and file would just subvert the constitution they swore to protect and that they learn in school is the greatest document on earth?

The times in U.S. that the president exercised serious dictatorial powers the president was a civilian, such as lincon and roosevelt, and in some ways Bush II

[Mattforclark]

23. Clark, unlike General Musharraf,

proposes to run for elected office, not to overthrow in a military coup the holder of said elective office. Unless I have been misinformed. ;)

He also would not be a dicator. If one wants a dictator, it is not necessary to elect a new President.

[Myra]

22. Quite the nasty little hit and run bomb HawkeyeX

See? You have something of the warrior in you after all.
You dump this bomb in the forum, with no quote to back it up,
then disappear.

You also smear all military people in the process by the way.

"If you don't believe me. Watch any CNN tapes during that period where Clark is on TV analyzing stuff."

I don't believe you Hawkeye-X.
In spite of your compelling and scholarly claim about Clark
"analyzing stuff."

A "stuff" analyzer...

:evilgrin:

[Mattforclark]

24. Analysis of stuff

'This M1 tank has lots of armor.'

-----> awkward pause ----->

-----> insert 'fuzzy math' here ---->

'Therefore it is a wonderful idea to go to war against Iraq!'



I don't get it

(looks clueless).

(shrugs).

(walks away)

[Voltaire99]

25. Good observation, Hawkeye-X

Progressives are increasingly aware (see, for instance, the recent Nation exposé) that Clark is not of good liberal odor.

The general's domestic positions are sane, and he seems both smart and likable enough. But he's a warrior liberal, the likes of which our catastrophically war-binging nation desperately doesn't need. His remedy for Iraq is the risible fiction of internationalization, not the morally just position of swift self-determination provided by US withdrawal.

Clark is, to put a fine point on it, a pro-affirmative action and pro-reproductive rights imperialist. If the imperial views could be lobotomized while keeping the cortex of his liberal social policies intact, I'd say, Send him into surgery and then run him! But fortunately there are choices that don't come with all of Clark's baggage. I hope to see him serving in the cabinet -- quite far from The Button -- but that's all.

[chimpymustgo]

32. Could you explain your charge of Clark as "imperialist"?

Your post has plenty of "brain" words, but makes absolutely no sense at all.
Could you clarify your charges - in English, with examples?

[Jerseycoa]

33. Desperate

"(see, for instance, the recent Nation exposé)"

[robbedvoter]

52. The Nation "exposee"? All it exposed was racist Matt Taibbi:

Some of his other fine work:

Taibbi also wrote an analysis of the Kosovo campaign entitled "101 Reasons Why NATO's War Sucks," for the eXile in April 1999. Reason 72: "The Serbs are one of the tallest, most beautiful European tribes.... Why are the most beautiful tribes being wiped out by the squat and ugly?"
http://writers.forclark.com/story/2003/12/16/32318/644

[dfong63]

26. Clark's vaunted foreign policy experience consists mostly

... of having participated in wars against various countries. that's not the kind of "experience" i want in a president.

[Donna Zen]

51. 41 years

Forty one years of studying foreign policy, J-5, and negotiating the Dayton Accords etc, might not be as light weight as you might like to think. "Experience" in research a candidate's history is what I want to see behind a poster's words.

[Zero Division]

28. Would you have rather seen him talk about why he hopes we'll fail?!

He was clearly against the decision to go to war in Iraq at the moment, in the manner, and for the reasons the Bush admin. decided to go to war in Iraq. But once the decision is made, the rational thing to do is to hope that it does not fail or result in dire consequences, even if one thought it was a bad idea in the first place. This is one of the reasons he displayed positive sentiments in response to the military aspect of the war, and the same reason he and other Democratic candidates expressed positive sentiments in response to Saddam's capture.

[Clark Can WIN]

29. His antiwar stance on CNN is what got my attention

Have you watched "American son"? Please do................................................

I believe out of everyone, Clark knows fist hand the best and worst that can come from the military.

http://www.americansforclark.com/americanson/

[robbedvoter]

42. Yours and thousands of others starting the draft movement - remember it?

Apparently, some people heard different sounds on their TV's, inspiring enough to start a movement!


GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, she laughed when people called the house in February of 2003 and said, '”We wanna talk to General Clark and ask him to run.” She would snicker. Then after the war, and people began to talk about it, she began to be anxious,
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/19/60II/main584548.shtml

[mikehiggins]

30. Well, we've won the battle on DU

Several recent threads have been notable by the lack of irrational attack by Dean supporters and the lack of "foaming at the mouth" defense by Clark supporters. This has to be a good sign of something.

We can disagree on our candidates without stridency, even if we criticise Dean for his stubborn arrogance, and they criticise Clark for his past political history and the danger he'll see things through the prism of militarism.

These are legitimate points for discussion, IMHO, and we have done just that over and over again over the last few weeks. Maybe we're just too tired to load the guns again but, whatever the cause, it is a positive thing to see people acting more civilly than before. Not that things are perfect, just better, and that's good.

Though I'll miss the "Dean eats small kittens and all the Dean sweatshirts are made in factories where cub scouts are forced to work for liver and onion sandwiches" posts

[moz4prez]

31. not to open a can of worms here,

but a lot of Clark supporters (along w/ supporters of other candidates — primarily Kerry) take issue with DEAN"S political history too.

on edit: remembered Kerry's supporters.

[maddezmom]

34. Clark is Anti-Iraq War, not an anti-war candidate

He has said over and over, Iraq is the wrong war.

[robbedvoter]

37. AT THE TIME others didn't see the cheerleading - from the Spectator

Since the outbreak of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Clark has been on CNN, bemoaning the Pentagon and Gen. Tommy Franks's
> strategy in the opening days of taking down Saddam. And while several other senior retired military men have made
> critical comments about the ongoing fighting -- Ret. Gen. Barry McCaffrey, another former Clinton-era official, has
> been quick to criticize during his stints on MSNBC -- Clark has by far been the most vocal.
> "It just looks really bad that he's knocking the troops and the way we're executing this war," says the DNC staffer.
> "He's taking hits everywhere, on TV, in the newspapers, on talk radio. People are furious at him. We can't fundraise
> off performances like this. The only presidential candidate that would probably want to be seen with him is Howard
> Dean."
> Prior to Clark's "tanking" on CNN, the DNC had Clark pegged for political stardom. He'd visited New Hampshire, and
> had hinted that he was interested in perhaps running for president as a Democrat. Now, the DNC isn't sure what they
> can do with the man who directed Bill Clinton's military machinations in Kosovo.
> http://www.spectator.org/article.asp?art_id=2003_3_27_22_49_18
> edit: this is dated March 28, 2003

[Tom Rinaldo]

59. Thanks for that post

I hadn't seen that one.

[robbedvoter]

38. Clark's 10 pledges to the American People (you want #2)

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

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.

Restoring our alliance with Europe is the first essential part of my broader strategy for American national security. President Bush has created a go-it-alone approach and declared the use of preemptive military force as the defining characteristic of his national security strategy. A Clark Administration would place our work with Europe and a reinvigorated NATO as a centerpiece of U.S. policy -- and then seek not to rely on preemptive force, but instead to use diplomatic, political, economic power and international law in support of preventive engagement. We would reserve the use of force for an absolutely last resort and then act together if possible and alone only if we must.

[Tom Rinaldo]

49. Actually, try all Ten. Here's #8 though for a starter"

8. America's military will be a complement, not substitute, for diplomacy, law, and leadership in the conduct of our international affairs.

We must reorganize our government so that we can bring to bear the economic, diplomatic and political tools in our arsenal. When we use the power of international law and diplomacy, we can achieve decisive results, even without decisive force.

A Clark Administration would place our work with Europe and a reinvigorated NATO as a centerpiece of U.S. policy -- and then seek not to rely on preemptive force, but instead to use diplomatic, political, economic power and international law in support of preventive engagement. We would reserve the use of force for an absolutely last resort and then act together if possible and alone only if we must.

The United States needs a cabinet-level or subcabinet-level agency that is charged with developing plans, programs, and personnel structures to assist in the areas of political and economic development abroad. Call it the Department of International Development. Focusing our humanitarian and developmental efforts through a single, responsible department will help us bring the same kind of sustained attention to alleviating deprivation, misery, ethnic conflict, and poverty that we have brought to the problem of warfare. These efforts will reduce the anger and alienation that gives rise to terrorism, and win us more friends and partners around the world. It will be far easier to gain international support for our concerns when other countries see us helping them on theirs.

[Cheswick2.0]

44. He is too pro military for me

He switched churches of all things because he didn't like the talk about peace. He felt the military was being criticized.

I think he is a decent guy, I almost decided to support him. When I really thought about it I realized that his liberal credentials are not dependable IMO. He really is not much more liberal than many moderate pro-choice republicans I know.

Of course Dean is not a liberal on all issues either, however he is a true populist and that can be depended on. Besides he is showing he has the grassroots campaign to actually beat bush.

[robbedvoter]

46. Does a humanitarian record make a difference with you?

http://Blog.forclark.com/story/2003/11/28/81836/095

Samantha Power details his efforts in behalf of the Dayton Peace Accords and his brilliant command of NATO forces in Kosovo. Her chapter on Kosovo ends, "The man who probably contributed more than any other individual to Milosvevic's battlefield defeat was General Wesley Clark. The NATO bombing campaign succeeded in removing brutal Serb police units from Kosovo, in ensuring the return on 1.3 million Kosovo Albanians, and in securing for Albanians the right of self-governance

He actually saved double the Vermont population - does this matter?
****

[bicentennial_baby]

47. Link?

"He switched churches of all things because he didn't like the talk about peace. He felt the military was being criticized. "

[chimpymustgo]

53. Clark switched churches? Gotta link for that?

Dean is quite the populist now. Wasn't one as Governor though. Wonder what he'll be next year?

I'll stick with someone I think I can trust. Edwards, Clark, Kerry.

[Scott Lee]

77. Was that before or after his pandering photo op at the Harlem church?

You know, TESTIFYIN' (for Rangel)

[QC]

57. You mean the Southern Baptist Church was a hotbed of antiwar activism?

And the Catholics were pro-war?

You do have a source for this, um, remarkable assertion, don't you?

[Tom Rinaldo]

58. OK, the Church swithching bit

This is what I heard. Clark was attending Mass at a Roman Catholic Church, (he had converted from being Protestant to become Catholic when he married his wife) and the Priest giving the Mass made a black and white sermon that War is wrong under any and all circumstances. The Priest specifically argued that not even the American Revolution justified the use of War. Clark is reported to have left that Church when he heard that sermon. Lately he and his wife have been attending a Protestant Church where they have friends in the congregation. He has not formally swithed his Religion. He certainly has not condemned the Roman Catholic Church for being too anti-war, and Roman Catholic Church theology does hold out the premise that there can be a "just war". It seems the individual Priest in question was really pushing it that day.

[BootinUp]

61. Interesting

Tom, where did you hear that story, can you tell us?

I might get blasted for this, but I think it shows he is not hypocritical.

[Tom Rinaldo]

63. I know I read it, I think online

It may have been in one of the blogs at Clark's site, but I am not certain. The report I read was more specific than what I wrote here, I think it mentioned the specific Church where that sermon had been given. I think the words used were that "Clark stormed out" when the example of the American Revolution was used. It wasn't any type of news report. Clark does NOT make a public issue of this. He gives reasons of personal affinity for why he attends the Church he currently attends. Actually I was surprised that any poster here had heard anything about the subject at all.

[robbedvoter]

45. More war "cheerleading" in 2002

1.      Why we should wait before invading Iraq - OpEd by WKC:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2002-09-09-oplede_x.htm
"Our strategic priorities need to be kept in order: We can best face a possible fight against Iraq if we have strong allies and a weakened al-Qaeda. While we eventually may have to use force against Iraq, we should use our resolve first to empower diplomacy, with war as the last resort."
 
2.      CLARK: FIGHTING WITH IRAQ COULD BE OVER IN TWO WEEKS; AMERICA CAN'T BE 'NEW ROME' WITH VOLUNTEER ARMY 10/7/02
http://www.digitalnpq.org/global_services/global%20viewpoint/10-07-02.html
"Another danger is that Iraq could become a battleground of fundamentalists. Under Saddam, the fundamentalists have been the enemy in Iraq. If he is replaced, Iraq could become a wide-open target for the fundamentalists from both Iran and Saudi Arabia, both of which would be preaching anti-Western extremism. There is little our American soldiers can do to prevent this -- it will depend on establishing quickly an effective Iraqi government"
 
3.      Julian Borger in Washington and Richard Norton-Taylor
Wednesday August 21, 2002
The Guardian
"You can get a strategically decisive result without having to use strategically decisive and destructive military power if you bring in the elements of the international law and the full diplomatic weight of the international community," he said."
 
 
4.      Before Iraq: Strengthen allies, weaken al-Qaeda
By Wesley K. Clark 09/09/02
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2002-09-09-oplede_x.htm
 
 
5.      NPQ:  Clark:  Fighting with Iraq could be over in Two Weeks; American Can't be "New Rome" with Volunteer Army Nathan Gardals 10/07/02
http://www.digitalnpq.org/global_services/global%20viewpoint/10-07-02.html
" While we must remain strong, and occasionally take actions to anticipate and eliminate immediate threats to us, we must also recognize that our greater security will be achieved not by killing our opponents and destroying their regimes but by supporting our friends and reinforcing those who share our values."
 
 

1. The Connection w/Dick Gordon 10/10/02
http://www.theconnection.org/shows/2002/10/20021010_b_main.asp
"The general has a question: Where's NATO? In all the debate over Afghanistan and Iraq, in Congress and at the U.N., there's been very little talk about the alliance that was formed to protect and defend the U.S. and its European allies."
 
 

1. Retired General Reflects on US Policy toward Iraq by Michael McPhee
October 10, 2002
http://www.umb.edu/news/2002news/reporter/november/iraq.html In comparing the two most recent presidencies, Clark described the Clinton administration as pursuing a foreign policy of engagement and reaching out as opposed to the Bush administration's preemption policy and striking out.
Clark, when asked where the push to invade Iraq was coming from, rejected the idea that it was the military that wanted to go to war. He blamed civilian advisors to President Bush who were pushing in that direction.

[BootinUp]

50. The premise of your argument is invalid

Basically you are saying:

If you're in the military a long time, you must like war.

I have not served in our military, and other DU'ers can probably speak to this better than I. My opinion is that the military wants to be prepared to defend our country. They work very hard to be prepared. They are proud when they perform their job with the utmost skill and determination, they are proud to defend the ideals of this country. But I simply do not accept the premise that Clark must like war and therfore will lead us to war.

Most soldiers that have seen combat are very conflicted about it. There was a recent article about Ret. General Zinni who is also speaking out against the Iraq War. He said in the article that he has received support from soldiers and they have told him he speaks for them and to keep speaking out. Sure you can find some examples of military men that make statments indicating they like war, but to stereotype all of the military that way is just as wrong as other stereotypes that you find offensive.

[dsc]

55. that is a bit to far

One can be anti this war without being anti war, that is Dean's position it should be noted. I didn't see his commentary so I can't comment on that. If his commentary was as you describe then that might be a problem. Finally, we have had several generals as President and came out as a Democracy.

[John_H]

60. It is imposible to obfuscate a simple obvious fact.

no matter how hard Dean supporters try. Wes Clark takes away Chimp's only issue--national security. Howard Dean turns it into a three thousand mile long coat tail for GOP.

[Patriot_Spear]

65. You've got a point, a Clark can't change his spots.

But on the other hand, some of the most vocal proponents of peace are old Soldiers.

It is a conumdrum.

[Toucano]

66. Is Dean anti-war?

"...but being in the military shows that he knows how to lead a war, yes, but he can't be anti-war."

Do you consider Dean's positions anti-war? I thought I heard him say our war in Afghanistan was right.

Clark's experience in battle is far more likely to prevent a rush to war than accellerate it.

Your suggestion that Clark will make America a "military state" is silly.

[Scott Lee]

75. He's anti IRAQ war...for good reasons.

These reasons have been explored to death here on DU so I won't repeat them. I'd recommend a search through some past threads as well as current realities to bolden the case for Dean's anti-Iraq War stance.

[Scott Lee]

73. You got this right, Hawkeye. My whole family (minus me) is military

and you see how many years of being involved simply make it impossible to think or live outside of that regimentation and philosophy. My dad did the whole "I better be able to bounce a quarter off of this bed when its made!" crap with my brother and I while growing up (he was Navy, Korea).

I saw this in a more honest moment from the Air Force Colonel father of a past girlfriend. He and I had long talks and he admitted to me that even after retiring, the military way runs his life. "I want to relax and do something different, but I just can't see any other way. I've tried." is what he told me.

And I believed him. It was a hard thing to watch.

[littlejoe]

78. Wesley Clark is the root of all evil. The demons should

be coaxed out of him with the promise of some good barbeque and a six pack of Bud.