My first screening criteria was to eliminate anyone who voted for
the Iraq attack in congress.
That left Carol M-B, Sharpton (who revealed in the debates that he's
incredibly bright and witty), Dean, Kucinich, & Clark.
So I looked closely at them, and was amazed at what Clark's done.
Yes, his resume is beyond impressive.
We all know the drill: Rhodes Scholar, first in his class at West Point, multiple master's degrees in areas very relevent to a world leader: Politics, Philosophy, and Economics; awarded purple heart, silver star. Four star general. Bla bla.
That impressed me; it didn't sell me.
Here's what sold me.
He fought the *one war* in US history that was waged for humanitarian reasons. (WW2 is a possible exception. FDR's motive for maneuvering us into that war were likely humanitarian, but it's hard to say 'cause official history of that period is so warped and spinned.)
Clark shamed Clinton into stopping "ethnic cleansing" in Kosovo.
This calls for background info. (Bear with me. :))
"Samantha Power is a Lecturer in Public Policy. She was the founding
executive director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy (1998-2002), and the Pulitzer prize-winning author of A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide (Basic Books, 2002), which examines U.S. responses to genocide in the twentieth century. From
1993-1996, Power covered the wars in the former Yugoslavia as a reporter for the US News and World Report and The Economist. She is the editor, with Graham Allison, of Realizing Human Rights: Moving from Inspiration to Impact (St. Martin's, 2000). She is a graduate
of Yale University and Harvard Law School."
http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/degreeprog/courses.nsf/wzByDirectoryName/SamanthaPower"General Clark is one of the heroes of Samantha Power's book. She introduces him on the second page of her chapter on Rwanda and describes his distress on learning about the genocide there and not being able to contact anyone in the Pentagon who really knew anything about it and/or about the Hutu and Tutsi. She writes, "He frantically telephoned around the Pentagon for insight into the ethnic dimension of events in Rwanda. Unfortunately, Rwanda had never been of more than marginal concern to Washington's most influential planners" (p. 330) .
He advocated multinational action of some kind to stop the genocide.
"Lieutenant General Wesley Clark looked to the White House for leadership. 'The Pentagon is always going to be the last to want to intervene,' he says. 'It is up to the civilians to tell us they want to do something and we'll figure out how to do it.' But with no powerful personalities or high-ranking officials arguing forcefully for meaningful action, midlevel Pentagon officials held sway, vetoing or stalling on hesitant proposals put forward by midlevel State Department and NSC officials" (p. 373).
According to Power, General Clark was already passionate about humanitarian concerns, especially genocide, before his appointment as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO forces in Europe. When genocide began to occur in the Balkans, he was determined to stop it.
She 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.
Yet in Washington Clark was a pariah. In July 1999 he was curtly informed that he would be replaced as supreme allied commander for Europe. This forced his retirement and ended thirty-four years of distinguished service.
Favoring humanitarian intervention had never been a great career move."
http://blog.forclark.com/story/2003/11/28/81836/095Yes, this is from the Clark community blog. But it's all factual.
I've seen Samantha on CSPAN introduce General Clark after his war crimes testimony against Milosvevic at the Hague. She said the same thing. I saw her on PBS NOW, she said the same thing.
I've seen her book.
This is a man who pressed for humanitarian intervention in Rwanda and Kosovo at the expense of his career.
-Clark is a diplomat first and foremost.
He respects our soldiers (unlike Bush), and will put them in harms way, only as a last resort:
"Wesley Clark: The anti-war general
...Colleagues and critics of Clark say the general's experience negotiating the Dayton Peace Accords changed him for good, transforming him from a military man into a general-diplomat who could never simply salute and follow orders again.
Another experience from that period, the unwillingness of the U.S. or United Nations (news - web sites) to intervene to stop the massacre of 800,000 people in the Rwandan civil war in 1995, seared in Clark a personal conviction to never let inaction have such grievous consequences again."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2027&ncid=2043&e=7&u=/chitrib_ts/20031230/ts_chicagotrib/wesleyclarktheantiwargeneral-I'm not so naive that I think the US can survive without a military.
However, I do think our current military has been misused despicably and treated horribly.
Sending them to invade Iraq, kill Iraqis, and steal their oil is one of the worst war crimes ever. Clark has said as much. He was a commentator on CNN for months before the invasion, and was militantly (heh) opposed. I've read many of his quotes from that period; I've read columns he's written, mostly in the London Times.
He was dead set against that invasion. And even after Baghdad fell he was warning that the horror was just beginning.
Now we're stuck with the horror and he has a plan to get us out. Only a high ranking military man like him, and a superior diplomat (which he is) could have a viable and realistic plan to get us out of Bush's imperial invasion.
-And the fact is, Bush has plunged us into "war."
Bush is the one that's created the need for "wartime" leadership, which he can't provide. He's given us: War in Afghanistan (for the Caspian pipeline, but still war), war in Iraq (for oil, but still war), war on "terra,"...war war war.
And the Pugs will claim the Dems are weak on national defense.
You know, wimps.
How will they make that claim stick if the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, a four star General is our nominee?
Picture a debate between Bush (the rich boy who got out of Vietnam by having his daddy get him a slot in the national guard, then went AWOL...from the friggen national guard!) and Clark.
Clark will serve him his ass on a platter.
Did you see Clark's interviews with the standard media whores a few
weeks back: Russert, Mathews,...everyone on Faux News?
He ate them for lunch. They never knew what him 'em.
But he did it with poise and dignity, with a professional presidential
demeanor.
Now when they interview him they're downright differential.
They practically roll over to get their bellies rubbed.
They've learned that he will fight back. Unlike the traditional spineless Dem.
I won't repeat his entire presidential platform (to your immense relief I'm sure). Just enough to underscore the fact that he's extremely progressive with social issues and economic issues.
You can read his policies here, if you're interested:
http://clark04.com/issues/I'll just give a couple of examples:
-He's proposed the most *progressive* tax plan of any candidate:
"Wes Clark's Families First Tax Reform is a major tax simplification
proposal that will restore progressively to the tax code, relieve the
working-family squeeze and reduce poverty. Under Wes Clark's Families First Tax Reform, a family of four making up to $50,000 would pay no federal income taxes, and all taxpaying families with children making up to $100,000 would get a tax cut.
...
A 5 percentage point increase in the tax rate only on income over $1 million per year...
Closing corporate loopholes, including the ones that Enron took advantage of to unfairly cut its taxes."
-He's intensely focused on jobs, education, and training:
1-Wes Clark proposes to create a Homeland and Economic Security Fund of $20 billion per year (or $40 billion total over the next two years).
2-State and Local Tax Rebate Fund: $40 Billion Over Two Years.
3-Tax Incentives for Job Creation: $20 Billion Over Two Years.
A New Job Creation Tax Credit.
Allow Small- and Medium-Sized Firms, Including Manufacturing Firms, To
Expense Up To $150,000 In Investments.
Tax Incentives to Keep Manufacturing Jobs in the U.S.
Promote Growth By Promoting Trade
Etc.
-And a big reason I support him is his strength in the South, and his aggressive agenda on protecting voting rights, in particular rights of African Americans who were *successfully* targeted to steal the 2000 election.
-His southern strategy is one of his biggest advantages over the other
candidates. We can't win without the south.
Clark knows it. It's the reason he spent time there instead of Iowa.
He went there largely to promote his agenda for African Americans.
He's the *only* major white guy Dem to consistently speak out about the disenfranchisement of our black citizens to steal elections. He's the only major white guy Dem to blast the racist criminal justice system, that targets young poor black men to disproportionate degree, labels them as "felons," and robs them of their right to vote (traditionally Democratic, hmmmm).
Al Gore never even took on this issue, and black voter disenfranchisement was used to steal *his* election. After the recount debacle in Fla, he looked into the camera and assured us that he'd heard our voices and wouldn't forget.
But apparently he didn't hear all the muffled black voices, because he never addressed the GOP elephant in the corner; the fact that the GOP targets blacks to steal elections. I voted for Gore, I loved the guy; but I'm deeply disappointed in him for forsaking his black constituency. Then again, Democrats usually do.
Clark is an exception.
I'm sure it's one reason why Charlie Rangel and Andrew Young are his campaign co-chairs.
"Voting rights. I am concerned that so many Americans who are legally entitled to vote have had their right to vote impaired or their ballot ignored. I am astonished that the votes of thousands and thousands of African-American ballots were discarded in Florida. I was proud to lead a multilateral force in Bosnia and Kosovo, seeking to restore free and fair elections to the Balkans; what many Americans - and many African Americans - put their lives on the line for in Europe simply must be guaranteed here at home. I will fight to make sure that African Americans are never again unlawfully disenfranchised. In addition, I would encourage the states to look at the laws that strip voting rights from those who have served their time. Many thousands of these citizens are veterans who have also served their country, and disproportionate numbers are African Americans. When the right to vote - the basis of government - is at stake, the states should reexamine their answers to the hard questions: who is excluded, why they're excluded, for how long they're excluded, and whether the law as it stands serves justice for all."
And this is where is military background will help immensely.
The military is one of the most integrated institutions in the US.
A lot of the black voters that I talk to cite this as a huge plus.
And, frankly, a lot of rednecks will snap to attention because of it.
"I saw what could be accomplished when the doors of opportunity are fully opened to all. We had such a system in the U.S. military, through our strong affirmative action program. I was honored to serve with, and serve under, some outstanding African American leaders. I saw many proud young African American men and women thrive when treated with the dignity and respect they deserve. And through their service, they prepared for college and for careers, using their talent and determination to compete fairly and equally with others. As President, I'd do everything I can to make sure that the
people of the rest of our nation - in government, in the business sector, in education, in health care - are treated fairly and equally as well."
His outspokenness on African American issues, particularly the voting fraud that targets them, and victimizes us all, is *the* biggest reason I support Clark.
http://clark04.com/issues/africanamericans/In addition he's from the South. So he doesn't have to select a Southerner as his running mate. That's a huge advantage.
And we've already seen that he's a serious contender, given his
fundraising and poll numbers.
If those polls are to be believed, Clark is the only
Democrat with an overall positive rating.
http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/index.php?page=national&story_id=010704a1_pollWhy elect a General?
I believe in fighting fire with fire.
Clark is fire.
He's also a passionate humanitarian, an accomplished and experienced
diplomat, and a man of uncommon compassion and integrity.
Since you asked...
:)
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(347 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
