Reply #12: I am surprised to find that I like Clark [View All]

[Generic Other]

Normally, I would dismiss the idea of a military man out of hand; however, in this case Clark has some strong qualifications that give him the potential to blow Bush and Co. back to Crawford faster than an outhouse in a hurricane gale.

As the election draws near, more and more Americans will admit that we are stuck in an ill-conceived, dangerous situation in the Middle East that Bush is incapable of controlling. The GOP will be trying to convince Americans to stay the course. Expect more Bush photo ops in place of substance.

In comparison, Clark, former head of Nato, first in his West Point class, Rhodes scholar, commanding and capable of articulating his views to the American public, will run circles around Bush.

Imagine the presidential debate where they start talking about the mission of the military, its strategic plans, and ultimate objectives. I have heard Clark on CNN. I'm remembering him standing in front of the network map of the Middle East singlehandedly explaining the situation as he "guessed" it during Afghanistan and Iraq. He knew where everything was, right? And Bush? We never saw him, or when we did, suspected a staffer fed him his lines, read his cue cards for him, sobered him up, etc...

If I were betting, I'd bet Clark was the candidate with the best odds of defusing the Bush war machine.

And I am as surprised as Michael Moore that I would think a general was the best choice.

What impressed me most about him is the fact that he was the only CNN general who openly questioned whether we had explored every avenue for peace. Compared to the hysterical Powell who was making Yellowcake at the UN, Clark was calm, honest, and seemed as if he understood the gravity of the situation. What a vivid contrast!

And that a general stood up for the troops, actually questioned risking their lives in this ill-conceived venture, even while he defended the left for opposing the war was pretty remarkable.

I think it points out something interesting about how war impacts soldiers. The ones who see combat often come home as warriors for peace. The ones who get shot at have usually had enough blood and death to spend the rest of their lives working for peace and a better world after they come home.

That's what happened to a lot of vets I know, on DU and elsewhere. Many seem to have been profoundly affected by their combat experiences. Lots of vets are liberals today because they know why it's worth fighting for a better world.

In Bush's world, the military is nothing but cannon fodder or mercenaries to be hired out to the highest bidder. We on the left have tended not to trust the military, perhaps have been guilty of overgeneralization of all soldiers as bloodthirsty. Having witnessed true bloodlust glint in the eyes of men like Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, I now wonder if it will be the military men of peace who will save us from the civilian hawks.