Reply #6: Paulie, I understand exactly what you mean. [View All]

[diamondsoul]

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.