Now that the novelty has worn off, I am concerned about Clark

[knowledgeispower]

When Clark first announced he was running I was ecstatic. I mean here is a guy that is a virtual LOCK to defeat Bush in the general election. Bush couldn't hold national security over him, and other than national security (or the illusion of it) Bush doesn't have a leg to stand on. In that respect, Clark seems like the perfect candidate.

But now I am getting concerned by his links to the very same political establishment that got us into this mess. In fact, I believe that Clark was put up by the DLC in order to hedge their bets against the political outsider (Dean). Now at first I was thinking this was because they were worried Dean couldn't win an election against Bush. I wouldn't say that Dean can't win, but Clark certainly has a better shot in my mind.

But what if Clark is being trotted out in an attempt to maintain power for the political establishment? In other words, with Clark will we be getting more of the same but with a friendlier face? Here is a link from CounterPunch, which I might remind you is edited by Alexander Cockburn (not a wild conspiracy theorist OR a republican plant):

http://www.counterpunch.org/madsen09182003.html
The latest trick of the neo-cons is running retired General Wesley Clark for President as a Democrat. But not just any Democrat -- a "New Democrat." The same bunch that are pushing Joe Lieberman's candidacy are obviously hedging on their bets and want to have Clark in the race as a potential vice presidential candidate (to ensure their continued influence in a future Democratic administration of Howard Dean, John Kerry, or Dick Gephardt) or as a "go-to" candidate in the event that Lieberman stumbles badly in the first few Democratic primaries next year.

The "New Democrats" (neo-cons) are as much masters at the perception management (lying) game as their GOP counterparts (Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Donald Rumsfeld). Clark's presidential candidacy announcement in Little Rock is one warning sign. This city is a sort of "Mecca" for the neo-con Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) and its main nurturers, Al From and Bruce Reed. It was from Little Rock where the DLC propelled a little known governor named Bill Clinton into the White House. And although Clinton did not turn out exactly as conservative as the DLC hoped for, his support for globalization and selected use of U.S. military power abroad were neo-con keystone successes.

And goddammit, I am not trashing Clark. I am just expressing a legitimate concern about a candidate that interests me.

[wndycty]

1. Can you atleast wait until the first debate. . .

. . .I think his performance will help you know whether or not to be concerned!

[Closer]

3. Why?

Because Clark will admit he's a NeoCon at the debate today? :eyes:


Be worried about Clark. Be very worried. He is a NeoCon, a DLC insider, a War Hawk and a Fraud.


People will see the truth come out.

[KittyWampus]

8. Clark Mentioned Cutting Pentagon Spending

To pay for Health Care... somehow I don't think that's on the PNAC agenda.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. I Was Going To Post Something Else

but I called on my better angels....

It's better to ignore the haters....

If you fight with a pig... You will both end up smelling like do do and the pig will like it....

[meegbear]

2. Column reads like the typical "Annoy the DLC" rhetoric

[StephNW4Clark]

4. No

"selected use of U.S. military power abroad were neo-con keystone successes."

Neo-Conservative theory on military power does not believe in the uses of military power that Clinton embarked on. They would not have gone into Somalia, or Kosovo. And Clinton, remember in 2000, was trying to get a plan lined up for Al-Queda (which neo-cons have ignored and instead decided to attack Iraq before finishing with Afghanistan and providing that poor country with a Marshall Plan).

Incidentally, Clark wanted to go into Rwanda to stop the genocide between the 2 tribes which killed (at rough estimates) somewhere between 2-3 million people.

One of the central tenets of neo-con military philosophy is never to engage militarily for a humanitarian purpose.

[gully]

5. Yikes! I will watch with interest, but???

this is a concern. I am rooting for Dean, always have been, but am willing to give Clark a chance.

I do think it was dangerous to 'draftclark' with out knowing much about his positions/history on the issues, KWIM?

[StephNW4Clark]

15. with out knowing much about his positions/history on the issues

Please don't insult Clark supporters by thinking we're blind sheep looking for a savior. Personally, I read about Clark in 2000 in Richard Holbrooke's account of Kosovo. I read about Clark in Samantha Power's book "A Problem from Hell" which discusses America's reluctance to end genocide.

With all due respect, we have researched his issues. We're not stupid, we haven't been tricked, and many of us voted for Clinton. I don't know if that makes us traitors to the Democratic Party because it's DLC.

We have had ample opportunity within the past year to look at each and every candidate. We looked at Dean, Kerry, Lieberman, Kucinich, Gephardt, et al. If we weren't satisfied after hearing about them for 6 months, then allow us the right to pick who we want. But don't paint us as mindless drones who said, "Ooohh...look, shiny stars on the general's uniform" and started drooling.

[Hawkeye-X]

19. Drafting Clark is a mistake.

And now he's out in the open. Everyone will be attacking Clark severely on his lack of political experience.

I would have kept Clark under cover until after the nomination process was over, and then picked Clark for a VP. Let's hope he can survive the onslaught enough to look OK for a VP that will help Dean.

Hawkeye-X

[KittyWampus]

6. Counterpunch Is The Left Version Of Fox News

They are agitators first and foremost. Their only purpose is self promotion.

That they have a far Left spin is besides the point...

[OKNancy]

12. Counterpunch hated Gore too

nasty articles about Gore. They hate everyone.

[diplomats]

16. And didn't they trash Dean?

Sounds bad all the way around.

[grasswire]

13. you obviously didn't watch...

......Clark's speech last night on c-span.

I urge all those who have questions about Clark to go to c-span and watch some of the archived material. I was up until 2:30 a.m. because I was riveted to what he was saying. War as a LAST resort. HUMBLE foreign policy. Cooperation with other countries. Use of our resources as instruments of peace.

Better than Clinton, IMO.

[madaboutharry]

20. Counterpunch is run by

Alexander Cockburn who Eric Alterman called an "unrepentent Stalinist." (see "What Liberal Media?") After reading The Nation for years, I agree with Alterman's take and that pretty much says it about Counterpunch for me.

[Cappurr]

7. And I know it is fashionable to flame the DLC here....

But Clinton came from the DLC. Hillary is in the DLC.

Yes, I agree they are too conservative in some of their approaches and yes, in may be a GOP version of a power grab, but who would you rather have power....people like Clinton or people like Bush?

[KittyWampus]

10. Dean And Gore Were DLC

vvv

[kentuck]

9. Clark appears to be quite liberal the last few days....

Whether talking about the Patriot Act, about the misadventure in Iraq, about freedom of speech vs patriotism, about national healthcare, and other liberal issues. I can see why this is very confusing. I can also see why he scares the Bejeezus out of the Repubs..

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

11. Dean is as much of a DLC insider as Clark is

political posturing is besides the point

[returnable]

14. Fair enough

But do a counterpunch search on any of the leading candidates, and see what articles you get.

Cockburn and his cronies aren't conspiracy theorists, but they aren't exactly fans of anyone in the Democratic Party, either.

As always, consider the source.

[Toucano]

17. Helpful link

http://theclarksphere.com/

This link helps un-spin the some of the confusion. Or re-spin, depending on your perspective.

At least "concern" is better than "Suddenly!...nervous..."

I don't think a large percentage of Clark's support comes from Lieberman supporters. It isn't the case for me, I assure you.

Cheers!

[Bertrand]

21. The novelty hasnt worn off

as you can see by the nearly 2-1 lead he has over Dean nationally.

The "New Democrats" (neo-cons) are as much masters at the perception management (lying) game as their GOP

The author claims to charge the New Democrats as Neoconservatives but he doesnt even make a case as to why he believes they are, but then again i would expect him to because he couldnt. The DLC is, while very centrist, for fiscal responsibility, balanced budgets and the maintenance of the current social safety net (even improving it) while the NeoCons believe in gross spending to finance their adventures abroad while eliminating the govts role in financing HealthCare, Social Security, etc. The NeoCons believe in a unilateral blunt foreign policy to increase American hegemony while the DLC believes in a multilateral approach to world problems instead of "preventative" war. The main critique you can make of the DLC is that they were cowardly in their abdication of being the opposition to the Bush Doctrine.

According to Pentagon insiders, when Clark was Commander of the US Southern Command in Panama from June 1996 to July 1997, he was fond of "ordering" Latin American military commanders and defense ministers to appear before him. Some of the Latin American officials, particularly those from Brazil, Argentina, and Chile, refused to be bullied by Clark, whose personality is said to be acerbic. From his pro-consul position in Panama, Clark supported with US military advisers and American mercenaries, continued warfare against anti-oligarchic movements in Colombia, Peru, Guatemala, Mexico, and Bolivia.

He, the editorialist, sources unnamed "pentagon insiders" as if that validates what he says. Also, while Clark was the South American "Proconsul" when he was a 3 star, he didnt have the power to change pentagon doctrine but to carry it out. His actions, incidentally, are supported by Howard Dean, John Kerry, and all of the other centrists. The Democratic Party is far from perfect, but then again moral absolutism and political rigidity are why the chomskyite left are marginalized from the political process.

he almost got into a shooting war with Russian peacekeeping troops in Kosovo. It was only the intervention of the British government, Defense Secretary William Cohen, and Joint Chiefs Chairman General Hugh Shelton that prevented Clark from starting World War III. When Clark ordered British Lt. Gen. Michael Jackson to forcibly block Kosovo's Pristina Airport to prevent Russian planes from landing, the Briton replied, "Sir, Ia*TMm not starting World War III for you.a** Jackson was backed up all the way to Number 10 Downing Street. Clark was forced to back down. Eventually, Cohen fired Clark as NATO commander three months before his term was to expire.

The writer fails to mention that Washington issued the order to block the Pristina airport, and when rejected by Jackson, Washington backed down from persuading Britain to lift their block of the order and told Clark to stand down. He also insinuates that Clark was fired because of the Pristina incident because he was reckless, failing to mention the internal conflicts Clark was having with Shelton and Cohen over how the war was managed, etc.

"Clark was well aware of and likely supported the arming of the Bosnian government by accepting contributions from various deep-pocketed Muslim countries..."

The writer is knowingly speculating about Clarks involvement in the BDF. He has no proof, yet condemns clark through his built-up argument. The rest of the article is hyperbole.

Whats funny is that i used to read counterpunch a few years back until i started learning about how to structure arguments, and they are probably one of the worst e-zines in abuse of fallacies. If youre into libertarian-socialist thinking, read Kropotkin, Bakunin, Goldman, etc. because they offer a better critique of the global issues of where society has progressed than some e-zine guy that doesnt even understand how to formulate an informed opinion - and they lived 100 years ago.

[RobertFrancisK]

22. Look through the republican spin

"But now I am getting concerned by his links to the very same political establishment that got us into this mess. In fact, I believe that Clark was put up by the DLC in order to hedge their bets against the political outsider (Dean)."

Limbaugh, Bennet, Novak and the whole crew are trying to convinve everyone that Clark is a Clinton/DLC puppet and he's running because they brought him in as their man. The truth is that the draft movement started in April by two guys who had no big political connections and had never talked to Clinton or any dem bigwigs in their lives, they just thought Clark was the man for the job. Clinton may be jumping on the bandwagon, but they have to enentually. If anything, Clark is using the Clinton/DLC connection to help him get to the finish line, but the start came from grass-root internet organizers. His running is a triumph of democracy, and I wish the right would realize that, and the Limbaugh liberals at Counterpunch would too.