The hypocrasy of the military argument regarding Clark

[funky_bug]

I'm going to open this issue for response, as I have grown tired of posting it as a response on numerous threads, only to have my question disregarded.

Many critics of Clark note the fact that his military career discredits him. They use words such as "untrustworthy", and claim that a life-long committment to the military makes him unethically qualified to run for president.

And yet, my fellow democrats, we have spent the last four years referring to Bush as a draft dodger.

Am I the only one that recognizes the hypocrasy of this particular criticism of Wesley Clark? As a supporter, I am happy to address the fears, concerns and criticisms of my candidate. However in this, I find there is simply no debate to be had. If it's "bad" to be a draft dodger, then why is it "bad" to be in the military?

[wtmusic]

1. No one's saying it's bad to be in the military

But as a lifelong military man, Wes is very close to the organization that spends the bulk of your income taxes.

Some would see that as a conflict of interest.

[funky_bug]

5. I hate to argue your point

But without being obnoxiously obvious, I could link several responses on this board, stating that Clark being in the military is a discredit to his ability to lead this country.

And given the current state of affairs in Iraq, and a post 9/11 atmosphere, that complex will be spending a significant amount of my tax dollars regardless of who is running my country.

[wtmusic]

8. I don't mind at all arguing your point

There have been many military men who have made excellent presidents. George Washington, to start.

Your post assumes that post/9-11 we need to pursue military options to deal with terrorism. IMO exactly the opposite is true.

[funky_bug]

11. Not military options

but security options. I believe (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that a great number of our service men and women are stationed in our country and carry out orders to protect our homeland. Certainly you don't suggest we decrease our national security efforts on our own soil?

[wtmusic]

20. You're blurring the line between the military

and homeland security.

Of course we need security. As Dean is fond of pointing out, 98% of cargo containers coming into this country go uninspected. Significant amounts of the former Soviet Union's uranium stockpile are unaccounted for. While our military is busy killing Iraqis, there is a real danger of someone slipping a nuke in via a cargo container and wiping out a major US city.

This would be an FBI responsibility, not a military one. And there are umpteen billions of dollars that the military and defense contractors depend upon to keep jobs and economies in place.

Putting a lifelong military man in charge of those decisions makes me nervous. IMO there is less of an impetus to pursue non-military options when foreign conflicts arise.

That said--If we're going to have a military president Wes is the man.

[Clark4Prez]

22. Military President

I appreciate your response, it was respectful and to the point.

That said, Clark's experience both with the military and with the ugly reality of war (something that Chimpy has little of the former and none of the latter) gives him both a perspective and a healthy respect for the war option.

Of all the major candidates only DK can be called "anti-war". Dean, for example, opposed the war, not on ideological grounds, but pragmatic ones. Wrong war at the wrong time. Clark's position on Iraq is similar, it should have been a last response, and we should have a international position, and Bin Laden should be the focus.

Although it would be inaccurate to call Clark "anti-war", it would be accurate to call him "anti-war as first response".

Yes, he has military background and perspective, but he also took part in the Dayton Peace Accords, which is diplomatic. In short, he can take on Bush on national security without moving to the right, with all war all the time, like Bush.

[wtmusic]

27. Well taken

and your post has spurred me to check out Wes' site for his positions, which I admit I should know more about.

[funky_bug]

24. Please correct me if I misspeak

But I am under the impression that while it would be the FBI and CIA's responsibility, most of those gentleman have eleveted to a position which no longer requires getting their hands dirty. Who then, would be responsible for the grunt work? Would it not be our men and women in uniform?

And perhaps, this is veering off topic, and we could continue via private messanger?

Respectfully,
Robin

[wtmusic]

26. The military (except for the Coast Guard and National Guard)

are prevented from enforcing laws domestically by an act known as Posse Comitatus, which dates back to the Reconstruction era.

[funky_bug]

29. I thank you for your response

I was unaware of Posse Comitatus, and its bearing on military involvement with domestic affairs. I mistakenly assumed that because uniformed military are charged with the responsibility of guarding institutions and borders, that they were alloted the freedom to act as enforcement agents.
This does, however bring up the issue with the Patriot Act, and how under that, military agents may be given more liberties in the actual enforcement. I do not have a position as to whether that is justifiable or not, and I will certainly do my research before I engage in any further debate on this particular branch of my topic.

Respectfully,
Robin

[wtmusic]

32. Funny you should bring up PATRIOT...

there is quite a bit of argument to suggest it violates Posse Comitatus and parts of the existing Military Code as well.

Maybe Clark would be an asset in getting all that stuff sorted out.

[funky_bug]

33. I believe he will

He has spoken against Patriot on the grounds that it was so rapidly shoved through congress that it needs to be revisted immediately, and revised to protect our civil rights. I do believe his background will give him considerable insight into this issue.

While this was not the intention of my original post, I am certainly glad it went in this direction. Education is a beautiful thing!

[bearfartinthewoods]

50. blurring the line between the military and homeland security.

i think that's exactly what is wrong with the clark campaign.

using DU as a template, the very first talk about clark was about his military status and how that in itself, would knock out bush. what foolishness.

it's not about the man ..it's about a plan. when swing voters doubt the dem's ability to handle security those doubts can be better served by offering concrete solutions than a sweater full of medals.

even for those who base their 'comfort level" on the superficial, clark is hardly the john wayne image of reagan. diminutive and quick with the hot headed retorts such as his superman vow to protect us from terror attacks, clark hardly inspires confidence.

people want a man or woman who is steady enough for them to invest their confidence in concerning all affairs of this nation. ham handed handling of the economy can bring us to our knees as quickly as foreign threats. clark has shown nothing of that trait so far.

[pinkpops]

28. not so much that a military man is needed

Wes Clark provides a shield against those who would claim that a Democratic president cannot be a good "wartime" president. The main problems this country faces are domestic and diplomatic. The current occupant of the White House has used 9/11 as a ruse to take us down the wrong path, and he has used his role as commander in chief to do it. Wes Clark can face him off in the militaristic realm, take us back to the world community.

[Leilani]

19. I just replied to criticisms of the military on another thread

How they are liars, untrustworthy, etc.

I'm really tired of it.

The Republicans always say the Dems hate the military; from what I've seen here it is true of many people. And why should the military vote for Dems if they hate them.

[Dookus]

2. Good point...

people forget that it's a cabal of chickenhawks who have been behind the warlike stance of the current administration.

There's no reason to believe that lifelong civilians are any better on this issue than Clark would be.

[Terwilliger]

3. Bush tries to use his military status to impress people

(he would fail miserabley if the press asked him any questions)

you're asking me to be impressed with Clark's military status...THERE's the problem

Clark needs to sell me on what he plans to do as a civilian and civilian leader of the country, not just have people tell me he's wonderful because he's a good warrior.

You can trust Clark. More power to ya. But that doesn't mean we all have to.

[funky_bug]

7. I never asked you to

trust Clark BECAUSE of his military status. In fact, I don't recall ever asking you to trust him at all. My post was in regards to a hypocritical argument I have seen posted time and time again. You did not address the question, but attempted to steer this thread off topic.

[Terwilliger]

10. I did address the question

You just said its hypocritical to attack Clark when we're constantly harping on Bush for his lack of credibility in that department.



Sooooooooo....you're saying we should recognize Clark's military credibility and not criticize him for having some that we criticize Bush for not having.

Well, I recognize his military credibility. I'm saying it doesn't translate into his worthiness as president.

OnEdit: and I will criticize Bush all day because he USES his credibility (that which he shouldn't have any of) as a reason for people to assume he's better in the job because of it

[funky_bug]

13. Again, I believe you have missed my point entirely

I simply stated in question that an attack on Bush's lack of participation does not translate well into an attack on Clark's doing just the opposite.

Again, I reiterate, I do not believe Clark's history of service qualifies him to be a leader. My belief in him is founded in much more substantial issues.

[Paragon]

4. Finally, someone's making an issue of Clark's military service!

Oh wait, that's his only issue. :eyes:

[Democrats unite]

6. They fear Clark & Loathe Clark for one reason & one reason only...

He's going to make Dean eat his dust! If the things people were saying about Clark were even close to being true, Clark would not be where he is right now. Clark is a good & honest man, people that try to make him a war monger or a Republican only envy him. Let them rant & rave, we know alnog with the majority of Americans where he stands on the issues, All you have to do is open your eyes & read what his issues are. That would be to simple for some people to do.

[wiley]

18. Good Point Democrats Unite!

Well said. There are a lots of us ex-military who never joined to kill people, or who subscribe to the misuse of both enlisted and guards as political pawns. Wesley Clark is an example of a military leader who did us proud, and saved a lot of innocent civilians from murder. Bush Republicans hate him for that, since it highlights the horrors of their ways.


:beer:

[NV1962]

9. I think it speaks to anti-military sentiments

I can understand resentment and aversion against the military in general, certainly resentment and aversion against the MIC, and most certainly neoimperialists who want to spread the Pax Americana by force.

But when that resentment and aversion is applied without much circumspection to individuals such as Wes Clark, only or mostly because he's a career military, that attitude becomes partisan blindness.

If one really has a problem with dangerous agendas such as the PNAC's militarization of US politics, Wes Clark can't be dismissed as a key ally in the battle to keep military under civilian control, and with public accountability of those deciding policy.

In my view, to do otherwise is submission to the status quo.

[stopbush]

12. Your premise is a non-sequitor.

Bush's draft-dodging has nothing to do with Clark's military career and vice versa. It's a matter of honesty and what one does with their life. Otherwise, we should prefer a military man who practiced genocide over a draft dodger who helped little old ladies across the street based solely on their military record.

If bush was a benign entity, his draft dodging wouldn't be an issue for anyone. It's only an issue when put in perspective of his entire life and career. Clinton's alleged "draft dodging" wasn't a problem for those who supported him, but it gave fuel to the fire of those who hated him.

I think you probably have an interesting topic for discussion here, but I think you've framed it incorrectly.

[funky_bug]

15. Perhaps I did

and yet that is my personal take on it. However, I must note, that within your response, I believe I have found my answer. You said,

"Clinton's alleged "draft dodging" wasn't a problem for those who supported him, but it gave fuel to the fire of those who hated him."

And so it seems to be the same fuel for those who are not fond of the general.

[stopbush]

23. You said, "And so it seems to be the same fuel

for those who are not fond of the general."

No, that assumes a negative. That's different from not seeing something as a positive...or a negative, for that matter.

To some, a military backround is a positive; to some, a negative; and to some, a neutral. My "Clinton" response was given in context of the draft-dodging aspect of your original post. That doesn't validate applying said answer to a different set of circumstances.

[funky_bug]

30. Quite possibly so

and perhaps I was applying your example to what I believe to be part of the issue with Clark's military background.

I believe, sincerely, that those who have resigned themselves to oppose any candidate (and I mean 'any') will look for the "ah HA" to substantiate their position. For those who seem opposed to Dean, it is his "gaffes" or his deferment. For Kerry, it is the IWR, for Edwards, the "ambulance chasing"... and yet each of our wonderful candidates have worthy positions and platforms, which should be the focus of our passions.

[stopbush]

35. Personally, I will vote for Clark will he get the nomination.

But I would feel much more comfortable doing so if he had proved himself in a civilian position, as has veteran John Kerry.

As I stated in another thread, I have a healthy distrust of military careerists. That doesn't mean a careerist like Clark is off my list by any means, just that I'd feel more comfortable if his resume was fleshed out with a few non-military items for my consideration.

Those of us who have voted for Carter and other veterans obviously do not hold a military record against them. Neither do we base our decisions solely on such service.

In other words, I'm not losing any sleep over it.

[MoonRiver]

14. Absolutely correct!

If Dems are going to be criticizing * and his neocon cronies for being chickenhawk phonies, how dare these critics attack the General on his stellar military career, during which, btw, he saved untold numbers of Muslims from genocide.

[funky_bug]

16. 1.5 million to be precise. n/t

[MoonRiver]

21. Thanks for that number.

If we'd had a General Clark looking after things early on during WWII many Jews might have been saved.

[MasonJar]

17. Clark and the military.

We have so many wonderful men (now) running to represent us as President; just because we like one better than the other right now does not mean that he is the only choice. Therefore, we need to try General Clark's lead and concentrate on the real evildoer, GWB. The man is a real loser, pretending to be a soldier and really an AWOL. It does not matter which of our guys went to the Vietnam War; it was a miserable mistake just like Iraq. All of our candidates are educated, intelligent, hard-working, environmentally conscious citizens. I cannot wait to take on whistleass.

[DjTj]

25. It's spelled "hypocrisy"

I've seen hypocrasy, hypocracy, hipocrasy, ...

H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y

...and yes, people are hypocritical if they criticize Clark for being in military while criticizing Bush for being a draft dodger. However, I think those are usually two different groups of people on DU...

[funky_bug]

31. Duly noted

and yet too late to edit. Humbly submit to your superior spelling skills.

:toast:

[The Magistrate]

34. There Is A Great Over-Lap Between the Two Groups, Mr. Tj

And it is a sort of hypocrisy.

It is also rather foolish to take a position of blanket opposition to military action, or to military persons. The chief sigil of sovereignty is the maintainance of a monopoly on use of violence for political ends, and so long as that remains the case, no political trend that the people see as unwilling to use force, or naive about its use, and likely to be incomptent in its use, will ever be entrusted with power by the people.

[meow mix]

36. your right, its another form of bigotry a few ppl express

i think its pretty sick.

as for the so called "conflict of interest"
clark has repeadtedly and vehemently said he will cut pentagon spending.
how would this cutting figure into a conflict of intrest conspiracy?

i take him at his word, with confidence.

[Shanty Oilish]

37. It's 'bad' to be nothing else but.

That's all he is, a general. When I think of men coming out of military left field to lead a nation, I don't think Cincinnatus. I think Peron, Franco, Castro, Mao, Khadaffi, Saddam, ad infinitum. Military stars lend them a certain charisma. Then they try to govern. They give orders rather than give and take. "What I say, period!" They draw on a lifetime of military solutions and authoritarianism.

This is America. No doubt that slows a general down. I don't want a slowed-down general at the helm.

All we know about General Clark is his military career. That's all he has, all he is. I don't even believe he's a Dem, much less a Cincinnatus. Why doesn't he run for Congress? Governorship of Arkansas? Why march to the head of the line like that? For all we know he has the political skills of a (self-deleted). We know nothing of his qualifications to be president.

He is a raw recruit in politics. Slap a D on him and rush him to the front lines of presidential politics, and let's be led.

Not so fast!

[Shanty Oilish]

38. PS---the IWR

No proving it either way but I believe what Clark said when he said he probably would have voted for it. Not that that's a bad thing. Prevaricating on the issue, though...that's bad.

[Clark4Prez]

39. A history lesson

There are serious problems with your theory about American Generals that become president. You said:

"When I think of men coming out of military left field to lead a nation, I don't think Cincinnatus. I think Peron, Franco, Castro, Mao, Khadaffi, Saddam, ad infinitum."

Let me introduce you to democratically elected Generals that have lead America: General George Washington, General Andrew Jackson, General Ulysses S. Grant, brigadier general James A. Garfield, major general Rutherford B. Hayes, General Zachary Taylor.

While each of them had different amounts of time served as president, short and long. And with varying degrees of success, none of them were "Peron, Franco, Castro, Mao, Qaddafi, Saddam". Brushing Clark with such a broad stroke is both illogical and shows a lack of knowledge about American history.

[funky_bug]

40. Kick for a bit of schooling n/t

[Shanty Oilish]

41. LOL

I don't lack knowledge about history, my friend. I'm well aware of the military background of the former presidents. Nevertheless when I think of military men coming to save the day politically, I think of the fiascos. Clark is too good a soldier and too little anything else. Illogical? Please. He gives us no reason whatsoever to trust him. No record of political achievement, and he wants to be president. No membership in the Democratic party until he sought the presidency.
As candidates go I'm looking for a long-time Dem who's been elected to some office before now. Not a pig in a poke. Particularly not one with exclusively military credits.
You might check the histories of those presidents a bit more deeply, too. :)

[funky_bug]

42. Record not withstanding

They are certainly not, "Peron, Franco, Castro, Mao, Khaddafi, Saddam", or did you mean for us to make inferences to "ad infinitum?"

I'll assume, since you say you are aware of these generals, that you withheld their names to better suit your position.

If you have misgivings toward Clark based on his military experience, or lack of political experience, it is certainly your prerogative. However, lumping him into a category of brutal leaders is simply an attempt at slander, and not particulary one I'm worried most people will buy into.

[Shanty Oilish]

44. I have presented my answer to the opening post

Sorry you don't like it. I repeat: when I think of military leaders stepping forward to lead the nation I think of the disasters, and those would include TOO many to name, but I gave the most familiar ones. I don't believe Clark would do quite as poorly as Mao, if you need to hear that.
If he were to do as poorly as U.S. Grant, whose presidency was a directionless fiasco, I would not be surprised. If he is as ham-fisted a hero as Taylor, who owned slaves and advocated slaughtering secessionists like spies, or Jackson who heartily invaded Florida, incurred congressional censure and entrenched the spoils system---well, I have not been the one to compare him to these marvelous presidents. Nor would I put him in a class with Washington for obvious reasons. Mr. Garfield had a long and very respectable career in Congress, so we can't put him in that class either. In all I don't think one can appropriately compare Wesley Clark to past presidents with military background, at least not if one supports his candidacy. Since I don't, I am willing to add Grant, Taylor and Jackson to my list, if it pleases you to round it out with some American disappointments.
If only he'd run for governor and rack up some credentials first, I'd take him seriously. Seems presumptuous not to; to say the least. But that's just MHO. :)

[bearfartinthewoods]

49. gee...i just assumed someone looking for generals who ruled

in modern times which seems to be a more likely comparison than your buggy whip list. isn't that something to consider? why are there so few generals elected in free democracies now. my history is weak. perhaps you could provide such a list based on a time frame more recent that the second world war even. i keep thinking of isreals military leaders but there must be others?

[bearfartinthewoods]

48. it's a much different world we live in today

much more complex, much more deadly and fast paced. the military is also much different or at least i'd think it would have to be changed as well.

i'd be interested in seeing the workings and successes of the prezes you listed in working with their congresses as that is one of the fears i hold most. we will be in the minority again. this will be too close of an election for there to be coatails. to bring in a man with ho knowledge and no experience in the tiny twin kingdoms that is congress seems foolhardy to me.

[k_blagburn]

45. If Gen. Clark is not qualified to be President, I don't know who is.

Eisenhower was a career military man yet he had the forethought and wisdom to warn the country of an huge military industrial complex. Those who have fought wars are the last ones to start wars. Those who have never fought are the first to use military force.

During his time in the military, he worked tirelessly to improve health care, education, and housing for the military families under his watch. He was directly responsible for the welfare and well being of those under his command. He was responsible for more people than most mayors.

As far as political skills go, you do not rise to the rank of 4 star knowing nothing of politics. The whole upper echelon of the military is nothing if not political.

He has more diplomatic experience than most of the men who have become president before they assumed the office. Look at his work at holding together the coalition in Bosnia and Kosovo. As Supreme Allied Commander he had to meet endlessly with foreign dignitaries.
He helped to forge the Dayton Peace Accord.

"When I think of men coming out of military left field to lead a nation" I think of Washington, Jackson and Eisenhower.

There are more military solutions that are political and diplomatic than bombing.

You say "That's all he is, a general" but what you fail to realize is that before one can be an effective leader one must learn to follow.
Gen Clark was taking orders much longer than he was giving them.

"Why doesn't he run for Congress? Governorship of Arkansas". Gen Clark has accomplished more and helped more ppl during his military career than most congressmen or governors have dreamed of. He saw first hand how policy sent from the top affected the average person under his command as well as the broad scope of implementing the policy as a whole.

If Gen. Clark is not qualified to be President, I don't know who is.

[Shanty Oilish]

46. Thank you!

We remain in disagreement but your response is eloquent. I'd like to be wrong about him.

[k_blagburn]

51. I appreciate your kind and courteous remarks.

I would be open to any insight I may be able to provide on Gen Clark.
Or any issues. I would simply encourage you to look at the whole picture, including all the candidates. I am confident you will make an informed decision.

:kick:

[arewethereyet]

43. the problem is that it is one dimentional and somewhat unrelated

not that it is bad.

if her had been in the military, retired and run for governor and won, then he gains dimention. If he had even worked outside the MIC upon retiring that would help but he didn't.

its a question of limited perspective.

[LoneStarDem]

47. Well

I think that we are going to have to agree that each candidate bring different qualifications to the office, all of which are relevant, but that none of them will bring all qualities. This is like saying that Dean is one dimensional because he has never had to deal with foreign policy or diplomacy, or the military nature of the role of the CIC. And both Dean and Clark have a leg up on the other competitors in terms of their experience as executives.