Who would you rather have in the White House making U.S. policy?

[genius]

[Grey]

1. or,perhaps, Wesley Clark. n/t

[1932]

9. Do you think Wesley Clark approves of Chavez?

[Jane Austin]

11. Wesley Clark would find a way to work with the leader

of a major trading partner such as Chavez.

Wouldn't matter whether he approved or disapproved.

Clark strikes me as a bridge builder; not a bridge burner.

[1932]

12. Interesting.

At the very least, I'd think that his support for the School of the Americas, his NED board membership, and his belief that the Panama invasion was a legitimate use of America force to protect vital US interests (according to a WashingtonPost online chat last year, and, IMS, his last book) would, at the very least, make it hard to give him the benefit of the doubt.

I'd love to hear him talk about what he thinks of Chavez and Venezuela and what he thinks should happen there and what the US should do about it.

As I occassionally say about Clark, he could be right about geopolitical strategy and I could be very wrong. The important thing, I think, is that we all have the fullest possible debate about these issues, and I don't think we should be making inferences about how a President Clark would treat Hugo Chavez based on slight evidence (which includes mine as well as yours). So if someone's going to invoke him in a discussion about Chavez, it'd be nice to know what he actually thinks about Chavez rather than act as if invoking his name is a panacea to the insanity of empire the American right wing's conflict with Venezuela reveals.

[Totally Committed]

16. For someone who claims to read as much as you do,

you surely do not read what is posted here again and again about Wes and the SOA. Maybe it's just that you hate him so that it's a blind spot for you. Or maybe you are just disingenuous becuase you hate him. I dunno. I don't care, actually.

If you are going to say something like "I'd think that his support for the School of the Americas," while this very passage has been posted on this site a few times already, maybe you ought to put down the books and actually read the posts here about the man you are out to demonize.

Statement of General Wesley Clark on the School of the Americas
(now known as the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation)

I strongly condemn human rights abuses of any kind. Throughout my career, I have fought to protect the fundamental rights of all people and to promote democratic values that empower people to prevent abuses of power and combat them when they occur.

It is unacceptable that some who passed through the School of the Americas (now known as the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation) committed human rights abuses. Those that did should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law - as should all who commit war crimes or crimes against humanity. In order to prevent such abuses from happening in the future, we must promote a policy of engagement and education with friends and allies in the region.

I strongly support the reforms that have been implemented at WHISC and encourage careful vetting of students. I strongly support oversight measures that ensure that antidemocratic principles are not taught at the school. Thanks to the work of human rights campaigners and others, WHISC is constantly improving the way it teaches the Army's values of respect for human rights, for civil institutions, and for dissent.

http://www.clark04.com/issues/soa/

[libhill]

2. Dean -

Dean Dean Dean - he da man!

[sui generis]

3. neither.

I would rather have a fair and decent minded American with American interests, real human values, a great education and life experience, a cheerleader, a real person, someone who can own his mistakes and pick the best course of action, a humble person, a person of laughter and openness and decency and humanity.

I would rather have a person whose heart breaks with every human death in a necessary war, and who is engaged with every human life in a necessary war, than a person with no heart at all who sells the lives of our soldiers and the futures of our children to a war for a lie and then vacations one out of every five working days; a man who lies with impunity, who surrounds himself with sycophants and thieves and liars and con artists, a person of pettiness, and basic meanness and falseness who is so far from what an American should be I would use him as a classroom example in civics of what an adult, much less an American, should NOT be.

[AlGore-08.com]

4. Gore

Humble suggestion: You should have had a third "obviously worst" choice, like "a banana slug" as a control to make sure folks were voting for Chavez and not just voting against Smirk.

[truebrit71]

5. Anyone with a fully-functioning brain would suffice at this point...

..oh, they'd also need morals, ethics and a soul....so that counts out the entire Lt AWOL administration....

[genius]

6. Chavez is offering aid to our country's poor. I want him.

Too bad, foreign leaders can't be President of the United States.

[Don1]

7. Chavez.

Anyone who the right-wing fascists want to assassinate is okay in my book.

[genius]

8. Clearly they consider him a threat to their power.

[WildEyedLiberal]

10. Even Osama bin Laden?

I wouldn't want him to be president.

[Don1]

13. Good point.

Osama bin Laden is not "okay in my book."

However, which is worse? Bush killing 100,000 Iraqi civilians, including 50,000 children, for corporate profit? or the 3,000 deaths from 9-11? Hard to compare the tragedies, isn't it?

[WildEyedLiberal]

14. I don't think one should have to choose between Osama and Bush

As if Osama wouldn't kill 100,000 people if he had the opportunity. He'd instruct his henchmen to drop an H-bomb on NYC if he could get one. Evil is evil, regardless of the scale upon which it is practiced. Bush has many more tools at his disposal and is therefore capable of exercising great evil. This is precisely why I hate him; he has practically unlimited power at his disposal, and he chooses to use it for evil rather than good.

[Brightmore]

15. Neither