SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Mannie who wrote (25845)8/20/2003 12:23:09 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
<<...Ralph Nader, please stay home...>>

I'll 2nd that!

Actually, Nader could help organize a national campaign to get THE TRUTH out about the impact of Bush's environmental policies.



To: Mannie who wrote (25845)8/20/2003 12:42:06 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
THE WESLEY CLARK WEBLOG

_____________________________________

wesleyclark.blogspot.com



To: Mannie who wrote (25845)8/20/2003 1:19:53 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Excerpts from An Open Letter to General Wesley K. Clark:
Why you must run for President

santabarbaraforclark.com

(the full text is available at interrobanger.blog-city.com

[Bush] should remember that when he says "Bring 'em on!" he remains safely ensconced in well-appointed, well-defended, comfortably air-conditioned offices and limos; that he makes his proclamations from behind stately podiums on manicured lawns far from the violence he so blithely invites. Meanwhile the American and British men and women in Iraq swelter and suffer in an unforgiving desert, far from home and family among an enemy who would gladly see them dead. When the bullets and rockets are flying, they ultimately stand alone. For this they are worthy of our respect and admiration. They do what they do so we do not have to or, more likely, because we cannot. They fight, they die; they witness horrors the likes of which myself and President Bush cannot conceive in any immediate, personal way. I never joined up; he skipped out. "Bring 'em on!" is easy for people like Mr. Bush and myself. The difference is, I wouldn't dare. I acknowledge that I haven't earned the right.

You joined up, though, and you didn't skip out. You fought and you bled and you suffered. You were physically shattered by war, but never broken in any place that mattered. You not only walked again when lesser men would have contented themselves with a comfortable chair and sedentary life, you refuse to this day even to limp. You shame me, and had Mr. Bush a shred of humility you would shame him as well. Had he a shred of humility then as soon as you placed your name on the ballot he'd bow out gracefully and offer you his full support. If he is, as he desperately wants us to believe, a true patriot, and if he sincerely wants what is best for this country, he could do no less.

In his autobiography (My American Journey), Colin Powell wrote: "I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed ... managed to wrangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units." Ask Mr. Bush one day, General, where he was while you were teaching yourself to walk again. Ask Mr. Bush where he was and what he was doing while you bled into foreign soil for your country. Mr. Powell went on to write: "Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and owe equal allegiance to their country." Ask Mr. Bush what drugs for what reasons he was taking while you were pumped full of painkillers and antibiotics, while you endured endless hours of excruciating physical therapy. Ask him, General, where he was and what he was doing when you were out there fighting for his life and his freedom.

Ask him these questions and do not stop asking until he is forced to answer. Demand details and documentation. If he equivocates, as he is wont to do ("When I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible."), call him on the cop-out and ask again. Do this, General, and the Presidency is yours. Do this because the American people deserve a President who need not be asked such things. Failing that, the American people deserve a President who can face down tough questions without flinching and provide plain answers without blinking. The American people, when faced with imminent danger, deserve a President who can step forward proudly from a position of strength to show the world what the true face of a united America looks like; who can summon the moral authority to do what must be done.

I, like most people, am none of those things. My life and my choices would not survive such questions and scrutiny unscathed. There are few people fit and able to lead others and I accept that I am not among their number. Mr. Bush would have done this nation a great service had he been able long ago to acknowledge as much about himself rather than live as he does, apparently believing greatness rests not in who you are but in who you know and who you can fool.

You, General, are intimately acquainted with the demands and expectations of the real world. You know war and I'd wager it is no friend of yours. I cannot believe you would ever hunger for or wage war with anything like the smiling, confident, "I'm sleeping just fine, thanks" "Bring 'em on!" manner affected by Mr. Bush. I'd wager you'd never demean the contribution these men and women make for us by demanding their sacrifice based on self-serving lies, self-aggrandizing showmanship and easy, schoolboy tough-talk.

Would you, General, ever look out across troops under your command and for whom you are ultimately responsible, and invite -- dare! -- the enemy to do its worst? Would any responsible commander? His spin doctors claim he mis-spoke. He seems to do so with disheartening regularity. We could trust in the fact that you would be honor-bound to acknowledge the truth and, if need be, 'take your medicine' rather than work to spin and subvert it in order to save face. One doubts you rose to the rank of general or earned your battle scars and decorations by shirking responsibility or shunning accountability.

Our troops (and their British counterparts) are powerful, brave, and honorable. They deserve a commander who can truly appreciate what they represent. The contributions they make shame those of us sitting safely in front of our televisions at home. For us the war is dismissed with the wave of a remote control. For them it is constant and inescapable. They are few among a distrusting and hostile many. They are rapidly tiring and replacements are hard to come by. Mr. Bush would do well to remember that as he thumbs his nose at the world. Where are our allies? Why aren't they at our side this time out?

Had it been you who led us into this war, General, I believe our allies would stand with us this time, too. Had the case for removing Saddam been competently and honestly presented to the world, had the war plans consisted of more than empty promises and pipe dreams of smiling Iraqis and warm receptions, our troops and the people of Iraq would not be suffering as they are now.

Yet, in the present reality, Mr. Bush seems unaware anything is amiss. The man gives every appearance of laboring under the assumption that America, its interests, and the President himself are inviolable. He professes a great faith in the teachings of the Bible but seems not to remember what famous Proverbial transgression 'goeth before the fall.'

Do something to stop this insanity, sir. Bring our country back to us before it is turned into something we no longer recognize.

When a monster such as Saddam Hussein can release a tape from some dank hidey-hole naming as liars the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Great Britain and I find myself forced to agree in however small a measure, something is wrong. When an action as just as removing Saddam from power is called into question and sullied before the world because our leaders felt the need to lie to us to get it done, something is wrong.

When a man speaks to the press not because he seeks the limelight -- quite the opposite! -- but because his conscience demands it of him, and he is villified for shining a light on the truth, something is wrong. When a reporter interviews our troops and shows us the sad, un-vetted truth of a group of young men pushed too hard for too long in intolerable conditions, only to have the White House itself make a pitifully transparent attempt to smear that reporter (not just gay, but Canadian, too!), something is wrong. When a dark-haired, bearded young college student is seen reading an article (the aptly titled "Weapons Of Mass Stupidity," largely a criticism of Fox News) and subsequently finds himself chatting with two "well-meaning" FBI agents about his choice of reading material, something is wrong. When my fingers hesitate on the keyboard owing to a legitimate fear that my words might invite a knock at the door from those same "well-meaning" visitors, something is wrong.

But the damage is not irreparable.

You have spent your life working to better this country. Take the next logical step. You owe it to the country you have sworn to serve and to yourself, so that all you have spent your life fighting for will have meant something. Rally the American people, General. Wake the sleeping giant to the necessity of its own defense before it is too late. Do not give Bush and his cabal another four disastrous years to have their way with this country.

Before I close, I'd just like to mention that before 9/11 I had not a political bone in my body. I'm not an activist, I'm just a regular guy: no fancy job, no formal education; no money, no power, no influence; no significance beyond these few words and whatever power they may have to sway your decision in a positive direction. As best I can recall, this is only the second letter I've ever written to a politician (though you technically aren't one -- yet).

Like many Americans, I always took the workings of the government for granted. I guess subconsciously I felt such things were beyond my ken. I was failing my country, though I did not know it. As Abbie Hoffman said, "Democracy is not something you believe in or a place to hang your hat, but it's something you do. You participate. If you stop doing it, democracy crumbles." What did it take to wake me up? I'll let President Lincoln answer for me: "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." The words, spoken long ago and heard in the context of the present, ring with prescience. America deserves a President capable of handling both adversity and the awesome power and influence of the office with dignity and integrity.

Of all those with an eye toward the Democratic nomination you are the one who can make it happen. You are presented now with an opportunity to once again do a great service for your country. Please, General, do not let it pass you -- all of us -- by. Remember as you read these words that I write to you today not because writing things like this is just something I do, but because I care.



To: Mannie who wrote (25845)8/20/2003 1:25:55 PM
From: elpolvo  Read Replies (5) | Respond to of 89467
 
entreprenuscoot-

I think strong military experience at the top is necessary for a win for the Democrats.

i can see how you're drawn to that thought but...

i disagree.

if all you have is a hammer, all your problems
begin to look like nails.

that's the mindset that got us where we are now.
i'm not saying clark would lean toward military
solutions quickly but just the fact that he is
a general and that the overwhelming majority of his
lifetime training and experience has been in the
military field would tend to make americans look for
military solutions to problems that should be
addressed and solved in other ways.

it'a a sad day when we think that it takes a soldier
for the democrats to win when what the country really
needs to fix the ills that the current administration
has infected us with is a healer, a budget maker, an
entrepreneur, a teacher, and a humanitarian who also
loves the planet. (it sounds like a committee more than
an individual, eh?)

we need a team like you and yen.

JMO

-polvo



To: Mannie who wrote (25845)8/20/2003 1:57:14 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Wesley Clark: The best candidate not running

By Bob Ray Sanders

Fort Worth Star-Telegram Staff Writer

A calm, confident voice coming from the television set last Sunday morning so caught my attention that I put the newspaper down on the kitchen counter, grabbed my cup of coffee and quickly sat down in the den to listen to a man who was actually making sense on the issues.

It did not take me long to realize that he was the one -- not the messiah necessarily, but the one who would make an attractive, more-than-credible candidate to challenge President Bush in the 2000 election.

He was not one of the nine declared Democratic presidential candidates.

And although he acknowledged having been encouraged to seek the nation's highest office, he said he had not made that decision yet and he had not even chosen a political party.

Perhaps so, but the more he talked, the more it was clear that if he ran at all, he would have to run as a Democrat.

You see, during the interview he basically declared that third-party candidacies are ineffective, and his stand on the issues seemed diametrically opposed to the current administration's (and the Republican Party's) views.

Here was a nonpolitician speaking with a rare clarity that is certainly hard to find in most elected officials on any level.

Fielding pointed questions from moderator Tim Russert of NBC's Meet the Press, retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark spoke freely and forcefully, clearly yet untarnished by political handlers, strategists and speechwriters.

Remember the name: Wesley K. Clark.

How refreshing it was to hear more than the usual blah, blah, blah and hubba, hubba, hubba say-nothing rhetoric that has become the official language of Washington officialdom and political campaigns.

Make a mental note, as I did Sunday morning: Wesley K. Clark. A retired general.

I wish I had been taking notes with a pad and pen, but when I thought back, there was really no need. He was so articulate that I heard him, understood him and remembered what he said.

He did not engage in Bush-bashing or Congress-chiding. And, except for refusing to declare his candidacy or party affiliation, he did not skirt the issues.

Clark, who was forced out as the supreme allied commander in Europe, said that although he thought Iraq probably had some kind of weapons program, the Bush administration never proved the imminence of an Iraqi threat.

He also firmly opposed the huge Bush tax cuts, saying they would not stimulate the economy and basically favored the wealthiest of Americans.

The retired general also explained why he had filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the University of Michigan's affirmative-action plan, noting that affirmative action in the military had served the nation well.

It is pretty obvious that there are those who fear Clark's possible entry into the presidential race. Just since the Sunday-morning program, when I began searching the Internet for information on him, there have been more than a few new Web sites trying to discredit him.

That's a very good sign.

Clark, who grew up in Little Rock, Ark., has ties to Texas, having served as commander of the 1st Cavalry Division at Fort Hood.

Among his numerous military assignments and accomplishments, he commanded a company in Vietnam.

According to the NATO Web site, "General Clark is a 1966 graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, where he graduated first in his class. He holds a master's degree in philosophy, politics and economics from Oxford University where he studied as a Rhodes Scholar (August 1966-August 1968). He is a graduate of the National War College, Command and General Staff College, Armor Officer Advanced and Basic Courses, and Ranger and Airborne schools."

In addition, he has been a White House Fellow and a special assistant to the director of the Office of Management and Budget and has served as assistant professor of social science at West Point.

He looks like a man of high credentials to me.

Certainly there are other candidates with the qualifications to be president, but of the nine announced Democratic contenders, only two -- and I won't name them -- have any hope of capturing the nomination, and neither of them has a chance of winning without Clark (or someone very much like him) on the ticket.

So the way I see it right now, whether he's at the top or the bottom of the ticket, the Democrats don't stand a chance without Clark as a candidate.

santabarbaraforclark.com