The Last Word: Wesley Clark
Since the hand recount in Fraudida was stopped by
Supreme In Just Us in December 2000, we have been on
the wrong time line. We are languishing on the other
side of serious a temporal rift. We are in an
alternate universe. In our world, Gore's victory was
upheld. The economy cooled off a bit, but soon
rebounded. There was no phoney "energy crisis" in
California, and so Silicon Valley recovered quickly
from the downturn. The surplus was not gutted by two
reckless, skewed tax cuts. The Kyoto accords on Global
Warming were not scuttled. The FCC stood up to the
media monopolies and refused to lift the few
restrictions left on corporate control of the news.
The ABM treaty was not torn up. Negotiations with
North Korea were not disrupted, sending the effort to
demilitarize the Korean pennisula into a tail-spin
that yet result in a nuclear exchange. The Middle East
peace process was not allowed to unravel completely
through a cruel, counterproductive policy of "malign
neglect." The 9/11 attacks probably didn't happen
(because Clinton-Gore had already targeted Bin Laden
as the number one threat and had drawn up plans to
finish him off, and they would not have ignored the
numerous, urgent warnings received from friendly
countries and our own investigators), but even if the
9/11 attacks had occured, the response would have been
controlled, focused and limited to Al-Qaeda and its
allies. The noose was tightened around Saddam Hussein,
but no unilateral war was launched against him. We
would not have diverted our resources, our attention,
and our will. We would not have alienated the
international community, we would not have fractured
the Western alliance, we would not have violated the
UN Charter, and 200+ (and counting...) US GIs did not
die in the invasion and occupation of Iraq...So yes,
Ralph Nada was/is wrong (he still has not retracted
his big lie) there is indeed a big difference between
Bush and Gore or any of the other potential Democratic
nominees. Somehow we must close the temporal rift and
restore the timeline...But how? Gore has chosen
(perhaps wisely, perhaps wrongly) not to demand a
rematch. So the grown-ups have to get serious and
choose someone to run and send the _resident home to
Waco. But who? Kerry (D-Mekong Delta), Graham
(D-Fraudida), Dean (D-Jeffords)all count as serious
options. Here is another...for either slot on the
Democratic ticket...Clark's name is already scrawled
on the John O'Neil wall of heroes for brave,
principled statements in recent months, but this
interview with Newsweak and is terrific...
http://www.msnbc.com/news/934709.asp#BODY
The Last Word: Wesley Clark
Marching on Washington?
NEWSWEEK INTERNATIONAL
July 14 issue — For a self-described “nonpolitical”
person, Gen. Wesley K. Clark finds himself in an
unusual position: considering a run for the White
House. Earlier this year, a grass-roots organization
started a campaign to persuade the four-star general
to run in 2004. Clark recently received more than a
thousand letters from supporters in New Hampshire
urging him to run, and last week draftwesleyclark.com
opened its national headquarters in Washington, D.C.
FOR DEMOCRATS LOOKING to take back the Oval
Office, Clark’s resume is a godsend—he spent 34 years
in the military and served as NATO Supreme Allied
Commander and commander in chief of the U.S. European
Command from 1997 to May 2000. Clark has not yet
decided to take the plunge, but his name has got
America buzzing. NEWSWEEK’s Michael Hastings asked for
his views on how Washington is handling its global
role. Excerpts:
HASTINGS: What could you bring to table that
the other candidates haven’t?
CLARK: I’ve never really addressed that issue.
I’m considering this candidacy because a lot of people
have confidence in me and have asked me to consider
it. To me, it’s really about the issues. I saw it
starting to go wrong before the [2000] election. I met
with Condi Rice. She told me she believed that
American troops shouldn’t be keeping the peace—they
were the only ones who could kill people and conquer
countries, and that’s what they should be focused on
doing. What she was telling me [was] that she, as a
potential Republican national-security adviser, didn’t
support our engagement in Europe. So I saw it going
wrong from there. Then, as the administration took
office, I saw more and more what I believed were
misunderstandings and missed opportunities.
Where does the United States go from here in
Iraq?
You have to define what success is, and then
you have to work toward it. I would define it
politically. Put in place some kind of Iraqi
government that [has] some semblance of democracy. The
first thing I’d be doing right now [is] calling
provisional, national, regional and local councils
together from all parties before elections are held. I
would ask for their assistance, their ideas and their
support in producing security in the region first and
guarding the remaining economic infrastructure. I
would lay out to them the limitations of the United
States’ capabilities. I’d try to get the Iraqis
increasingly involved in taking responsibilities. Put
an Iraqi face on all the actions that you can and as
much of the decision making as possible.
Where does the United Nations fit in?
I’ve always felt the United Nations should
have been involved. You need the U.N. for legitimacy,
to get nations to cough up forces. They’re putting the
troops in harm’s way; they want some credit for it
from their electorate. And they’re not going to get
any credit by saying, “Hey, we’re really good friends
with George W. Bush.” It has to be theUnited Nations.
How is Iraq affecting the war on terror?
If you talk to the people on the inside, they
all [say] you can’t do everything at once. I know the
administration says it thinks it can, but the honest
truth is if you’re looking one place, you’re not
looking someplace else. Ultimately, Washington is sort
of a one-crisis town.
What do you think of President Bush’s using
war imagery as a political tool, like when he recently
flew onto an aircraft carrier?
The world expects something more of an
American president than to prance around on a flight
deck dressed up like [a] pilot. He’s expected to be a
leader. That’s my fundamental issue with it. It
doesn’t reflect the gravitas of the office.
Furthermore, it’s a little phony.
Where does military strength fit in concerning
U.S. power?
It’s [a] question of three or four different
things. A strong America is not strong only because of
its military. Our strength comes from a robust,
diverse economy and an engaged citizenry, and values,
and a structure that other nations admire and emulate.
The military is just one component of U.S. power.
What should Washington do to patch things up
with its old allies in Europe?
In my vision of American national policy, we
would seek the strongest possible linkage with Europe.
I see a strong transatlantic alliance as the key
fulcrum for all else America does in the world. I’m
not sure the administration sees it that way.
If you decide to run, will you be looking
forward to the political realm?
I love being in the business community. I’m
thrilled at the prospect that someday I might be able
to create jobs for other people. On the other hand,
I’ve always liked the battle of ideas. And to me,
competing in the political arena should be first and
foremost about the ideas and perspectives that
candidates would bring to the tasks, then following
through on what’s been promised.
© 2003 Newsweek, Inc.
Posted by richard at July 9, 2003 01:55 AM