Skip to main content

View Diary: Please, Wes Clark, isn't it time "to beat the sh*t out of them"? (156 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •   thank you for your response, Holdek (16+ / 0-)

    His recent speech at Johns Hopkins SAIS which can be linked to from this diary is pretty amazing:

    I've listened closely to Clark's speeches and I hear him saying that we are in deep trouble.

    There's a very powerful deep mythology in this country that "we" are entitled to run roughshod over other countries and take what we can. I put "we" in quotes because the truth is that powerful corporations get the spoils of this aggresion while Americans pay the price in credibility, lives and dollars.

    No one in the traditional media or holding public office dares to say that Exxon has no right to expect U.S taxpayers to spend hundreds of billions of dollars protecting their oil pipelines in foreign countries while running roughshod over indigenous people, hiring pseudo scientists to confuse people over global warming and thwarting sustainable renewable energy alternatives.

    There are people like Noam Chomsky who talk about this but the New York Times will not even publish him in this country.

    Clark understands all this and he is IMO making a huge effort to talk to audiences that cling to this mythology in a way to explain to them that our 60 year energy paradigm is very counterproductive and is in fact stealing from our future and making us less safe.

    He says it in so many ways..that's what he means when he talks about legitimacy. He's a very enlightened guy IMO.

    When he retired, he became CHM of Wavecrest Laboratories which makes hybrid electric vehicles, because I think he understands where our addiction to oil is heading.

    This piece by Sterling Newberry sheds some light on Clark:

    In short, too few people have understood that the reason the message of a different kind of citizenship that creates a new politics has awaited messengers is because there are too many entrenched interests busy smearing any messenger who manages to rise to the forefront. This does not change the basic reality - the new politics has consistently selected politicians of a particular type, with a particular personality. The type is not the true outsider who comes in with completely radical notions about the system but, instead, the intellectual maverick who has risen within the system and who has succeeded by "thinking outside the box."

       The cardinal examples are Howard Dean and Wesley Clark. Dean was a centrist governor from moderately conservative Vermont, Clark a NATO commander and US Army general who had retired after losing the support of his president. Each one had a resume that spoke, not of the intellectual maverick, but of the individual who avidly embraced the system. Dean was a medical doctor, Clark a top-of-his-class West Pointer. Each one rose through the system. Dean by being Lt. Governor, Clark by serving in Vietnam and rising through the officer ranks.

       Publicly, both have a robust enthusiasm and "follow me" charisma which is often opaque to those who have not seen it. They are both team players, and demand team loyalty from those who follow them. They are both men who, despite a willingness to push the envelope, play very close to the chest with their personal ambitions, tactical intuitions and private thoughts. But what is only obvious from listening to the two men in more restricted settings is a wide-ranging and voracious willingness to examine every situation afresh, and seek solutions that fall outside conventional thinking. Not as outsiders, mind you, but as insiders who have mastered the game as it is, and are all too painfully aware of its limitations. To take examples: Dean's plan on school funding, and Clark's drive for non-lethal warfare both come from intimate knowledge of the failures of the current system and a desire to jump over the points of failure with which they have dealt first hand.

    I do believe that most of the Dems who are running and that includes those who voted for thie Iraq War Resolution, knew it would be a war for oil and condoned it.

    They are neoliberal and I think really believe that the corporate structure is sustainable.

    Clark understands that there is a terrible, growing  imbalance of wealth in this country that is not only unfair it's unsustainable.

    Jim Webb understands that too and has written about it.

    Someone said Clark supported the war...that is incorrect. He testified before a Congressional cttee against it to vicious commentary in Sept 2002. He returned to testify in 2005 and this time was treated with a great deal of respect by the same congressmen.

    •  Thanks Eve for that commentary (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ArkySue, eve

      Hasn't Wes also stated that our policy in relation to Israel needs to be more balanced and that AIPAC has undue influence upon our foreign policy?

      •  yes he's had the courage to say that (0+ / 0-)

        and what may not be well known here is that perhaps more than half of Israelis believe that the Likud right wing Bush like policies are detrimental to peace.

        AIPAC from what I can tell is more neocon type thinking and should be challenged because they are probably doing harm to any peaceful resolution that would serve both Israelis and Palestinians.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site