Unfair? Hammering Kerry on Iraq and Excusing Clark on Vietnam?

Is it really fair to point a judgmental finger at Senator John Kerry because of a single vote in Congress for a War Resolution that preceded the U.S. invasion of Iraq and to ignore General Wesley Clark’s active support for the War in Vietnam?

Both Kerry and Clark served in the Vietnam conflict, and yet their personal histories in that gravely mistaken military adventure are markedly different. And so much so, that it calls into question the high standard that many of us on the Left expect of Kerry with regards to Iraq when such a standard is not applied to Clark with regards to Vietnam.

Kerry returned from that war to become one of the nation’s leading critics against it. In fact, we have now learned from recently released audio tapes that President Richard Nixon singled out John Kerry by name in recognition of the fact that Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran had become one of the more prominent voices speaking out against the war.

Clark, on the other hand, was a “passionate supporter of the Vietnam War” as Matt Taibbi writes in the current (December 15th) edition of “The Nation.” Taibbi goes on to point out that “thirty-five years ago, hundreds of thousands of people took angrily to the streets, universities were taken over and a sitting President was hounded from the White House because of people like Wesley Clark.” Taibbi correctly reflects with some concern on Clark’s voting for Nixon and Reagan, on Clark’s being a speechwriter for Al Haig and on Clark’s working in the Ford White House alongside Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

When Kerry was powerful critic against the Reagan/Bush Administrations illegal involvement in an illegal war in Central America during the 1980’s, where was Wesley Clark? And of course, Kerry’s voting record in the U.S. Congress is a matter of record that reflects decades of commitment to fighting polluters and chemical lobbyists, protecting our environment, standing up for seniors, children, the poor and the American working class. Clark has no such record to measure his commitment on any of these issues other than his promise that he feels the same way we do.

I, like many millions more, waited and waited for Kerry to apologize for his single vote regarding the War in Iraq. It never came. At this point, I doubt that it ever will. Still he has been a critic of the false “intelligence” that led to the war and the handling of the aftermath of the war.

In light of the above, I ask: is it really fair to pick at the mote in Kerry’s eye with regards to Iraq and to ignore the beam that still is in Clark’s?

if they don't speak out about what's happening there? Clark was active. Kerry was out.

was from a poor family and felt it was a good way to support himself and his young wife. He severd honorably in Vietnam, that's enough for me.

Neither of there candidates dodged the draft.

were smart enough not to be duped like kerry
it bothers me.
I posted this on another thread but here is ron pauls (a republican) response to the war ron paul on the war"An important aspect of the philosophy and the policy we are endorsing here is the pre-emption doctrine. This should not be passed off lightly. It has been done to some degree in the past, but never been put into law that we will pre-emptively strike another nation that has not attacked us. No matter what the arguments may be, this policy is new; and it will have ramifications for our future, and it will have ramifications for the future of the world because other countries will adopt this same philosophy …
"For more than a thousand years there has been a doctrine and Christian definition of what a just war is all about. I think this effort and this plan to go to war comes up short of that doctrine. First, it says that there has to be an act of aggression; and there has not been an act of aggression against the United States. We are 6,000 miles from their shores …

"My argument is when we go to war through the back door, we are more likely to have the wars last longer and not have resolution of the wars, such as we had in Korea and Vietnam. We ought to consider this very seriously …

"Also it is said we are wrong about the act of aggression; there has been an act of aggression against us because Saddam Hussein has shot at our airplanes. The fact that he has missed every single airplane for 12 years, and tens of thousands of sorties have been flown, indicates the strength of our enemy, an impoverished, Third World nation that does not have an air force, anti-aircraft weapons, or a navy …

"There is a need for us to assume responsibility for the declaration of war, and also to prepare the American people for the taxes that will be raised and the possibility of a military draft which may well come.”

you simply dismiss the impact of that one little voteand i think clark was against the war

If you've read anything at all that I have posted here, you'd know that I have crawled all over Kerry with his "Bush misled me" statement.

But that's not the point of this thread which is that if we can excuse one why not the other?

And your bring up Ron Paul, of all people, makes my point. For all of Congressman Paul's enlighted actions of late, the truth is that he was a water carrier for some of the worst Republican agendas for years in Congress. If you can forgive that why not Kerry?

We are not electing angels in the Primary.

I'm saying that perhaps I have been too hard on Kerry, especially in light of Clark's failure to ever apologize for his stands on the Vietnam War.

ron paul and dont forgive him he is a weird and unpredictable repug

As long as Clark was in the military, he could not publicly denounce the war or he would have risked punishment. Seeing as he's only been a civilian for a few years, he was never in a position to say what he really thought about it publicly all the years he was in the military, and at this point, it's pretty much moot. Any career military man has to tow the line to a point or they'll never get promoted. I know my dad gritted his teeth a lot maintaining the status quo in order to have the chance to advance. Seeing as Clark got shot up in Viet Nam I would think in his heart he doesn't have much fondness for it.

Come to think of it, I suspect that Jessica Lynch stayed silent with her story until after she was discharged from the military to avoid any hassle about telling the truth.

Matt Taibbi is a dingbat and a liar. There were several threads here about his slam articles on anyone other then Kucinich (he's a supporter), and one Clarkie here was able to prove with her/his own video tape a lie in one of his smear articles about Clark. Damn shame The Nation hired that asswipe.

but I'll sit this one out since I haven't attacked Kerry and I support Clark.

I'm not chastening Clark here, but casting some perspective on the onslaught against Kerry.

"Matt Taibbi"

Get serious.


:dem:

It's what got me thinking about how hard I've been on Kerry.

I was a fervent activist against the War in Iraq. I was temporarily held, not arrested, by the police in Central Park for "getting out of hand" during a large demonstration there.

I resisted the draft and was a cause celebre at my local draft office with a foot thick file.

My point is reflective and personal. If I can cut Clark slack on Vietnam, I should cut Kerry some slack on Iraq.

Taibbi's points about Clark and Vietnam are still correct regardless of the fact that the spirit and theme of his article was silly.

I am proud of you.

I understand your point, but I have been anti-any war/police action in my lifetime (beginning w/VN). So in my eyes, neither could win my vote or support.

I will say that up until October 10, 2002, Kerry had my eye. I literally cried when I heard his yes vote.

And clark..........forgetaboutit.

But, I just noticed that I worte "Iraq" instead of "Vietnam". That's the rally --- waaay back --- where I was held by the police (I was 20).

Iraq is beginning to look so much like Vietnam, I am confusing the two when I scribble here.

Kerry's vote broke my heart. That's why I've been so pissed at him.

But, I will vote for any of the nine candidates any day of the week over the Bush Cabal.

I was also an anti-war activist. Clark believed differently, but he believed. And a sincere, honorable person is allowed to believe something different from me. A lot of time has passed and we need to look to the future, though, instead of back to Vietnam. I never jumped on the Dean as Draft Dodger bandwagon. I never jumped on the Kerry IWR thing, either. I'm not convinced Dean would have voted any differently had he been in Congress.

Clark and Kerry have a lot in common. One left the armed forces and lived a life of public service; the other stayed in the armed forces and lived a life of public service. Kerry worked toward transforming the society he lived in; Clark worked toward transforming the institutional society he lived in. He was most often assigned to run bases that needed morale building and reorganizing. Housing, education, domestic violence, health care, and so forth, were all specialties for Clark in the modern army, where he was known as the "fix-it" man, because he has a great problem-solving talent. So the issues they confronted are not dissimilar.

Issues important to Kerry are issues important to Clark: affirmative action, choice, late term abortions, gun safety, shareholder dominance of corporate boards, strict emissions standards, community service, civil rights, Cuban embargo, internationalism, Congressional health plan for everybody, well, you get it. These are two very good men.

Sure, cut Kerry some slack since you seem to honestly feel it. I'm interested in what you have to say. But, you know, fuck Mike Taibbi.

:dem:

But Taibbi does not make a convincing argument about *anything* related to Clark.

As for Taibbi, see my post above.

Come on, you can do better than that

This is not about Clark, but Kerry. I laughed at Taibbi's bias when I read his piece. But it was his article that got me thinking about my own grilling of Kerry.

And Clark isn't being spared more than his share of criticism and dismissal, is he?

Then what's your point?

Nobody should cricitise Kerry because they don't spend as much time knocking Clark? Clark is being given a "get out of jail free card"?

What?

We've already seen Clark knocked for not being a Democrat, for murdering children in Waco, for being a war criminal in Kosovo, for being part of the military-industrial complex, for making speeches that support Bush, for not being consistent on the IWR, for being a tool of the Clintons, for being a tool of the GOP, for being the anti-Dean, for being the spawn of Cthulu. What have the critics missed?

He supported the VietNam war? Lots of people did. He thought his nation was correct and did his duty as he saw it, as he had taken an oath to do. Now he is much older and has a much different view of things. President Clark would never get us involved in a civil war in Asia, anymore than he would have sent troops into Iraq to knock over a teetering dictator and destabilising the entire region. That's what growing up is supposed to do; give you knowledge and perspective.

Most people look back on their teens and twenties and wish they had known then what they know now. How different things would have been.

a Clark/Kerry ticket. It negates everything the Republicans have as an advantage.

Most of us weren't around for Vietnam but to do what John Kerry did back then took courage. I really don't understand Clark supporters bashing Kerry on the IWR. First of all, Clark has been completely all over the place on his view of the resolution - like Dean, he didn't have to vote. So Clark supporters should NOT bash Kerry.

Second, Clark VOTED for Nixon and supported the Vietnam War. I found the Nation article to be spot on, as usual. It's so bizarre that a military man is running so well in the polls in a Democrat primary.

Clark seems like a good guy - I think he's got a better chance then Dean. But to hold him at a lower standard then Kerry is unfair. He deserves the same scrutiny and his weaknesses should be revealed.

Peace.

:thumbsup:

In addition to the fine points made by other Clark supporters, I would like to add one more.

The reason both Kerry and Clark get a pass on Viet Nam is because they both fought in it. Kerry, along with many veterans, gets respect for being outspoken against the war precisely because he served. Clark, who was career military, also served and was wounded in that war. It's one thing to "support" a war you don't fight in, and quite another to put your life on the line for it.

I would like Kerry to admit he was wrong about Iraq.
I would like Clark to denounce the war in Viet Nam.

But in the end, I have not, and will not, hold this against either of them. I believe that Kerry realizes his mistake and is commited to ending the Iraq occupation, but is afriad any such admission will only get him attacked even more. I believe that Clark, regardless of how he really feels about Viet Nam, a war that ended decades ago, is also commited to getting us out of Iraq, and is uniquely qualified to deal with that situation.

For the record, I don't give a crap what Dean did to get out of that war, either. But the repukes will use it against him.

Thanks.

His entering West Point during Vietnam troubles me. I find it hard to get past it.

graduated in 1966. There was hardly a raging war going on in '62.

The Vietnam War was over 30 years ago and Wesley Clark was 25 years old at the time. The Operation Iraqi "Freedom" happened THIS year and is STILL happening, and will be CONTINUING to happen and soldiers will CONTINUE to die for who knows how long.

Please, keep this in perspective.

There are a hell of a lot of us, here at DU, that lived through the VN War and remember what it was like to lose sons, brothers, dads, and lovers to a different lie.

I will admit, right now, that I hated anyone that wanted to fight in that war. Furthermore, it is un-fucking-believable that anyone would still be proud to have fought in it.

Just a short 30 years ago.

That's still IN my perspective.

Still, Kerry is speaking out against the War now. He wants to internationalize the situation quickly to, as he says "take the target off of our soldiers backs".

And frankly, Clark was not all that actively opposing the entry into Iraq himself.

And while Dean's hands are cleaner than both with regards to Iraq, Kucinich is the only one who actually VOTED against the War.

In the land of angels, Kucinich wins this argument hands down.

My post is not a dig at Clark, but rather pointing out that it is Kerry who is getting the most shit about the war in Iraq and it's really not fair all things considered.

Lieberman cheered for this war. And Gephardt, apparently, still thinks it's a swell thing. So, if any of the nine candidates should be on the hottest part of the grill over Iraq, it should be Lieberman and then Gephardt.

It's all too sad. Here's a guy who has lead an honorable life and fought against the system to vastly improve the lives for millions. Because of that, people hold him to higher standards - they expect more from him.

I guess that's the price you pay for wanting to make a difference. With this kind of bashing, why not become a Republican? The barometer is far lower.

Going through the motions? Talking the talk, ignoring the walk?

Kerry's IWR vote represents a breakdown in analytical ability, a serious error in judgment. Millions of pedestrians knew better.

Kerry's voting record is terrific and he is most deserving. So give him six more terms in the Senate.