Question for Clark people?

This is not a flame. I actually was half-rooting for him - mostly because I didn't want Dean.

How do you reconcile voting for a guy who doesn't think depleted uranium is a bad thing? Millions of children are now dead because of depleted uranium. Their deaths were horrible. Do you think you can reverse him on this?

Don't you have a problem with his speech at the School of the Americas? They trained foreign leaders to torture their citizens. Has he said anything to indicate he might be willing to oppose the School of the Americas?

You just going to continue this until everyone ignores you?

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/

I'm not sure what that is all about. Mind explaining it?

A little light reading.

The site's pretty extensive ..... and try the Clark forum to get specific answers if they're not there ......

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

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2003_02_23.php#000684

Whenever ya'll want to replay the primaries, I still have tons of threads bookmarked...

Who do you like?

an out of control and punitive justice system.

I'm curious what those

"votes against protecting children from
an out of control and punitive justice system"

were?

Thanks.

These questions need to be answered; however, before we go there, I hope you will extend the sphere of the problem to those who always bear much of the responsibility: the executive and Legislative branch of our government. It is they--not the generals--who advocate for, fund and vote for the things you've cited. Also, please note, that other than Clark's position on these two things, no one ever asks where the other candidates (not Kucinich) stand on these issues. Why? They voted for and funded them.

SOA: (Note: overseen by the judiciary committee including Patrick Leahy.) When the school was under investigation, it was decided to "mend it, don't end it." Without the school we would have no input on human rights or a working relationship with future military leaders of the other countries involved.

Thus: Not having the school will not eliminate the SA militaries, it just leaves us without contact. Did we close the Harvard School of Business after Enron?

Alert: You're real focus should be on the use of "private contractors" currently training death squads in the "stans." No over sight.

Clark is a BIG supporter of exchange programs of any kind, and so it doesn't surprise me that he fell in with the "mend it, don't end it" group. Nevertheless, and this is important, he has also said--loud and clear--if he heard any hint of the return to teaching of the abuses fostered under the old system, he would CLOSE the school immediately.

Other candidates could say that--although they didn't (except Kucinich) but how many would have the gravitas, including Kucinch, to have the ability to make the change? File under: only Nixon can go to China.

_______________

DU: Clark's first major was science and math, so while he has the ability to understand the data, he also comes with a mind-set that demands the data. The studies that the DoD has approved are not conclusive. As time goes on the data which we find compelling will become overwhelming. (I believe that--because I agree that DU must go.)

If we can prove to Clark that we are correct, and here we are lucky because he is incredibly open minded, then we will gain the strongest ally we can have, a Four Star General. BTW, I don't think it matters if he is in the WH or not. Prove the point beyond a doubt, and he'll be there. There is no doubt in my mind.

________

I've always thought the best possibility to make changes occur in the military was through the advocacy of one of their own. Clinton was not trusted by the Pentagon, and look where that got us? Cohen--the back stabber; and Shelton--a man you don't ever want to trust.

Your innocent questions contain within them a controversial point of view stated in such a way that makes it difficult to address. No one could respond to questions framed that way without an engaging in an unnecessary and unproductive argument.

You are asking Clark supporters to defend Clark and to defend themselves, although you carefully couch it as an innocent set of questions. That is disingenuous and inflammatory.

Defend? Do you ever wonder why no one asked the other candidates these questions? You know...the ones that voted for the programs and funded them.

It is so destructive to play this game of elimination. Rather than looking for the good in people, ideas, and opinions, and working with that, we look for any flaw or weakness and use that as a basis for dismissing and eliminating people, ideas, and opinions from any consideration. The only possible outcome of this is that each person will be a party onto themselves with one member, or else only the biggest bully will ever be able to build a consensus.

on edit - I would like to suggest to people that confronting the threat of tyranny is more than a matter of merely taking certain political positions. The way in which these positions are expressed is also important. A general climate of destructive bullying, taunting and character assassination is essential for tyranny to succeed, regardless of what cause the bullying is supposedly supporting.

Which is what I think Moore's point was last night. If he is going to be effective, he's changing his "shape" as the Talking Heads would say.

_____________

use that as a basis for dismissing and eliminating people, ideas, and opinions from any consideration.

Also--if I might add--with a mind to bolster some other candidate. Apples and Oranges logic. I do defend General Clark whenever I happen upon a thread with his name. First because the talking points still fill my brain and it would be a terrible thing to waste. But also, sometime--I'm not sure when it happened--I actually found I liked him--really liked him as a person. I have a great deal of respect for who he is, and cringe when I see people dumping on him. In many ways, I didn't want to see him run because of the focus on the stupid rather than the important.

Tyranny: Our hole is deep; making it deeper will not bring on the light of day.

"...the talking points still fill my brain and it would be a terrible thing to waste."

Made me laugh.

Much of Clark's strength and appeal was that he did not come from the usual Democratic candidate background. He brought a fresh and honest view to traditional liberal positions and had a knack for communicating them in a way that people listened to. Another important thing for me about Clark was that I believe his experiences in the Balkans transformed the man spiritually, and he brought a firsthand appreciation for the horrors of war and tyranny that was unique in the political discussion.

I think that we witnessed Clark, Dean and Dennis responding as human beings and evolving, and that brought a badly needed sincerity and humanity to politics. It is such a shame to see these men ripped into for the very qualities that we should be celebrating rather than dismissing. For the country to change, we will all need to change. These men had the courage to change in public. That, too me, is real courage and real leadership.

So as loyal to Clark as I am, I won't attack Kucinich or Dean.

Although I intellectually understand why people race to click into a candidate specific thread, I don't intellectually agree with their actions. I've never entered and don't intend enter a thread to attack any candidate. That doesn't mean one cannot question, clarify, or disagree with another candidate's position, but the pissing contest is damaging. As Lao Tzu wrote: after the battle some emnity remains. This board often had that unfortunate outcome.

Kucinich: I've written to thank him several times. A person with a their soul intact deserves my appreciation.

Dean: While I considered throwing my energy to him early on, several things prevented that move. I didn't want to be hasty. I agree with you that Dean shows courage.

Clark: So many levels, so few letters on the keyboard. The Balkins surely had an impact. His security person wrote about a flight over Kosovo that he and the General made. Looking down they could see the refugees in the mountains...freezing. The General told him it was okay to cry; and they did.

In short, we were offered one of our best and brightest.

It's beautiful, thanks for sharing. Clark is the one guy of whom I can say that, every time I learn more about him, I just love and admire him more.

It's really impossible to just reduce him down to a series of positions. He's so much more complex and multifaceted than that.

I knew, and acknowledged to myself that there were going to be some positions of his that I would find myself in disagreement with. The painful truth is that that's going to be the case with anyone that I would support for the presidency.

As others have done a much better job than I ever could of pointing out, his positions on these issues do not differ substanially from those of most other elected Democrats or potential presidential candidates. One thing that I actually appreciated about him was the his openness in stating his positions, even when he knew they would be unpopular with the audience he was addressing. He at least preferred honesty to pandering.

I fell in love with the entire package, while acknowledging that the package has some flaws. However, as has also been pointed out, it's clear that he is one of the most openminded of potential presidents we've ever had, and one who will reevaluate his positions in light of new evidence as well as one who will listen to dissenting opinions. I actually find these traits to be of more value than agreeing with me on every issue, something that I know I wouldn't find in any candidate anyway.

I'm just not clear one way or the other if d.u. is significantly harmful (past its very lethal primary use).
I most certainly don't believe it is has caused the death of "millions of children".

but it doesn't matter how many people or children it has killed when one is too many. I know if were one of mine it would be.

To ban the use is going to take hard and irrefutable evidence. Right now, the military believes it saves the lives of American troops because it just wipes out anything it hits. If the troops or civilians could prove it has long term damage, then--poof--a case can be made.

I know that there are studies out there; but they are either flawed or insufficent in their credibility. Who knows.

All I'm saying is: once concrete proof is offered, General Clark could be the strongest ally of those who are rallying against its use. The other point of importance is what would any other Dem candidate do or say? So why pin this on Clark?

saying they will not bring suit against the US military if their children have birth defects or deformaties.

DU is deadly, if you don't believe it I invite you to go spend time breathing it.

I don't understand why the troops "coming back" would agree to sign a waiver. Either heavy pressure or whatever.

Anyway_I wouldn't invite anyone to breath it.

The question is how to get rid of it. The studies being done have turned the trick.