Talking Point: The $87B
Clark Says He Would Have Voted for War - New York Times, 9/19/03
Buried at the end of Adam Nagourney's account of his plane trip with the general is a point that seems to have been all but overlooked (links to coverage of this point are welcome; I haven't seen anything):
General Clark said his domestic priorities would include health insurance and rolling back parts of Mr. Bush's tax cuts. "I don't see why we can't have health insurance for every single American," he said.
Asked how he would pay for it, General Clark said he was open to some cuts in the budget he is more familiar with - the Pentagon's. "The armed forces are a want machine," he said. "They are structured to develop want."
Halleluiah! Our man doesn't lack courage. One of the neo-con's weakest points, yet among the hardest to assail, is their wrapping themselves in the righteousness of defense spending. Despite the folly of Star Wars and other pork barrels, most voters probably agree that 2/3 of the money should be spent "on the troops" and 1/3 on Iraq's reconstruction, but does anyone believe that the "troop money" will not go largely to technology and "services" determined by the chickenhawks?
One thing the general as a commander had in common with any governor or mayor was his reliance on federal subsidies to pay for his organization's infrastructure and maintenance. Safe to say, that just as homeland defense has a lower budgetary priority than weapons replacement, the armed forces in the field have to fight for what they need and take what they can get.
So Clark has two wins from attacking how this "new" money will be spent: firstly, by comparing his army funding experience to the financial problems of local governments, regardless of their party affiliation, he can claim both empathy and experience with the problems inherent in top-down federal spending. Secondly, he can immediately apply his indisputable expertise derived from command in the field to point out that money spent on defense is not necessarily money spent on the troops, and so cast "his" troops as ordinary citizens who are being screwed just as badly as any other taxpayer, only their lives are on the line.
In every way, Clark needs to make the troops one of his primary constituencies. We will need these people to defend us abroad for the indefinite future, no matter who sits in the White House. They are our sons and daughters, and they cannot be allowed to wake up in the morning knowing the odds are 2 in 150,000 they will be injured that day by criminals, discontents, religious fanatics, or "patriots" without our government doing everything possible to prevent that. Moreover, the volunteer army is a primary avenue to upward mobility among minorities, since the armed forces are truly, if paradoxically, one of our most democratic institutions. Clark needs to wrest the hearts and minds of the troops on the ground from the thrall of the neo-cons. He can do that by insisting that their safety, opportunity for advancement, and benefits for their families take priority over techno-toys from the armament manufacturers. If he goes further by rationalizing the policy toward gays and applying his commitment to affirmative action to the constituency he knows best, the resulting loyalty that may develop among the troops will be reflected in the grateful votes of their families back home.
Gen. Clark, please hold the administration's feet to the fire on this new appropriation. Don't let them pretend that what is good for the Republican party is good for our boys and girls by definition.
--- In wesleyclark2004@yahoogroups.com, "mysistershouse2003" wrote:
> Does anyone know if he was joking when he said this? I don't
> remember there being a characterization in the article. I should
> think it would make a big difference if he said it in a joking manner.
I'm sure it was meant to lighten things up. And if the remark were made in the context of a touch football game, it would be appropriate and charming. It's just the offhandedness of the joke that makes me wonder if Clark gets it yet (the press). I think if the general were visiting a bombed village in the company of a youngish female aide and were to be asked questions he wasn't ready for, his response would not be "Help!"
So did he say it with a smile on his face that was probably devastatingly charming? I'm sure he did, but his response doesn't reflect that he is taking the *professional* journalists he invited to travel with him seriously. It appears that the general thinks he gets a few practice swings to warm up. However, the press are being paid to create a story and he unfortunately gave them one.
What's too bad about this is that the journalists on Thursday weren't lobbing him softballs like Bill Maher but they weren't in attack mode either: I don't think they expected him to solve the problems of the world during a short plane ride. But I do think they expected him to demonstrate the thoughtfulness and preparation that goes with his primary image, that of a general, not of a "good guy."
When to some minds, Clark was indecisive about his run, I thought it was brilliant that he kept offering "parallel" planning as his rationale. It was in keeping with his professional training, reflected his understanding that such decisions are not black and white, and tactically allowed him to draw the "enemy" (the press) out while reserving his options.
Part of that parallel planning should have been boning up on at least one or two hot issues on which he could appear committed and innovative. Like any good neo-con (and they are good politicians, obviously), he should keep bringing the game back to his court. There's a big difference between Clark saying, "Help Mary, I'm trying to help them spend the $87 billion dollars sensibly and all they want to talk about is medical marijuana," and "Help Mary (I need you to translate for me)."
I'm confident that Clark is going to be a very good campaigner because he does have a very human charisma that will appeal to traditional Democratic constituencies, such as women, and I believe, minorities. But while I expect him to be in command of many facts during the debate on 9/25 and actually say something we want to hear, I am doubtful that he is ready to start winning debates. That he is not controlling the dialogue and speaking from strength is disconcerting.
Ron
Talking Point: IT'S THE EXIT STRATEGY, STUPID!
"Clark says he probably would have voted for war." - Boston Globe, 9/19/03
Why is the general trapping himself in a plane for 90 minutes (!) with four journalists (who were they?) on the first full day of the campaign? Isn't there a middle ground between seeming to be aloof and conducting a bull session before anyone (including the candidate himself) knows where he stands on so many of the issues? Though I devoutly hope Gen. Clark will never appear on "K Street," he should heed the observation of Paul Begala regarding Pres. Bush: "One of the things that makes Bush such a disciplined politician is that he never answers hypotheticals." (paraphrase)
One would think a life-long military officer would display that discipline when speaking in public even more thoroughly than the former figure-head CEO of a ball club. I think Wes is going to have to cover his ass a lot better: I can't believe that the general is responding to hypotheticals simply because he wants the press "to like him" and regard him as forthcoming, so I can only assume that he is either naive or falsely over-confident to trust them not to abuse his penchant for intellectual discourse. In fact, it's so obvious that Clark is smart that he needs to take care not run rings around people. But smart as he is, he couldn't possibly have the same information Bush presented as a rationale for war as a member of Congress and hence, as a strategist, shouldn't even be offering an opinion as to what his vote might have been. What he does have a right as a citizen to demand of the administration is accountability and basic honesty, two character traits seemingly scarce in the executive branch.
The NY Times in covering the airborne gab-fest dourly tells us, "He offered the case on both sides of the argument, as he appeared to struggle to stake out positions on issues that have bedeviled four members of Congress who supported the war and are now seeking the Democratic presidential nomination."
Probably more germane to Clark's actual thinking is this quote from the Globe, not included in the Times account: "The simple truth is this: When the president of the United States comes to you and makes the linkages and lays the power of the office on you, and you're in a crisis, the balance of the judgment probably goes to the president of the United States." Here is a natural and valuable aspect of Clark's character: he has huge respect and expectations for the office of President, and demands a non-partisan commitment to accountability from the holder of the office. That is what I am confident he is offering us at a time when some Deanists almost seem to regard the Presidency as a necessary evil. From my point of view, Dean and his followers often seem to be superlative *citizens* but they don't seem to embody the character of leadership I believe will unify this country and bring out its best characteristics.
So how can Clark take the leadership high ground even before he has a position on the Cuban embargo or prescription drugs? IT'S THE EXIT STRATEGY, STUPID! This particular mess in Iraq is made for the likes of Wesley Clark, even more than the war on terror, on which I think he is going to be brilliant once we settle down over his "lack of experience in domestic matters."
Clearly, winning the peace is going to demand that the US get real about its proper place in the world. That's Clark's forte: he's a realist, not an ideologue. By helping the American public to really understand *world* politics, and I believe he will be a great teacher/communicator in this regard, we can move beyond a dialogue that gets stuck debating the value of 5-ton replicas of the Ten Commandments.
Clark points out that not a single election among our allies hinges on what their leaders do to help us in Iraq; in fact, thanks to Bush Inc., allied politicians have an incentive to appear to be resisting America's too little, too late entreaties. Why aren't all the democratic candidates demanding Bush tell the American people what he's doing to make a new coalition worthwhile for our "allies"? Of course, he could and probably would lie, just as he has about the tax cuts, but at least he feels he has to justify the tax cuts; why do the American people seem to feel it's OK for us to fight the war on terror essentially alone?
Endorsements from the international community should be invaluable to Clark, if he can get them. Sure it doesn't directly address job losses or an armed forces stretched to the breaking point, but "we are the world" should be the general's campaign song. If the threat of terrorism were to disappear tomorrow, we would still have issues of international trade, monetary policy, AIDS, the environment, fossil-fuel dependency, religious conflict, and nuclear weaponry that affect us directly at home. The Democrats and particularly Wesley Clark need to seize that ground and make it their own. Whether we agreed with the invasion of Iraq or not, we were promised a clean, quick, inexpensive campaign that would help prevent the next 9/11. Bush wants to win the peace so he can go on to making trouble all over the Mid-East; Wesley Clark can contend that he wants to win the peace so that our grandchildren are proud to be American citizens of a global community.
General, please do your best in the debate over economics next week but before too long, please tell us with all the detail and conviction of which you are capable how and when we can bring the boys and girls home. Never let the bastards forget: IT'S THE EXIT STRATEGY, STUPID!