This morning, she sent me an email, outlining her opinions. In truth, I found her email to be rather arrogant, but then that�s Carla. I often find her to be rather arrogant. She also seemed to imply that she has some deeper knowledge than I, based of her personal experience which she apparently believes to be far more vast than mine. None of this is new. I love my niece dearly, but this is very typical of her.

Although I composed the following in response, I did not send it to her. It�s just too much information to give her, I sound arrogant myself and I�d rather talk to her about this when I see her next (on Superbowl Sunday) because I am hoping I misunderstood her intentions in that email. However, you all get to read it. I want to share my views about Wesley Clark because I think there is a very real chance he will win the nomination. The more I know about him, the more dangerous a prospect that is to me and frankly I can not fathom why Bill Clinton has endorsed him. Anyway, here ya go.

Carla,

I know that this email is going to sound pompous and as if I am implying that you are basing your support for Wesley Clark on something other than the facts. I apologize for that ahead of time, but it�s difficult for me to believe that you have read what is out there about Wes Clark and yet say the things you said to me in your email this morning. It�s as if you thought, �Well Karen has shared her opinion so I am going to share mine.� While I am not the least bit shy about sharing my political opinions, what I was in fact doing in my email yesterday was asking you to read that article I passed along. Then, if you still came to the same opinion afterward, well that�s your prerogative.

I�m sure you have very valid reasons for liking Wes Clark. I�m also certain that because of John�s experiences in Kosovo you have a different view of his military record than I do. My views are based on the facts I have been exposed to via newspaper and magazine articles, and Wes Clark�s own speeches and writings. I understand that you heard him give a speech, also � as have I. I actually watch CSPAN on a regular basis and have seen several of his (and others�) speeches and I have watched every debate since this race began, save one. In truth, it is only through his speeches that I have found anything at all to appreciate about Wes.

My email was not a call out to you or anyone to support Dennis Kucinich. I was simply pointing you to an article which outlines my concerns about Clark � concerns my four-drink-addled brain was not prepared to convey during my party, as I believe I mentioned at the time. Since you voiced your support of him over the weekend I thought you might be interested in reading the article, but yesterday�s emails actually started out because I am pissed off at Michael Moore for distorting the truth while voicing his support for Clark. I would, however, urge you or anybody to do some real research before you cast your vote � and that includes for the presidency or for any office. As you infer, as individuals we actually have a lot more say in smaller and more local elections; but this next presidential race is going to be a very important one in our history. These votes are going to be very significant. If we care about what our country once was, what it is supposed to be and what Bush is doing to destroy it, it is essential that the votes we cast are well-informed ones based on more than just emotion. I am not saying any of this because of my support for Dennis Kucinich or my thinking that everyone except him is wrong (which I don�t think anyway). My support of Kucinich is a result of everything I have just said and everything I have learned since this race began (and before).

You speak of an evolution of ideas and compromise, as if this is all Wes Clark is guilty of (at least I assume that is why you brought up these concepts). The evolution of one�s thoughts, ideas and opinions based on life experience is completely natural and not at all what I�m talking about when I speak of �waffling.� The evolution of thought based on experience is an obvious and traceable process and one that can be logically explained. There is a big difference between that sort of evolution (which we all experience, Carla) and what I am talking about.

Waffling should also not be confused with compromising. Do not forget that I was and am a big supporter of Bill Clinton and he is/was the King of Compromise. Listening to both sides of an issue and doing your best to come to a win-win resolution is not something I would ever complain about unless it entails a betrayal of one�s core principals � those principals that I voted for. For example, Dennis Kucinch wants to re-work all trade agreements so that they include provisions demanding environmental standards and human rights compliance. Were he to strike up a deal forgetting those provisions and based solely on economic advantage, I would consider that a betrayal of his core values. Were he to simply relax the environmental provisions based on what the other country was actually capable of doing, for example, or give the other country a time-frame by which they had to comply, that would be a compromise.

There are many things Wes Clark has said that I appreciate and agree with. Should he get the Democratic nomination, he will have my support because I certainly like and have more respect for him than I do Bush. However, the reasons I not to trust him or even believe that those things I like about him are true are just as valid as the reasons you like him. I do not want to give you grief about this Carla, but I would urge you to read the CNN article links provided to you yesterday before you make your decision. People can say anything in a speech; their actions are what count. This is a man who wrote articles saying one thing before the war (that we were going to have to move ahead despite the opinions of our allies and that they�d just have to fall in line or get left behind; that what is important is �establishing legitimacy� in Iraq, not ending the war) and now completely denies that he said those things or he tries to claim that he was misunderstood. Of course, he still says nothing about ceding control in Iraq to the United Nations or to the Iraqis themselves. This is not an evolution of ideas. If it were, he would explain how his opinion evolved. You may not like the word, but that is what I call waffling. I�m not saying Wes Clark is the only politician who waffles � most of them do. However, among our current crop of candidates, his particular brand of waffles are the most obvious and also the most dramatic when it come to the war.

As an additional note, under normal circumstances I wouldn�t really care that Clark was a Republican up until only a few months ago. I applaud anyone who can see how that party has deteriorated over the past few years and defects rather than stick it out due to party loyalty. That said, Clark said just a few months ago (in The New York Times, September 19, 2003) that he would have supported the Congressional Resolution to invade Iraq were he in a position to vote at the time. And that�s after everything we know now. Of course, at the time he was still a Republican and apparently planning a run at the Presidency as one. A few days later, after becoming a Democrat and announcing his run for the presidency, he said he would not have supported the war.

Again � this is not an evolution of ideas. This is a waffle. He didn�t say, �I said a few days ago that I would have supported the invasion of Iraq. However, in the last few days I have learned a lot of things which have made me change my mind. In fact, these discoveries have forced me to change my political affiliation and I have become a Democrat. Here are the reasons why�� That is not what happened. He simply insisted that we all got it wrong when we heard him say he would have voted for the war.

This is a waffle.

I am additionally suspicious because he has never said exactly why he decided to become a Democrat, although he finally said a bit about it during the last debate (he is pro-choice, and thinks everyone should be allowed to be married if they so desire � both of these are things I applaud, as we discussed the other day). Considering the fact that he continues to tout the merits of Ronald Reagan�s Cold War actions, George Bush the first�s foreign policy and Dubya�s national security team, though, my hunch is he became a Democrat for some very personal ambitious reasons and not because of some inner moral outrage over the state of the Republican party, despite his differences on a few issues (he would not have been the only Pro-Choice Republican). I also think it may have had a lot to do with the fact that he was not offered a job by Karl Rove after Sept. 11, when he expected as much. He even said recently that he would have stayed a Republican had Karl Rove returned his calls, although he now says that was a joke. Well, I say many a truth is spoke in jest.

And let us not forget that, until Bill Clinton voiced his endorsement of Clark for President, he had rarely a kind word to say about his ex-boss. But then, President Clinton did fire his ass, so I guess there might be some bad blood there.

Which brings up a question I have for you. I will admit to knowing little about Clark�s actions in Kosovo and just why he was fired. What do you know about this? I�m hoping, since John was there, perhaps you can shed some light or at least give me a feel for what was being said at the time. Now, I have some rather mixed emotions about that whole military action overall and I am reserving judgment on his being fired since, as I said, I don�t know much about it. What I have heard about his being fired is not good and has a lot to do with doctoring information to cover up the bombing of civilian targets. But then I�ve also heard it had simply to do with his meeting with Gen. Ratko Mladic, a now-convicted war criminal, against the wishes of State Department. While I think that was a stupid thing to do, I fail to see why such a HUGE deal was made out of it. Any ideas?

Now, you may think we were perfectly correct in invading Iraq. If that is the case, obviously my arguments are going to fall on deaf ears. From my understanding of your positions, though, that is not the case.

Let�s put the war aside for a minute, however. If nothing else, Wes Clark is the only candidate running who would not cancel at least parts of the Patriot Act. The majority of the Democratic candidates would cancel portions of it; Dennis Kucinich would cancel the whole thing. Clark has even said he may add to its provisions. That alone is reason enough for me not to support him. The Patriot Act has done more to damage and eliminate many of our civil liberties than anything introduced in my lifetime. Even if you don�t think he has waffled on his war positions, or if you prefer to think of it as an evolution of his ideas, this is scary. On top of everything else, Clark even �helped an Arkansas information company win a contract to assist development of an airline passenger screening system, one of the largest surveillance programs ever devised by the government.� (The Washington Post, September 27, 2003)

Of all of our current crop of candidates, I think Wesley Clark is more Bush-lite than any of them. And that is not a big enough difference for me. Dubya took this country 180 degrees from what it once was. That means we need to make a U-Turn to get our country back; not a slight Left.

last / next



~~~~~~~~~~~peace, love and smooches~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Don't know why you'd wanna, but on the off-chance you may feel tempted to steal any of my words and claim them as your own, please be advised: All material
Copyright 2002-2005, Howl-at-the-Moon Words



***DISCLAIMER: These are my thoughts and my thoughts alone. If you know me in my "real life" off the net and have come across this page purely by accident, please keep in mind that you were not invited here and I would suggest you leave this page now. However, should you choose not to do so, please be warned that reading my thoughts here is not an invitation to discuss them off-line. You may discover things you do not know about me and may not like very much. Such is life. Again, this is MY space and I will use it as I see fit. If you are offended by anything here, well that's pretty much your own fault at this point. I say all of this with love, of course, but there it is.