General Wesley Clark and Politics

I read General Wesley Clark's recent column in the New York Times about the recent primary election in Connecticut and the war in Iraq. It's hard to find fault with or in his arguments. I remember him from the Democrat Presidential compaign and his fairly straight-forward manner and style. He continues to be just that, someone who sees through all the rhetoric, and I hope the Democratic party leaders are listening and paying attention.

The column presents points both sides can make of election. The Republicans could see the division in the Democrats over the war in Iraq, the Lamont folks saying it's time for a timetable to leave Iraq, and the Lieberman folks saying it's about terrrorism and we should stay the course. If Lieberman decides to be an Independent in the November election, he could win the seat by getting the votes from both sides over Iraq, removing the seat from the Democrats.

He also makes the points the era of the Neocons are over. The public has woken up to realize the war in Iraq, although it's not Vietnam, it has some similarities, and we may be stuck for a long time, and that's hard to spin in an election. He makes the point the Democrats will have to make national security the issue and stand up to the Republicans. A point I've made before, challenge the spin and ask serious questions about what people really mean than just spin.

And while on politics, I was listening to the President about the recent cease-fire in Lebanon. He declared Isreal the victor, Hezbollah the loser. What doesn't he get? No one won and everyone lost, especially the Lebanonese and Isreali citizens who lost their homes, some of their families, and their lives. And he sat by and watched, or so we thought. Seymore Hirsch wrote an article in the last New Yorker to show it was part of the US military strategy to watch their latest generation of airpower when they plan to attack Iran.

Attack Iran you ask. Yes, our President, and especially our Vice President and Secretary of Defense plan to use "Shock and Awe" to bomb Iran. The President has made pre-emptive war the international strategy of the U.S. And there is nothing we as citizens can do about it. We, not me anyway, elected him because he is a good, honest, Christian man. And so he wants to attack another nation in the name of democracy. He wants to reshape the Middle-East, and that he will, but at what cost to us?

Can you imagine us attacking Iran? The plan is to use airpower, learned from the recent Lebanon-Isreal war to target the Iranian infrastructure, military installation, and nuclear facilities. For what? What doesn't he get about geography of Iran, Syria, and Jordan around Iraq? What doesn't he get about the Gulf and its long, narrow open water along Iran's coastline, with the US Navy open to the Iranian military?

In short, why are we tolerating a President and his Administration who never served waging war in our name, our democracy and nation, and for what? His legacy? His personal history as President? I hope he lives a long live to see the stupidity of his vision and decisions. And I hope when he has his moment before God, God looks him in the eye and says, "What were you thinking?"

[Top] [Columns] [Home]

Web Updates
Image Copyrights
Browser Optimization
WSR V2.8, January 2013