(![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
catscradle Sep. 19th, 2003 12:39 pm)
catscradle Sep. 19th, 2003 12:39 pm)Doing more research into Wesley Clark, I was bound to find info that would let the air out of the enthusiasm. He is, after all, a four star general and it's difficult to believe one could ascend to such a position and be squeaky clean or even just slightly dusted with the blood of innocents.
There is, of course, Kosovo to consider and the legitmacy of that invasion and it's execution. Clark was the NATO commander of that operation. Humanitary aid or invasion just as questionable as Iraq? It's a hard one. Are the Albanian being ethnically cleansed receiving our humanitary aid or are they receiving aid in ethnically clensing out the Serbs? In that area, it's a matter of timing. Then there is to consider - Clinton or Clark at fault? Both most likely.
And then there is his revolving disapproval and ultimate support on Iraq. He's quoted playing both sides of the fence during that little police action.
Common Dreams has several articles on the matter here: http://www.commondreams.org/news2003/0918-05.htm
The last article there has some interesting info on Howard Dean playing both sides of the fence on Israeli-Palestinian issue. While some of his words are pandering to side with Israel sharing responsibility in the conflict, his actions state that he, in fact, supports the reigning hard-right Likud party in terms of financing and his voting record. He's even gone on record for supporting AIPAC, An American-Jewish group that supports Likud in the US. Unfortunately, you can't have it both ways. You cannot support the claim that Israel needs a fair share of responsibility in the escalating conflict and simultaneously support the Likud position of a completely Jewish state devoid of Palestinians. Moreso interesting, AIPAC has sponsered Dean on trips to Israel in which the man refused to meet with Palestinian leaders.
So far, the only candidate with any credibility to me is still Dennis Kucinich. Who, by the way, just won the 2003 Gandhi Peace Award. It's still my belief that if everyone that actually believed in what Kucinich stands for actually supported the man rather than cop out with the "but I just don't think he's electable" argument, he'd stand a fighting chance.
My advice is still this: support what you believe in, not what you believe will win. If that person doesn't win the democratic nomination, fine, vote for whoever isn't Bush. But until that, give your principles a chance.
There is, of course, Kosovo to consider and the legitmacy of that invasion and it's execution. Clark was the NATO commander of that operation. Humanitary aid or invasion just as questionable as Iraq? It's a hard one. Are the Albanian being ethnically cleansed receiving our humanitary aid or are they receiving aid in ethnically clensing out the Serbs? In that area, it's a matter of timing. Then there is to consider - Clinton or Clark at fault? Both most likely.
And then there is his revolving disapproval and ultimate support on Iraq. He's quoted playing both sides of the fence during that little police action.
Common Dreams has several articles on the matter here: http://www.commondreams.org/news2003/0918-05.htm
The last article there has some interesting info on Howard Dean playing both sides of the fence on Israeli-Palestinian issue. While some of his words are pandering to side with Israel sharing responsibility in the conflict, his actions state that he, in fact, supports the reigning hard-right Likud party in terms of financing and his voting record. He's even gone on record for supporting AIPAC, An American-Jewish group that supports Likud in the US. Unfortunately, you can't have it both ways. You cannot support the claim that Israel needs a fair share of responsibility in the escalating conflict and simultaneously support the Likud position of a completely Jewish state devoid of Palestinians. Moreso interesting, AIPAC has sponsered Dean on trips to Israel in which the man refused to meet with Palestinian leaders.
So far, the only candidate with any credibility to me is still Dennis Kucinich. Who, by the way, just won the 2003 Gandhi Peace Award. It's still my belief that if everyone that actually believed in what Kucinich stands for actually supported the man rather than cop out with the "but I just don't think he's electable" argument, he'd stand a fighting chance.
My advice is still this: support what you believe in, not what you believe will win. If that person doesn't win the democratic nomination, fine, vote for whoever isn't Bush. But until that, give your principles a chance.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
Once it gets narrowed down to a single candidate, though, throw everything behind him or her regardless of who it is.
We have got to get Bush out of office.