Shots Across The Bow

Clark Rides to the Rescue!

The Democratic Party is saved. No longer will they have to fear being ravaged by the Dean extremists, as General Wesley Clark USA, Ret. has joined the race for the Democratic nomination for President.

In a move echoing the Shwarzenegger campaign, Clark has been fairly quiet about what he actually stands for. We know he was against invading Iraq, although we don't know what he thinnks we should do now. We know he doesn't like a bad economy (Sharp guy, that General!), but we don't know what he would do about it, or what he would do differently from the other candidates.

We do know that Michael Moore supports his candidacy, which tells me all I really need to know about the General. But, in the interest of fairness, I decided to dig a little deeper. What does Clark stand for? What is his vision for America?
Clark on taxation:

The tax cuts weren’t fair… the people that need the money and deserve the money are the people who are paying less, not the people who are paying more. I thought this country was founded on a principle of progressive taxation. In other words, it’s not only that the more you make, the more you give, but proportionately more because when you don’t have very much money, you need to spend it on the necessities of life. When you have more money, you have room for the luxuries and you should—one of the luxuries and one of the privileges we enjoy is living in this great country.

I thought this country was founded on a principle of progressive taxation.

I think the first requirement for a presidential candidate is a firm grasp of American ideals. Last time I checked, America was not founded on the principle of progressive taxation. In fact, the idea of a direct tax (income tax) was anathema to the Founding Fathers, and specifically prohibited by the Constitution. Taxes on trade ie, tariffs and sales taxes, were supposed to fund the government. This was specifically intended to limit the size and growth of the federal government.

Clark believes a progressive income tax was a founding principle of this country.

The tax cuts weren’t fair… the people that need the money and deserve the money are the people who are paying less, not the people who are paying more.

Socialism at it's finest! "To each according to his needs..."

Clark believes that because they need the money, the gov't should design its tax policy to make sure they get the money, even if they don't pay taxes!

Clark on the Environment

Human beings do affect the environment and all you have to do is fly along the Andes and look at the disappearing glaciers down there and you recognize that there is something called global warming and it's just getting started as China and India modernize.

OK, add scientific illiteracy and logical fallacies to Clark's list of qualifications. The glaciers disappearance does indicate that the earth is warming. It does not indicate that human activity has anything to do with it. Additionally, glaciers are nowhere near their minimums of the Middle Ages, at which time Greenland actually lived up to its name.

Clark believes human activities are the primary cause of global warming.

Clark on Iraq

"Everything I said about Iraq has turned out to be correct," the retired Army general averred in a telephone interview several days ago. He rattled off the concerns he voiced before the invasion: Iraq didn't pose an imminent threat to the United States; it wasn't directly linked to the war on terrorism; an invasion might make the terrorism problem worse; there wasn't an international coalition supporting the war; America had other ways to contain Saddam Hussein.

Each of those concerns has been demonstrably proven to be false. Iraq has been definitively linked to terrorism, particularly the first attack on the WTC

We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.
We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of ’93. And we’ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven.

As for the risk of terrorism increasing since the war, I simply point out that no US targets have been hit, in marked contrast to the years leading up to 9/11. An undeniable escalation of terrorist activity on US soil and against US targets has been halted in its tracks.

But Clark believes we're at a higher risk.

Enough already!

The only reason Clark is in the race is that some dems have finally realized that it isn't the economy this time, its the security of the US that's at stake, and that the voters fully appreciate that fact. They're hoping that Clark can sway the moderates by running as a strong national security candidate, and appease rabid fringe of the party with his Socialist ideology.

And they may be right. Given that he'll have the Clinton machine backing him, he stands an excellent chance of winning the nomination. But will that give him the Presidency? Probably not. By and large, people are happy with the job Bush is doing, and, barring some disastrous turn in the Middle East, will favor staying with the incumbent. But at least the dems will have salvaged their parties relevancy by avoiding a Dean campaign which would virtually annihilate the dems as a political force for a generation.

Posted by Rich at September 16, 2003 1:58 PM | TrackBack