Re: U.S. Election Update: Gephardt Rumored to Be Withdrawing

In article <[email protected]>, Andreas Pour wrote:
> Steve Hutton wrote:
> 
>> On what facts to do you base the statement that Clark was a
>> "Republican servant of the Empire"?
> 
> You mean that he was a Republican?  There's various things floating around about
> that[1]; claims he was Independent but it's where you think the viewpoints align

Clark was largely apolitical as most members of the military are, and was
registered as an Independent, as most residents of Arkansas are.

> (Demopublican) and really ask yourself if it would have been any stranger to
> have him run for a Republican nomination had a Democrat been the incumbent. 

Yes, it would have been strange to have a candidate for the Republican
nomination who had written an amicus brief supporting affirmative action,
who is pro-choice, who supports the International Criminal Court, said
the Iraq war was fought on false pretenses, wanted the US to intervene
against genocide in Rawanda, supports separation of church and state,
and believes the US should have a multinational foreign policy.


> "Republican" highlights the fact that if he is chosen as VP he would be cast as
> not a "traditional Democrat" or something to get the independent and
> Republican-rebellion vote.

He would have been percieved that way by many, no doubt. 

> As to "servant of the Empire", I base that on his Rhodes scholarship and his
> service, 

Coming from a humble background, going to public school in a poor state,
earning a scholarship to West Point, finishing 1st in class there, winning a 
Rhodes scholarship, pursuing a leadership role in the US military - 
these things make him a "servant of the Empire"?

> incl. his prosecution of the Balkan War, as well as some other fine
> points not worth pursuing here.  Of course the fact that he is an asinine leader
> who was relieved of command, probably for having ordered a British general to
> attack Russian paratroopers during the Balkan War, is somewhat of a distraction
> (even though I am still leaning toward the view that Putin is free of the
> Empire, I do not think the Empire meant to risk starting a world war or greater
> Russian support of the Serbians at that juncture). . . . I do not mean to
> suggest he was a perfect servant.[2]

Are you aware that human rights advocate Samantha Power, author of the
Pulitzer Prize winning book "A Problem from Hell - America and the Age
of Genocide", endorsed Clark based on the respect she gained for him while
she was covering the Balkan war?

http://www.complete-review.com/reviews/ghistory/powers.htm

> I do not mean to suggest that Republicans are any more imperialistic than
> Democrats, if that is what you are wondering; both have an equally abysmal track
> record and really in terms of US foreign policy it was never easy - if not
> impossible - to discriminate among the long line of Demopublicans based on their
> zeal for using military force in foreign adventures.

Historically that has been true, but it doesn't mean it is staying that way
in the current century.  It seems doubtful that a Democratic administration
would have acted with such zealousness to occupy Iraq, but I suppose it is
possible.  

Even so, now that the Democrats have woken up to the significance of world
popular opinion (or the significance of US potential voter opinions), they
show signs of opposing further Imperialism - at least in the short term.

Steve



Kde-cafe mailing list - [email protected]
http://ofb.biz/lists/listinfo.cgi/kde-cafe

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this mailinglist are the personal
opinions of the author and do not represent OfB.biz: Open for Business, KDE or the author's employer.