http://slate.msn.com/?id=2088588&strela=1¬ification_id=8917074&message_id=0&agent=messenger The Agenda of Wesley Clark What he'd do in a second term. By William Saletan Posted Thursday, September 18, 2003, at 3:01 PM PT Slate has been running several series of short features explaining who the 2004 presidential candidates are, what they're saying, and where they propose to take the country. The "Agenda" series outlined what each candidate would do as president. Candidates take positions on many issues, but once in the White House, a president tends to focus on the few issues he or she really cares about. The purpose of this series is to identify those issues and clarify how the candidate, as president, would address them. Today's subject is Wesley Clark, who entered the race on Wednesday. 1. Internationalize U.S. foreign policy. Clark strongly favors collaboration with allies, even if he has to get 19 nations to approve individual bombing targets, as he did during NATO's war in Kosovo. In a speech to the New Democrat Network on June 17, 2003, Clark proposed a foreign policy based on three ideas. The first is idealistic engagement: "We started the ball rolling, the ball of revolution that's passed across the Atlantic and is sweeping across the world. … We proselytize. We sell our ideas." The second is reliance on international organizations. Even when the United States had a monopoly on nuclear weapons and half the world's gross domestic product, said Clark, we nurtured the United Nations because "America wasn't strong enough to go it alone." Third, force should be used "only as a last resort" because it has vast "unintended consequences." Clark cited postwar Iraq as an illustration. 2. Stimulate the economy. On June 15, 2003, Clark said on Meet the Press that he opposed Bush's tax cuts because they "weren't fair," "were not efficient in terms of stimulating the kind of demand we need," and ran up the deficit. Two days later, Clark called for a "demand stimulus," which he said should be targeted at people in need and should be limited in order to keep the deficit under control. He also proposed to stimulate small-business investment "through tax incentives where necessary." 3. Invest in the environment, education, health, and retirement. In his June 17 speech, Clark extrapolated from the supervision of soldiers to the supervision of civilians. Under the rubric of "investing in human potential," he said he had worked to give his troops better housing, better health care, better schools for their children, and time off to be with their families. In the civilian realm, he called for environmental protection, investment in education (especially better pay for teachers), and sounder long-term financing of retirement and health care.
Very nice, Will. I can't wait to vote for him. Rush devoted a large portion of his show today slamming Clark, so he's gotta be great for the country. Looking forward to the yard signs and bumper stickers. (thanks, Maynard)
Wow. Anyone who has read anything I have written on this war; war in general knows that this coincides with my position word for word and point by point. Obviously I find that impressive. What is even more impressive is how Clark managed to hold onto his 'Ivory Tower" mentality while seeming to be at work, and in positions of influence, in the " real world". Clearly he wasn't as exposed to the causes and effects of our military and diplomatic policies as some posters in here...
1st sentence, no. Second sentence yes. Is that what you meant? I always am impressed by people who concur with my bias.
The Worldview of Wesley Clark His instincts on foreign policy and national security. By William Saletan Posted Thursday, September 18, 2003, at 3:21 PM PT http://slate.msn.com/?id=2088624&strela=1¬ification_id=8922778&message_id=0&agent=messenger Slate has been running several series of short features explaining who the 2004 presidential candidates are, what they're saying, and where they propose to take the country. The "Worldview" series sketched how they would manage America's role in the world. It's difficult to anticipate which hot spots a candidate would have to deal with as president, but it's possible to get a sense of how he approaches war, diplomacy, trade, and other challenges abroad. This series pieced together a picture of each candidate's instincts based on his words and his record. Today's subject is Wesley Clark, who entered the race on Wednesday. Deceit and resolve: Clark opposed the Iraq war on the grounds that it was "elective." Among the major candidates, he has used the strongest language in accusing President Bush of deceit. Clark has said that the war was launched under "false pretenses" with "deceptive advertising." However, he simultaneously concludes that because U.S. troops now occupy Iraq under fire, they can't pull out until they get the country back on its feet. Pre-emptive attack: Among the major candidates, Clark has proposed perhaps the highest, clearest standard for justifying pre-emptive war. On July 13, 2003, ABC's George Stephanopoulos asked Clark, "What kind of weapons of mass destruction [must be found in Iraq] in order to justify in your mind the invasion?" Clark replied that the United States would have to find "not only the capabilities to produce the weapons but the weapons, and then I think you'd need something more. I think you'd need the documents or the discussion that there was in fact a program to threaten the United States or its allies with those weapons in the immediate future." International courts: In the September 2002 Washington Monthly, Clark wrote, "Soon after September 11, without surrendering our right of self defense, we should have helped the United Nations create an International Criminal Tribunal on International Terrorism. We could have taken advantage of the outpourings of shock, grief, and sympathy to forge a legal definition of terrorism and obtain the indictment of Osama bin Laden and the Taliban as war criminals charged with crimes against humanity. Had we done so, I believe we would have had greater legitimacy and won stronger support in the Islamic world. We could have used the increased legitimacy to raise pressure on Saudi Arabia and other Arab states to cut off fully the moral, religious, intellectual, and financial support to terrorism. We could have used such legitimacy to strengthen the international coalition against Saddam Hussein."
My wife likes Clark... sent him $25 bucks yesterday. She thinks he's the guy because "He's killed people before and that's the kind of mentality Dems need to take on the republicans."
If you have an Ivory Tower mentality, it is pretty much a given that reality will not shake you from that mentality very easily.
Not at all; the entire premise of an Ivory Tower mentality is that it reflects the thinking of a person who has not been exposed to the real world, not one who has not reacted to it. That would be disassociative, insular, etc. The very term Ivory Tower connotates a lack of experience with practical reality. And clearly I was being facetious. Obviously Clark's position is a reflection of a ( by all accounts brilliant ) mind responding to more experience with the practicalities of international relations/military situations than any of us here will ever know.
Okay, you were being sarcastic. Somehow I missed that. Well, Clark is a general. Whether that means he knows more about international relations than military situations, I don't know. As far as his positions, he advocates talking and "proselytizing" to sell our ideas and reform other nations. I don't think that will work. Has it ever worked in history? Also, about using force as a "last resort"- how do we know when we are at the last resort? At what point would he say that Saddam is not cooperating with US demands?
It worked exceedingly well in Kosovo, under the command of General Clark. As for "not cooperating with U.S. demands," which is a very good question, Clark has been very clear on his positions. Here's what the article said: Among the major candidates, Clark has proposed perhaps the highest, clearest standard for justifying pre-emptive war. On July 13, 2003, ABC's George Stephanopoulos asked Clark, "What kind of weapons of mass destruction [must be found in Iraq] in order to justify in your mind the invasion?" Clark replied that the United States would have to find "not only the capabilities to produce the weapons but the weapons, and then I think you'd need something more. I think you'd need the documents or the discussion that there was in fact a program to threaten the United States or its allies with those weapons in the immediate future."
Firstly he s more than just a general; have you seen his resume? If he isn't qualified as an expert on the relationship between international relations and military situations, I don't know who is. Second, where did you get that I said he knows more about one than the other? Sure it has. Europe post WWII. Besides, what alternative are you suggesting which is in keeping with the princliples of other nations self-determination and democracization? By exhausting the alternatives, which we didn't even come close to here...The rest of the world, including the body designated to oversee Iraq's actions, the UN, said as much. Unless there was an imminent threat to the US, which their clearly was not, how can we possibly justify overriding that in this case? And what gives us the right to make these unilateral demands of other nations? They were no threat to us...to make a causative connection between war as a last resort and whether or not another nation was cooperating with our demands is to assume the position of tyrant.
I doubt that Clark would make an 'ivory tower' argument like 'we have no standing to prevent nuclear proliferation because we dropped the bomb on Japan.' But you can pick and choose if it makes you feel better.
Seconding this, I think that Clark's arguements are developed from the most pragmatical of lessons. On the opposite side of "ivory tower" is a conservitive analog that is basically the sin of excess hubris. By this I mean that there are people who view the rest of the world as irrelevent and would argue that we are god's chosen nation and therefore we have divine endorsement for anything we do. This, like the "ivory tower" viewpoint, ignores the pragmatic realities of the world. Clark seems to be approaching international policy with a healthy respect for plurlaism that irritates the self-agrandizing hubris of the most conservative modes of thought.
Man, I knew any Wesley Clark thread would turn into slobbery lovefest. Man it is funny to read all the love you're giving this guy when you hardly know anything about him except he's a Democrat. GV76, Kosovo was not a victory at all. We do not militarily defeat our enemies there, but we just kind of rearranged some mud and blew up some plywood and canvas decoys masquerading as tanks, trucks and airplanes. The ultimate measuring stick of success is that Kosovo, like the rest of the Balkans, would no longer need an international presence to keep the "peace." If we left today, as we need to, they would resume killing each other in a cold second. Some successful "war" there. Sure.....right. I want to subordinate our national defense to the wants and needs of the rest of the world, which is envious and hateful of our influence and wealth. I want Osama to go to a trial where some "turn-'em-lose-Bruce" judge will allow him to walk away with a little "slap on the pee-pee, don't do it again." Classic liberal naivety on display here. What a fool! When you go through 19 government just on what targets to bomb and what ordnance to use, you do two things. You slow down the process of authorizing strikes of any sort to days rather than minutes. You also destroy OPSEC A what?! This is code for some sort of new entitlement in that even more people would pay no income tax, which would place an even larger burden on those who still pay taxes. And "targeted" in the liberal lexicon means that you can have your money, only if you do what those Big Daddy libs in Washington want you to do with it. "Invest" in the liberal code book means that the govt. would take even more money from the people still paying taxes and transfer it to various liberal pet projects and entitlements that last forever, grow like a bamboo shoot and do nothing but bankrupt us and foster a cycle of dependency while stifling ambition. This guy is a classic Mondull/Dukakis liberal and he will meet the same fate as those two losers. I don't give a damn if he wore stars on his collar and scrambled eggs on his cover, with this loss he will be wearing scrambled egg on his face as well.
Wrong again, demand stimulus in this context clearly means a tax cut to boost consumption, which is accomplished by cutting taxes in lower brackets rather than higher ones, who don't consume as much, which is just a giveaway that has the added negative of crippling fiscal policy for future generations. your take on economic issues is deficient.
Are you trying to put words in his mouth by explaining this purposely vague statement? Sounds like it. How does cutting taxes in the lower brackets expand consumption if these people by their very nature have LESS disposable income? That is illogical because if they are making less money anyhow, shouldn't they have less to spend than a wealthy person even with a tax break? How do rich people not consume as much? By their very nature, they have both the capability and need to consume more than the average person. And besides, since you libs believe in progressive taxation, shouldn't the people who pay the most taxes get the biggest tax cuts? According to these figures, more than 56 percent of taxes are paid by the top 5% percent of the population. Is it fair for those people to shoulder the burden like that? It's all a very clever dodge to reduce the tax rolls and make it possible to get away with even more obscene tax increases, because since a majority of the population doesn't pay any income taxes anyhow, why would they want tax cuts? It is you who are deficient and guilty of irrational hatred towards the rich because they do not "pay their fair share" in your mind. IRS Figures for 2000 Table 1. - Individual Income Tax Returns with Positive Adjusted Gross Income (AGI): Number of Returns, Shares of AGI andTotal Income Tax, AGI Floor on Percentiles in Current and Constant Dollars, and Average Tax Rates, by Selected Descending Cumulative Percentiles of Returns Based on Income Size Using the Definition of AGI for Each Year, Tax Years 1986-2000 [All figures are estimates based on samples] Descending cumulative percentiles Year: Total.........Top 1%.......Top 5%.......Top 10%.......Top 25%.........Top 50% Number of returns: [1] 1986: 102,087,623......1,020,876......5,104,381......10,208,762......25,521,906......51,043,811 1987: 106,154,761......1,061,548......5,307,738......10,615,476......26,538,690......53,077,380 1988: 108,872,859......1,088,729......5,443,643......10,887,286......27,218,214......54,436,429 1989: 111,312,721......1,113,127......5,565,636......11,131,272......27,828,181......55,656,361 1990: 112,812,262......1,128,123......5,640,613......11,281,226......28,203,066......56,406,132 1991: 113,804,104......1,138,041......5,690,205......11,380,410......28,451,026......56,902,052 1992: 112,652,759......1,126,528......5,632,638......11,265,276......28,163,190......56,326,380 1993: 113,681,387......1,136,814......5,684,069......11,368,139......28,420,347......56,840,694 1994: 114,989,920......1,149,899......5,749,496......11,498,992......28,747,480......57,494,960 1995: 117,274,186......1,172,742......5,863,709......11,727,419......29,318,546......58,637,093 1996: 119,441,767......1,194,418......5,972,088......11,944,177......29,860,442......59,720,884 1997: 121,503,284......1,215,033......6,075,164......12,150,328......30,375,821......60,751,642 1998: 123,775,831......1,237,758......6,188,792......12,377,583......30,943,958......61,887,915 1999: 126,008,974......1,260,090......6,300,449......12,600,897......31,502,244......63,004,487 2000: 128,227,143......1,282,271......6,411,357......12,822,714......32,056,786......64,113,572 Adjusted gross income floor on percentiles (current dollars): 1986: N/A......118,818......62,377......48,656......32,242......17,302 1987: N/A......139,289......68,414......52,921......33,983......17,768 1988: N/A......157,136......72,735......55,437......35,398......18,367 1989: N/A......163,869......76,933......58,263......36,839......18,993 1990: N/A......167,421......79,064......60,287......38,080......19,767 1991: N/A......170,139......81,720......61,944......38,929......20,097 1992: N/A......181,904......85,103......64,457......40,378......20,803 1993: N/A......185,715......87,386......66,077......41,210......21,179 1994: N/A......195,726......91,226......68,753......42,742......21,802 1995: N/A......209,406......96,221......72,094......44,207......22,344 1996: N/A......227,546......101,141......74,986......45,757......23,174 1997: N/A......250,736......108,048......79,212......48,173......24,393 1998: N/A......269,496......114,729......83,220......50,607......25,491 1999: N/A......293,415......120,846......87,682......52,965......26,415 2000: N/A......313,469......128,336......92,144......55,225......27,682 Adjusted gross income floor on percentiles (constant dollars): [2] 1986: N/A......108,411......56,913......44,394......29,418......15,786 1987: N/A......122,614......60,224......46,585......29,915......15,641 1988: N/A......132,828......61,484......46,861......29,922......15,526 1989: N/A......132,152......62,043......46,986......29,709......15,317 1990: N/A......128,096......60,493......46,126......29,135......15,124 1991: N/A......124,919......60,000......45,480......28,582......14,756 1992: N/A......129,654......60,658......45,942......28,780......14,828 1993: N/A......128,522......60,475......45,728......28,519......14,657 1994: N/A......132,069......61,556......46,392......28,841......14,711 1995: N/A......137,406......63,137......47,306......29,007......14,661 1996: N/A......145,026......64,462......47,792......29,163......14,769 1997: N/A......156,222......67,320......49,353......30,014......15,198 1998: N/A......164,427......69,999......50,775......30,877......15,553 1999: N/A......176,119......72,537......52,630......31,792......15,855 2000: N/A......182,038......74,527......53,510......32,070......16,075 Adjusted gross income (millions of dollars): 1986: 2,524,124......285,197......608,467......886,510......1,490,173......2,103,569 1987: 2,813,728......346,635......722,221......1,038,221......1,709,389......2,373,869 1988: 3,124,156......473,527......890,702......1,232,536......1,950,860......2,657,865 1989: 3,298,858......468,079......918,421......1,286,539......2,054,478......2,805,235 1990: 3,451,237......483,252......953,337......1,338,032......2,144,177......2,932,537 1991: 3,516,142......456,603......943,350......1,343,202......2,174,765......2,984,003 1992: 3,680,552......523,586......1,031,093......1,443,784......2,299,401......3,131,400 1993: 3,775,578......520,586......1,048,252......1,474,463......2,357,953......3,212,299 1994: 3,961,146......546,700......1,103,084......1,552,205......2,481,074......3,371,352 1995: 4,244,607......619,610......1,222,723......1,704,513......2,689,820......3,627,542 1996: 4,590,527......736,545......1,393,805......1,909,149......2,952,637......3,944,383 1997: 5,023,457......872,826......1,597,107......2,151,401......3,267,600......4,327,992 1998: 5,469,211......1,010,245......1,796,647......2,393,716......3,589,600......4,721,430 1999: 5,909,329......1,152,820......2,011,763......2,652,835......3,927,308......5,126,164 2000: 6,423,977......1,336,773......2,267,403......2,955,386......4,313,786......5,589,755 Descending cumulative percentiles Year: Total............Top 1%.....Top 5%.......Top 10%....Top 25%....Top 50% Total income tax (millions of dollars): [3] 1986: 366,979......94,491......156,240......200,703......278,976......343,289 1987: 369,046......91,559......159,642......205,230......283,857......346,655 1988: 412,761......113,841......188,303......236,411......321,297......389,145 1989: 432,838......109,259......190,188......241,458......334,258......407,599 1990: 447,061......112,338......195,088......247,514......344,340......421,075 1991: 448,349......111,267......194,480......250,282......346,511......423,759 1992: 476,163......131,156......218,479......276,213......373,700......452,070 1993: 502,720......145,836......238,083......297,808......398,516......478,563 1994: 534,754......154,337......254,106......317,902......425,402......509,256 1995: 588,331......178,035......287,741......357,402......472,808......561,225 1996: 658,124......212,626......335,433......411,404......535,164......629,684 1997: 727,303......241,239......377,241......459,639......594,007......696,161 1998: 788,452......274,009......424,506......512,836......651,964......755,240 1999: 877,292......317,419......486,464......583,002......732,890......842,168 2000: 980,521......366,929......553,670......660,150......823,706......942,179 Average tax rate (percentage): [4] 1986: 14.54......33.13......25.68......22.64......18.72......16.32 1987: 13.12......26.41......22.10......19.77......16.61......14.60 1988: 13.21......24.04......21.14......19.18......16.47......14.64 1989: 13.12......23.34......20.71......18.77......16.27......14.53 1990: 12.95......23.25......20.46......18.50......16.06......14.36 1991: 12.75......24.37......20.62......18.63......15.93......14.20 1992: 12.94......25.05......21.19......19.13......16.25......14.44 1993: 13.32......28.01......22.71......20.20......16.90......14.90 1994: 13.50......28.23......23.04......20.48......17.15......15.11 1995: 13.86......28.73......23.53......20.97......17.58......15.47 1996: 14.34......28.87......24.07......21.55......18.12......15.96 1997: 14.48......27.64......23.62......21.36......18.18......16.09 1998: 14.42......27.12......23.63......21.42......18.16......16.00 1999: 14.85......27.53......24.18......21.98......18.66......16.43 2000: 15.26......27.45......24.42......22.34......19.09......16.86 Adjusted gross income share (percentage): 1986: 100.00......11.30......24.11......35.12......59.04......83.34 1987: 100.00......12.32......25.67......36.90......60.75......84.37 1988: 100.00......15.16......28.51......39.45......62.44......85.07 1989: 100.00......14.19......27.84......39.00......62.28......85.04 1990: 100.00......14.00......27.62......38.77......62.13......84.97 1991: 100.00......12.99......26.83......38.20......61.85......84.87 1992: 100.00......14.23......28.01......39.23......62.47......85.08 1993: 100.00......13.79......27.76......39.05......62.45......85.08 1994: 100.00......13.80......27.85......39.19......62.64......85.11 1995: 100.00......14.60......28.81......40.16......63.37......85.46 1996: 100.00......16.04......30.36......41.59......64.32......85.92 1997: 100.00......17.38......31.79......42.83......65.05......86.16 1998: 100.00......18.47......32.85......43.77......65.63......86.33 1999: 100.00......19.51......34.04......44.89......66.46......86.75 2000: 100.00......20.81......35.30......46.01......67.15......87.01 Total income tax share (percentage): 1986: 100.00......25.75......42.57......54.69......76.02......93.54 1987: 100.00......24.81......43.26......55.61......76.92......93.93 1988: 100.00......27.58......45.62......57.28......77.84......94.28 1989: 100.00......25.24......43.94......55.78......77.22......94.17 1990: 100.00......25.13......43.64......55.36......77.02......94.19 1991: 100.00......24.82......43.38......55.82......77.29......94.52 1992: 100.00......27.54......45.88......58.01......78.48......94.94 1993: 100.00......29.01......47.36......59.24......79.27......95.19 1994: 100.00......28.86......47.52......59.45......79.55......95.23 1995: 100.00......30.26......48.91......60.75......80.36......95.39 1996: 100.00......32.31......50.97......62.51......81.32......95.68 1997: 100.00......33.17......51.87......63.20......81.67......95.72 1998: 100.00......34.75......53.84......65.04......82.69......95.79 1999: 100.00......36.18......55.45......66.45......83.54......96.00 2000: 100.00......37.42......56.47......67.33......84.01......96.09 N/A-- Not applicable. [1] The number of returns with negative adjusted gross income, i.e., returns with an adjusted gross deficit, and the corresponding amounts for adjusted gross deficit, were excluded from Table 1. By excluding deficit returns, alternative minimum tax reported on some of these returns was also excluded. For Tax Year 2000, there were 5,714 returns with no adjusted gross income that reported income tax, mostly alternative minimum tax, totaling $100.6 million. [2] For Table 1, constant dollars were calculated using the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' consumer price index for urban consumers (CPI-U, 1982-84=100). For 2000 the CPI-U = 172.2 [3] Total income tax is the sum of income tax after credits and alternative minimum tax reported on returns that showed a positive amount for adjusted gross income. Therefore, total income tax excludes alternative minimum tax, Form 8814 tax (tax on a child's interest or dividends), and Form 4972 tax (tax on lump-sum distributions from qualified retirement plans) reported on some returns with a negative amount for adjusted gross income. See also footnote 1. [4] The average tax rate was computed by dividing total income tax (see footnote 3) by (positive) adjusted gross income. Note: Unles otherwise stated, money amounts are in current (not constant) denominations. Source: Internal Revenue Service, Statistics of Income Division, Unpublished Statistics, September 2002.
