Guess who's not coming to dinner? Clark
Originally published at Working for Change
Sean Gonsalves
Cape Cod Times
10.08.03
Guess who's not coming to dinner?
Clark can't be against terrorism if he condoned it in Kosovo
In a recent column I wrote about Democratic presidential candidate and retired General Wesley Clark, I quoted Col. David Hackworth, who referred to the former Allied Commander as the "Ultimate Perfumed Prince."
Since then, Hackworth has apparently had a change of mind and has retracted his previous perfumed perceptions. I owe that to Hackworth, Clark and the readers of this column.
What convinced me to write about Clark at all was when I heard Democrats start referring to Clark as some kind of anti-war candidate.
And then I saw an endorsement for his candidacy from Michael Moore. Yeah, "Bowling for Columbine" Mike Moore, whom I consider to be a man of deep integrity; a real stand-up guy.
I asked myself: did Moore -- a courageous outspoken critic of Bush's war against Iraq -- fall for Clark "the anti-war candidate," which is to say the pro-peace candidate?
Hackworth's reevaluation aside, I'll repeat what I wrote in that Clark column. During the war in Kosovo, Clark, as Supreme Allied Commander, defended the bombing of a Belgrade TV station in which 20 journalists were killed. Several Clark supporters have written me, arguing that TV stations are "legitimate" targets in war.
Wow. You mean to tell me that if the New York Times or CNN headquarters got hit by the enemy we wouldn't condemn it as an act of terrorism; a war crime resulting in the killing of innocent civilians? The point I'm trying to make is: If you're going to be against terrorism and for peace, you have to be against all terrorism -- theirs and ours.
I'm not suggesting that we do nothing in response to terrorism, which is what those ignorant of nonviolent theory and practice are always blowing hot air about. And I'm also not suggesting that Ghandism is the overnight answer to war.
But how can any sane person argue that it's not a step in the right direction? And who can dispute with Dr. King's contingent prophecy: our global choice is nonviolence or nonexistence?
What candidate is heading in that direction? Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich (no, I don't work for his campaign, though I did meet him at a gathering in Oberlin, Ohio two years ago).
Kucinich recently submitted a bill, H.R. 2459, to establish a Department of Peace -- a measure initiated by an old war vet named O'Kelly McCluskey and backed by the National Veterans for Peace. But you probably didn't know that because the "liberal" media is apparently allergic to the Kucinich campaign.
I saw a letter to the editor recently that stated Howard Dean was the only Democratic presidential candidate who voted against the neo-con led war against Iraq. Clearly, the writer doesn't know much about Kucinich, whose opposition to Bush runs far deeper than Dean's.
At an anti-war rally in California two weeks ago, Kucinich said: "The President has asked for another $87 billion with which to sink us further into the quicksand of a U.S.-occupied Iraq, even though a majority of you oppose spending that money. It is time to demand 'U.N. in, U.S. out!' There must be no privatization of the oil that belongs to the Iraqi people."
"This unjustified war has already cost thousands of Iraqi and American lives. U.S. soldiers are continuing to be killed and wounded. More Americans have died in Iraq since the President declared the mission accomplished than prior to that point."
"Now is the time to raise your voices, Americans. Hold peaceful demonstrations. Do not be intimidated! And call you Congress members to tell them to vote against another $87 billion for this misadventure."
Sept. 11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows member Adele Welty, whose son Timmy was one of the many New York City firefighters killed in the World Trade Center attacks, has this to say: "I support Congressman Dennis Kucinich's bill, which would roll back certain sections of the Patriot Act that I believe pose a serious threat to the exercise of our constitutional rights -- particularly our right to due process and our right to petition the government in cases where we believe the government's actions are contrary to the best interests of the American people.... I do not want my son's death used again for the purpose of concentrating power in the hands of the administration, in ways that will compromise our liberties."
This Tuesday night at 7 p.m. Kucinich will join Ralph Nader and grass-roots activists at the Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church on M Street in Washington, D.C. It's a rally to "promote civic engagement and expanded democracy... address the growing needs in D.C. for affordable housing, health care facilities, and well maintained libraries."
All ten presidential candidates and the "liberal" media have been invited. But guess who won't be coming to dinner?
Subscribe to this blog's feed
Comments
Clark has never claimed to be anti-war. He will stand up for the rights of Americans and protect them using war as the last resort. He is of the opion that iraq war was unneccessary. Remember Clark fought a war to end genocide and was triumphed. No other candidates can claim a victory for such a noble cause. I like what Dennis has to say, but he needs to realize that sometimes we need to fight to protect freedoms, ours and others.
Posted by: Rakim | November 11, 2003 05:08 PM