Military-Industrial Complex in '08!

Which Democratic Ticket do you think would most loyally represent the interests of the military-industrial complex if elected? Feel free to switch the order of the ticket to fit your preference, if you prefer Warner/Clark to Clark/Warner, for example.

For some related reading, here's an article about Democratic Hawks which mentions Evan Bayh and Mark Warner...
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1941710

He calls it "Make- Want". He says "Republicans are interested in weapons while Democrats are more interested in the soldiers themselves."

He has also said "he knows where all the skeletons are buried." Eisenhower warned us about this and Eisenhower is Clark's military hero, so this would all make sense.

Clark is the only potential candidate who I have ever heard overtly address this issue. That is one of the early reasons I supported him. All my life, I have hoped that we could get rid of much of this weaponry that does so much harm to people, to the environment, and uses up so much of our treasury.

Just as it took a General to warn us about this, I strongly believe it will take another General to deal with it.

Especially the quote in the first paragraph. I must admit that I have not been following Wes Clark too closely. I am more of an environmental-issues guy.

This from an interview with Laura Knoy:
1. http://www.nhpr.org/node/5339

"I think General Eisenhower was exactly right. I think we should be concerned about the military industrial complex. I think if you look at where the country is today, you've consolidated all these defense firms into a few large firms, like Halliburton, with contacts and contracts at the highest level of government. You've got most of the retired Generals, are one way or another, associated with the defense firms. That's the reason that you'll find very few of them speaking out in any public way. I'm not. When I got out I determined I wasn't going to sell arms, I was going to do as little as possible with the Defense Department, because I just figured it was time to make a new start.

But I think that the military industrial complex does wield a lot of influence. I'd like to see us create a different complex, and I'm going to be talking about foreign policy in a major speech tomorrow, but we need to create an agency that is not about waging war, but about creating the conditions for Peace around the world. We need some people who will be advocates for Peace, advocates for economic development not just advocates for better weapons systems. So we need to create countervailing power to the military industrial complex."

Clark: Don't spare Pentagon
1. Clark cited his neophyte status when queried about Bush's request for $87 billion next year for military operations and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"If I've learned one thing in my nine days in politics, you better be careful with hypothetical questions, and you've just asked one," he said.
"We need to support our troops. But we need answers on this. ... The president needs to tell us how he's going to pay for it. This can't be an addition to the deficit."
Clark did say that he would repeal Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans and put a moratorium on any new federal programs "unless you can pay as you go."
"We need to put all the government spending programs on the table, including the military programs," he said.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/25/elec04.prez.debate/

"We're faced with a very serious deficit problem. We need to keep the--we need to go back to the top 2 percent and repeal those tax cuts. We need to put all the government spending programs on the table, including the military programs. We need to then have no new programs unless you can pay as you go. And then we need a simpler, fairer, more progressive tax code. "
http://www.crocuta.net/Dean/Democrats'_Debate_NYC_25Sept_transcript.html

You Clark fans are quick with the links. :thumbsup: Another DUer had enlightened me with Clark's climate change views and I was impressed. Btw, the crocuta link is not execting.

However, this is something he said in a primary debate.....and that link was just a transcript, which can be found in a number of sites!

Also..while I'm at it, here's an editorial on the tax plan Clark proposed at the time of the primaries....written after he dropped out of the race (so it wasn't a piece trying to sell him) http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2004/02/18/opinion/myers.html

I suspected Feingold/Kucinich would get a lot of votes. Or, people just don't like my poll.

It's divisive and unnecessary.

But that said, I voted for Feingold/Kucinich because that ticket, for all that the two men themselves are great, would almost guarantee a Republican in the White House in 2009. And that's the best the MIC can hope for.

in the appeal of progressive ideals when presented in a compelling way.

That Feingold can present progressive ideals in a compelling way given the state of the media today.

As a Jew, I also believe he can't win the nomination, much less the general election. Call me cynical.

be it faith or lack of faith or whatever

I don't want to be united with folks who represent the interests of the NIC, and i have no reason to think there are none of those in the Dem party. So i think it's useful rather than unnecessary to focus some attention on this issue.

(literally, if necessary) if it would get Democrats in the majority in the House or Senate.

A vote for a Dem I don't like is a vote for John Conyers to head the Judiciary Committee, a vote for Charlie Rangle to head the Ways and Means Committee, and so on. It also is a vote for a Dem to be Speaker of the House and get Dem-sponsored bills to floor.

i'd rather try get some different Dems.

I know exactly what policies we'll get. That doesn't mean we can't have some good primary fights inside the Democratic Party preceding the General Elections.

You saved me some writing. You are quite correct in my mind.

...not understanding or didn't really read the poll question carefully and are just selecting the ticket they'd like to see in '08. Feingold/Kucinich?

I suspect you're right. They could not possibly have read the question properly. At least I hope you are right.

I thought it was funny. I suspect people are not reading the poll, or its a protest vote for those who don't like the poll.

us want to cry! :eyes:

Sorry, but it's idiotic to think they will "most loyally represent the interests of the military-industrial complex".

Lots of Clark in there, though.


:eyes:

Clark is a career military man, thus making him part of the military-industrial complex, while Edwards spent his career suing the industrial complex. Kind of obvious.

It is the civilians that seem to own the complexes and profit directly from them, one way or another. Kind of obvious.

Also Edwards' Co-Sponsorship of the IWR Blank check that he also voted for really DID help the MIC. Would'nt you agree?

The Senate is a big part of the MIC. They are the ones that determine how much our government will fork over to the MIC.

Wes Clark was part of the military.....not part of the Industrial Complex part.

Just like I've heard all the same Clark lines over and over and over again.

Isn't it nice how Edwards has a voting history you can examine and compare to what he says? I like that. That way I don't have to just trust whatever a politician with no voting record says when they're pandering to primary voters.

How would I know Clark doesn't support the MIC? Well, besides what he says in speeches, I don't. There's really no way to prove it. Although I'm sure you'll tell me something impressive in his resume that suggests it.

Clark's been retired since 2000......and has earned zero from the MIC....not even by "suing them".

So yeah...it's not what just what one says, it is also what one does that counts.

But What I find fascinating about you is that you have yet to address my posts on John Edwards' Sponsorship and support of the IWR which was the MIC's biggest Boon. :eyes:

that the Iraq war vote was the biggest boon to the MIC. They always find ways to sustain themselves over the years, like the war in Kosovo. Of course, Edwards did vote against the $80 Billion Iraq war supplemental that passed in '03. He stated his opposition before everyone else in the primary except Kucinich and Sharpton. Your argument is pretty weak if all you've got is one vote he admitted was a mistake.

The IWR was why I supported Kucinich in the primary over Edwards, but I'm not a single issue voter.

somehow not the biggest boon to the MIC. :eyes:

the War in Iraq? 500 billion and mounting.

The war in Kosovo? 7 billion and 1.5 lives saved.

The war in Rhwanda? Priceless, if you don't count the 800,000 bodies.

You're not a single voter issue.... but the war has filtered down into many issues.....like poverty and deficits. Like Kucinich said, Foreign Policy affects domestic policies. Hell, why do you think Edwards opened up a "Poverty Center"? Maybe cause he realizes after his participation in Government, more folks than ever are gonna be needin'some help!

Here's Kucinich on the link at home based on a vote for war..... "We can save the American taxpayers over a trillion dollars, which... money which would be surely needed for health or education or retirement security. We can spare the people of Iraq untold suffering and misery and death. We can pull back and we should. We do not have to launch into war. The president can say, stop.

I think that the foreign policy of this country is inexplicably woven into the fabric of domestic policy, because if we're going to war, we can't take care of our people here at home."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june03/kucinich_2-27.html

Fox News, CNN and the media conglomerates Clark worked for are certainly part of the MIC.

At least Wes Clark is on the tube battling those who profit from the MIC the most. Guess sometimes you have to "take your chances" to affect change.

Far as I remember Clark has not worked for General Electric.

other than his not voting for the 87 Billion budget in 03 (which was arguably a political statement and not about the MIC).

Which programs did Edwards cut from the budget when he was in the Senate? and failing that... Which programs did he VOTE to cut the budget on?

You apparently care about the point more than I do, so you'll have to do the research yourself. I'm sure you can google it. Since Republicans were in control I'm guessing you won't find much unless he was on the committee that deals with the pentagon budget.

and Edwards not appearing anywhere. A Poll that is attempting to guage the issue of the Military Industrial Complex in all of its negativity. Then you respond when someone asks you why is Clark named all over the poll, because he was in the military...."Obviously".

So the point I think some of us are making is that it is not "obviously" the military General who has fed the MIC. It has been the congress and in particular, the folks who sponsored and supported a blank check resolution given to bush to go to Iraq. And YES, the Iraq War has been probably the biggest Boon for the MIC since the Cold war ended.

You can try and deny that the Iraq War has been more than profitable to the MIC....but that doesn't make it so.

as it is about weapons or weapons systems.

There are always instances, in every budget, where Congress budgets for systems that the military doesn't want. Mostly so that the jobs created or saved aren't lost to a particularly powerful Rep's district.

Congresspersons add fluff into budgets (defense gets a lot of that 'fluff' since it already has a large budget and it's easier to hide the expenditure) to bring money back to their districts or states.

You can scream about waste all you want, but most Congresscritters want the cash.... in their districts.....

BTW, it's not just the Pentagon budget, you find elements of the MIC scattered throughout the budget. Since you think a voting history is so important, here's an opportunity to prove it. So what is Edward's voting history on the MIC?

Since he never touted any effort at holding the line on Defense (or MIC) spending in favor of more 'populist' programs, I'd say he never tried.

But then, if he'd really know where to look in the budgets in question, maybe he'll get a pass. There's always the "Who knew?" defense.

Look at the contrast between posts #18 and #36 -- concrete information vs. "research it yourself."

You can support anything or anybody if you don't know too much about them. The emptier the suit, the better -- because as least it appears there's no controversy, and you can imagine it's lined in whatever colors you want!

It's why you can launch a candidacy on one term in President School. (Too many terms = too much baggage! No terms = no "political experience!") Think inSIDE the box: a one-term governor or a one-term legislator, vague and nice, or nice and vague.

when asked specific questions.

I'm not planning on voting for a 'who knew' candidate ever again.

"XYZ has done nothing, said nothing, written nothing, about issues 1-100.

All YOU need to know?

XYZ has done nothing, said nothing, written nothing controversial."

What I saw was a demand that I disprove a broad statement made without any backing evidence. If someone wants to make such a broad statement the burden is on them to prove it, which hasn't been done.

You wrote: "You can support anything or anybody if you don't know too much about them. The emptier the suit, the better -- because as least it appears there's no controversy, and you can imagine it's lined in whatever colors you want!"
Funny, that's exactly how I see Clark. He could be a liberal a conservative, who knows. He's an empty suit with no record that can be whatever he wants.

Why don't you tell me every military training course Clark ever took? You have to look it up because I'm too lazy.

If you know the answer, then give us the links. The simple fact is that since Edwards wasn't on the budget committee, he didn't have the kind of power to influence details of the budget as a first term Senator that you're demanding evidence of. You're making some very broad statements without backing them up. And I've already given one example to contradict your statement that he "never" supported limiting defense spending. Its asinine for you to expect me to look through hours of Senate debate to disprove a point that you have given no proof of.

Since you're putting the burden on me to prove you wrong without you offering any solid evidence of your own, here you go:

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0415-30.htm

At the Chapel Hill conference, Edwards and the speakers his staff invited explored policy ideas to "make work pay," promote child care, job creation, job training, affordable health care, and decent housing, and repair social insurance that protect people through retirement and sickness. They discussed the impact of increasing the minimum wage and strengthening union organizing rights. They examined specific policies that would not only increase poor families' incomes, but also their assets and future prospects. They suggested ideas to help low-income people buy homes, and use tax credits to encourage savings accounts.

"During the Great Depression with Franklin Roosevelt, during the 1960s with Lyndon Johnson's great War on Poverty and Bobby Kennedy going through Appalachia--we were the party that led the fight against poverty in this country. We've got to show some backbone and stand up for the folks who are struggling. We've done it in the past, but it's been a while."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards

Minimum Wage: Along with Senator Edward Kennedy, Edwards has supported legislation that would raise the American minimum wage from $5.15 per hour to $7.25 per hour. Edwards has made fighting poverty through a raise in the minimum wage a staple of his anti-poverty platform.

Education: Strengthening public schools is one of Edwards's top priorities. Edwards is against private-school voucher plans. Throughout his career John Edwards has been an advocate for Public Schools and has supported as much funding whenever possible for Public Schools. Edwards's fondness for the public school system stems from the fact that he himself was a product of public schools.

He was also a co-sponsor of the Patients Bill of Rights.

http://www.dailyorange.com/media/storage/paper522/news/2004/03/01/News/John-Edwards.Underdog.Challenger.Advocates.Social.Reform-622428.shtml

Edwards' proposed series of tax cuts for middle class Americans and college for everyone program - that guarantees first-year free tuition to students willing to serve 10 hours of community service each week - proves his consistent record of standing up for the people, Van Ostern said.

"Edwards thinks everyone should have an opportunity to become wealthy," Van Ostern said.

The South Carolina senator's experience outside of Washington, fighting against insurance companies, made him a fantastic public servant, said Michael Briggs, Edwards' Senate press secretary. He voted for better health care and education for children, affordable prescription drugs for the elderly, and he has voted against tax cuts tilted to the wealthiest two percent of America, Briggs said.

"I helped increase corporate accountability and pass sweeping campaign finance reform. I led opposition to new regulations that would make our air more polluted."

If I were you, I wouldn't quote a potential candidate's press secretary as some sort of authority.

"...made him a fantastic public servant, said Michael Briggs, Edwards' Senate press secretary. ..."

Makes you look like you don't have anyone better to vouch for him. Most of what you've cited are common Democratic themes. So is Edwards for single payer health insurance? The rhetoric sounds nice but isn't specific.

(BTW, Clark's 04 college tuition program was more generous..... and so was his tax cut proposal. Not that it matters at the moment -- since the 04 primary is long over).

Still nothing so far.

haha! What an answer...Kind of painted yourself into a corner there, eh?

Why don't you tell me every military training course Clark ever took. You have to do it because I'm too lazy.

We wouldn't have to be wasting our time arguing over this. Your act was provocative. Edwards was the guy defending Bush's invasion in October of 2003. Forget his IWR sponsorship; people were confused, people were misled, people learned their lesson, whatever. Well after that vote, long after Bush snubbed the U.N. Security Council and said "pull out the inspectors", long after U.S. troops were already occupying Iraq, long after they searched and searched and found no WMD in Iraq, Edwards STILL said that Bush invading Iraq was the right thing to do, even if no weapons of Mass Destruction were EVER found. He said that on HardBall:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295

So why did you leave Edwards out of your poll then, if he and Lieberman were the Democrats who fully supported actually militarily invading Iraq, both AT THE TIME OF THE INVASION and for months afterwords? Couldn't that literally be called "supporting the Military Industrial Complex"? I'm not making that claim. I don't think that is the case. Edwards did make a mistake and Edwards did admit his mistake. But this whole poll is so bogus and inflammatory and unnecessary. It served no useful function, it only got us yelling each other, that's all.

Didn't he co-sponsor or help write the Patriot Act? I seem to remember his touting of that.

Voting is a statement; in fact, legislators often make verbal statements in the process. But it's not the one and only "record" of a person's beliefs or interests, and can also reflect interests in political positioning, contributions, etc...

Action is another statement, and can include speeches, activism, writing, advocacy, endorsements, PACs, etc. It can also involve careers beyond Congressional careers, and risks that go beyond such careers -- financial risks, physical risks, risks to reputation, and then some.

I don't think "voting" in Congress is a be-all, end-all statement or sign of commitment. It says something, but it's not the only way of saying something. So while IWR votes matter, so does fighting -- literally and figuratively; so does standing up, speaking out, and putting one's career on the line.

General Clark has done plenty that I can "examine and compare to what he says," going well beyond voting in Congress.

How in hell is that good for the military-industrial complex? :wtf:

Unless I'm missing something, I think people are just voting for who they like best.

This is a truly goofy poll based on nonsense.

Does he not know enough about the MIC to have a position? :shrug:

which turned out to be the biggest boon to the MIC EVER doesn't count.

Didn't you know that?

the military industrial complex?

sheesh.

:wow: