You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #99: This is nonsense [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 12:01 AM
Response to Reply #41
99. This is nonsense
Edited on Thu Dec-09-04 12:01 AM by Jai4WKC08
He lacks in experience in how the House and Senate operate, which is very important if you want to get something passed. He lacks experience in writing legislation, in directing federal bureaucracies which are VERY different than military ones, he lacks experience in framing political issues, in winning legislative battles, in gaining support from opposition party members, and in every other aspect of practical real world politics. It matters."

First off, senior military commanders work very closely with Congress, both the principles and the staff offices. They have to--Congress approves their programs and priorities, and appropriates their funds. Especially important when a major command is given a new, out-of-cycle mission (like a war in Kosovo). Clark has testified before Congress many times, both in full session and in committee, and worked closely with the congressional staffers to ensure proposed legislation met the needs of his commands.

Furthermore, Clark had to work the issues on both sides of the aisle, so he sure as hell knows all about framing issues and building bi-partisan support. In a perfect world, both sides should support a military commander in the field. Think again. The Repubs in Congress did NOT support the efforts in Bosnia or Kosovo, tried to sabotage Clinton's endeavors at every turn. Clark had to work with a largely hostile Congress, with very little support out of the Pentagon, and he managed to pull it off just fine. He of course had a lot of help from the Clinton White House, but you will recall they were having their own problems with Congress at the time.

And above and beyond the normal for a general, Clark also did a tour in the Office of Management and Budget before his first star.

I think you would be hard pressed to find any governor of any state, and damn few Congressmen (certainly not any without several terms of office under their belts) who know more about Washington politics than Wes Clark.

As for your other assertions, presidents do not need experience in WRITING legislation. But see above--Clark knows more about how its done than most career politicians likely to run.

Finally, military agencies (as opposed to combat units) are not at all different from other federal bureaucracies. They're even primarily manned and managed by civilians. Exactly the same.

(edited to correct html tags)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC