Is 2008 about Global Warming or the Iraq War? Why Wes Clark solves both.

Global Warming and the Iraq War have the same root cause: powerful corporate leaders telling the White House and Congress how to run the country. Global Warming and the Iraq war are twin failures of neoliberal/neoconservative politics.

The trouble starts when the man or woman sitting in the White House meets behind closed doors with the head of General Motors or Exxon or whomever to decide for 300 million people how to use our tax dollars.

This disturbing 1998 Guardian piece http://www.guardian..... by Greg Palast on the U.S. government's role in the 1972 overthrow of Chile's President Salvadore Allende describes the financial interests of large U.S. based multinationals in the Chilean economy. The fingerprints of giant corporations on U.S. policy decisions aren't always easy to spot but then along came George W. Bush to paint a clear picture for us.

 
George W. Bush's violence and incompetence in carrying out his orders to get Exxon/BP/Shell's contracts in Iraq reinstated may have backfired. Only time will tell. He has succeeded in letting everyone in on the secret that a 60 year old fossil fuel energy paradigm has dominated the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives for what it is, a failure to face our long term energy problems while pandering to special interests. 

That's why people are turning to progressive populists like Jim Webb and Jon Tester. And why it's important to understand that Wes Clark, a progressive populist and strategic thinker doesn't buy into the policies driven by the fossil fuel industry which seems to believe that our soldiers and our tax dollars are at their disposal for energy wars and that they should get a free ride on carbon dioxide/toxic emissions.

Clark is a proven strategic thinker who testified in 2002 against what many agree was a war for control of oil and Clark is also on record from the time of his 2004 campaign that the environment, including the crisis of Global Warming is a national security issue . The War in Iraq and Global Warming are two sides of the same unfettered fossil fuel industry coin. 

  DLC Democrats may throw their constituents some bones on social policies but on big ticket items like trade, war for oil, toxic hydrocarbon emissions, empowering unions, and universal healthcare, they have failed to overcome the stranglehold of neoliberal and neoconservative politics that represent the interests of big oil, big coal and related industries (I worry about a resurgence of big nuclear; the last energy bill kept taxpayers are on the hook in the venet of a financial/nuclear meltdown on new nuclear plants.)

Wes Clark campaigned for Jim Webb, Jon Tester, Ned Lamont and other gritty, tough, honest candidates because he obviously sees in them the strength of character necessary to achieve a roll back of the unfair economic polices that are robbing our treasury, wrecking our environment and destabilizing the world for a handful of special interests.

Clark's policy positions are the result of a sober, analytical assessment of our problems free of the distortion and spin from entrenched interests. Clark is totally non-ideological. He's the antithesis of a number of other presidential hopefuls who may be adept at pushing hot button topics but have a history of pandering to those interests. 

As one pundit after another, like Chris Matthews and Tim Russert, race for the exit on pro-war Iraq talk and one 2008 presidential hopeful after another, who are on record for their votes on the 2002 Iraq War Resolution, try to dance around the question of where they stand on Iraq; where they stood on Iraq during the 2002 vote; and what they advise on Iraq, Iraq is now the 400 pound gorilla that needs an honest answer.

We know that back in 2002 http://www.dailykos....
when the war fever was high, Wes Clark was standing up and warning the Republican controlled Congress about the dire consequences that were likely to befall us should we mistakenly invade Iraq, while those Senators who were 2008 presidential hopefuls remained silent. (To his great credit, then presidential hopeful, Senator Russ Feingold joined 22 other Senators to vote against the Iraq War Resolution. And to Congressman Dennis Kucinich's credit he is also on record against the war on Iraq from 2002.)

Global Warming:

Failure to deal with Global Warming shows the stranglehold that runaway corporate power has over policy decisions at the highest level of government. Why else would achievable CAFE standards of 40 miles per gallon have been ignored by our executive and legislative branches for more than 15 years? Why else would state of the art scrubbers to cap toxic and carbon dioxide emissions not have been mandated while our air and water were used as corporate toilets? Where were the epidemiological studies to measure the external costs of big oil/big coal's toxic emissions, namely the health and environmental costs to the public at large, to legislate that these costs be charged back against the profits reaped by big oil/big coal's stockholders? The public is paying hundreds of billions of dollars in health costs for asthma and an epidemic of previously rare cancers like pancreatic cancer. Might there not be some connection to the millions of pounds of toxic emissions of benzene, butadiene, etc? http://scorecard.org...

Shouldn't these costs be charged back against the polluters if epidemiological studies prove they share responsibility? Shouldn't we be willing to consider kicking in some tax dollars to help pay for capping these emissions which are also the root cause of global warming? Regardless whether taxpayers should partly fund this or not, it will take clear, strategic thinking to solve these problems not ideological mumbo jumbo or political pandering. Crisis management also just doesn't cut it.

The neoliberals...those that supported NAFTA, wars for oil, IMF draconian policies for Third World Countries, factory farms, genetically modified foods, the whole panoply of policy that is not sustainable or healthy or in our long term best interest...have, too often, joined their neoconservative brethren in forcing short term driven corporate policies down our throats. The neoconservatives distract us with wedge issues. The neoliberals warn us to be grateful for the few bones we get because if we fail to support them the neoconservatives might get back in.

  While pundit after pundit and politician after politician now jump on the global warming bandwagon encouraged by Al Gore's movie, "An Inconvenient Truth" http://www.climatecr...  and Tim Flannery's book "The Weather Makers" http://www.theweathe... and Natural Resources Defense Council http://www.nrdc.org/ and Environmental Defense http://www.environme... and many other scientists and non profit groups and concerned people, it's worth remembering that Wes Clark, during his 2004 presidential primary campaign called global warming a "national security" priority.

We need a strategic thinker to tackle this crisis. Here's Wes Clark's 2004 policy position on the environment:

Clean energy/global warming. This nation can no longer defer serious action to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels. We urgently need to confront the challenge of developing a 21st century energy policy, both as a matter of national security -- to reduce our dependence on foreign oil -- and to combat the profound danger of global warming. This is a challenge that we can meet with American ingenuity, resolve, and technological leadership. Yet the Bush Administration has adopted a head-in-the-sand policy of denial, delay, and deceit. Its energy plan is stuck in a past when it seemed that fossil fuels could be burned with impunity. On global warming, the Administration walked away from the Kyoto Protocol, announcing its unilateral approach to the world. At home, it has pursued a do-nothing policy, calling for weak, voluntary measures to cut carbon emissions, while opposing real, bipartisan solutions. And it has even sought to obscure efforts by its own scientists to inform the public about climate change. In June 2002, the President dismissed an EPA report warning of the human impact on climate change, and in June 2003, the White House deleted key language on the health and environmental consequences of climate change from a key Administration report on the environment.

As President, I will pursue a far-reaching, strategic energy plan to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels, including our dependence on foreign oil; cut greenhouse gas emissions; and maintain economic growth. I will:

Promote the use of fuel-efficient cars, SUVs and minivans by --

Strengthen automotive fuel efficiency standards, in consultation with scientists, environmental groups, industry, and others;

Accelerating the use of hybrid vehicles through targeted tax incentives; and

Spurring research into hydrogen-powered fuel cells;

Impose a cap on carbon emissions from power plants by putting the market to work as we did in controlling acid rain -- with tough but fair limits, coupled with an emissions trading program, so that businesses will get the incentives they need to invest in emission control;

Aggressively promote the use of renewable energy like solar and wind, ensuring that we will be capable of producing 20 percent of our electricity from renewable energy sources by the year 2020;

Harness the power of bioenergy, turning farm products into energy and fuel and helping American farmers profit from the fight against global warming;

Use standards, incentives, and other measures to significantly increase the energy efficiency of our power plants, our business equipment, and our home appliances;

Invest in the capture and sequestration of carbon;

Upgrade our outdated electric grid so that power can be distributed efficiently and reliably;

Help communities plan for smart growth rather than suburban sprawl; and

Lead the United States to re-engage in international global warming negotiations, recognizing that American leadership is essential and that all nations must do their part in meeting this challenge.
From the soot and smog that threatens our health to the global warming that threatens our future, our well-being depends upon our ability to meet the extraordinary environmental challenges of the 21st century.

We can meet these challenges - and we can do so while growing a robust, prosperous economy. We can do this on the strength of American technology , American innovation, and American drive. All we need is leadership.
 

Here's the wikipedia recap of Al Gore's 2000 campaign policy positions:
http://en.wikipedia....
The summary of Al Gore's 2000 policy position on global warming is

Take decisive steps - not only in the US but also in developed and developing nations - to reverse the rise in global warming in a way that creates jobs

Al Gore has since 2000 focused a great deal of effort to alert the public to global warming. I submit that Wes Clark is the strategic thinker who can implement strategic policy to get us where we need to go.

THE IRAQ WAR

If you buy the argument that the Iraq War was bottom line about regaining the oil contracts for Exxon/BP/Shell that Saddam Hussein violated in the 1970's, which btw dovetails with

1. Bush's "permanent" military bases,

2. Cheney's secret energy task force meetings 

3. Former Exxon CHM, Lee Raymond's geopolitical speeches about how Exxon would not risk oil exploration in Third World energy rich countries if their contracts/intellectual property/real property were not assured and protected.

Surely Senators in the United States Congress who voted for the Iraq War Resolution understood that it was in reality a corporate driven war and surely their "yes" votes favored corporate interests, leaving American taxpayers and those who serve in the United States military holding the bag. Also, what about these Senators' responsibility to the 100's of thousands of innocent Iraqis killed and injured by this war and the destabilization of the whole Middle East.
(see Lee Raymond's speeches linked to here:
http://www.dailykos....

  Isn't it time for a grownup in the White House?

We know who has payed the price for this war and who has reaped the benefits.
Senator Hillary Clinton who voted for the War, even now, says she believes that the aftermath of the war was mismanaged, as though that's where the key misjudgement lay. Senator Clinton obviously believed things would turn out better, failing to heed the warnings of Wes Clark and Jim Webb and Tony Zinni and others.

Senator Edwards also fell in line on the pro war rhetoric until the catastrophic debacle became too difficult to ignore.

Neither one has ever really acknowledged that the risks they were willing to take were born by our soldiers and American taxpayers while any benefits accrued to corporate interests and contracts. Even if by some miracle, stability in Iraq had been achieved, it was a neoliberal/neoconservative thought process that war was a good idea. But it is not rational to believe that democracy or stability is achieved at the point of a gun. Institutions, transparency, diplomacy, free press, cooperation, conflict resolution, rule of law, security, public debate are requisite, not fear and violence.

Here's what Wes Clark said in 2004 on Iraq. 

Iraq: What it Takes to Win

So how do we put these principles into practice? Let's take Iraq. I never supported the way this administration led us into war with Iraq. I fully supported taking the problem to the United Nations, and dealing with it through the United Nations. I would never have voted for war. The war was an unnecessary war. It was an elective war. And it has been a huge strategic mistake for this country.

But now that we're in, we've got no choice but to succeed. And by "succeed," I don't just mean finding Saddam Hussein. Success means building a new, peaceful, stable Iraq. It means building a democratic government with strong institutions - schools, hospitals, libraries. And it means leaving behind a country that can live in peace well into the future.

And right now, we're not on course to do any of this. Don't get me wrong -- our troops in Iraq have served with tremendous courage and dedication. And we should honor their service and pray for their safety every day. But they cannot do this on their own. We need to get an international civilian administration in place to help Iraqis prepare to run their own country. We need to get the other actors in the region involved, instead of antagonizing them further.

And we need to be transparent in our business dealings with Iraq. That includes our contractors - no matter what the Vice President may say. If we have nothing to hide, then let's make our economic activities in Iraq an open book. Let's give the Iraqis and our allies a reason to trust us.

Like I said, what I am suggesting does not mean relinquishing our role in reconstructing Iraq. That is simply not an option. It's like the old sign in the china shop - you break it, you bought it.

The Middle East: Our Role

We also need something that has been missing these last two years: sustained and energetic American engagement to resolve the conflict in the Middle East. The Middle East is in crisis, and the violence is getting worse every day. I was heartbroken this week to hear about yet another bombing - one that took the lives of three American citizens. And it's clear that at this point, a lot of people - including many who live in the region - have given up hope.

But as you may know, I specialize in what others might think are hopeless situations. I've spent a lot of my career working in the Balkans. And if you had asked someone ten years ago whether Muslims and Serbs and Croats could live together in Bosnia, in peace and relative stability, they would have said, "That's impossible."

So given where we are, I submit that Wes Clark's judgement and maturity and experience make him the most likely to achieve the change in direction that we so desperately need, namely fair-minded rational policy that doesn't pander to any interest group but does takes into consideration how policy affects all of us. 

That's what's needed to stop Global Warming and end the Iraq War and bring our troops home. Both Wes Clark and Jim Webb have spoken out against permanent military bases in Iraq. Permanent bases so obviously telescope our intentions to continue our corporate control of Iraq's oil for the next 30 years. I'd be interested if those Senators who voted for the Iraq War Resolution have had anything to say about those military bases.

I believe that the CEOs of our largest corporations should consider that even they would be better off with a level playing field of regulation where they can compete fairly instead spending millions of dollars to fund inept candidates for office who subscribe to the winner take all economic race to the bottom.

I have hope that Barack Obama will prove himself as a great and promising leader in the next few years. At this point in time, however, Wes Clark has the established credentials of leadership, experience, proven personal courage and character to convince me that he is the very best candidate for the office of President that we could hope for.

Comments