The General Is In
As a member of the early grass-roots Draft Wesley Clark campaign, I am very excited about Clark’s announcement that he is running for president (“Who Is This G.I.?” Sept. 29). Your articles describe Clark as being bold, confident, driven and brilliant, with a desire to make himself understood and respected. He is also criticized for being unpopular and an outsider, but, as you point out, “[some] of the resentment against [him] is just plain jealousy.” The election of the president is not a popularity contest. I’m fed up with the good-old-boy network that has the interests of friends above the well-being of our country. When it comes time to vote for our next president, I will choose the intense, independent-minded candidate who believes in diplomacy first. Clark will help America regain respect from our allies, who have been insulted and alienated by our current administration. With Clark as our next president, I will feel proud to be American again. Linda McLennan Carmel, Calif.
I strongly dispute your portrayal of Gen. Wesley Clark as an obsessive, relentless, driven, practically friendless man “who made more enemies than he defeated.” I have known Wes Clark from the time he and I were teenage roommates at West Point. You quote a “friend” who never saw him relax. Wes and I played pinball in Colorado (he whipped me), tobogganed onto a frozen river in the Finger Lakes, shot eight ball one-on-one in the NATO chateau and played Foxtail catch in front of his dumbfounded bodyguards. Wes roared with laughter when we escaped his military hospital intensive-care ward in Japan, even as he cried out in pain from nearly ripping open the stitches from his Vietnam wound. Your claim that Wes is a brown-nosing Eddie Haskell is ludicrous. Wes was fired as Supreme Allied Commander for speaking out against his bosses. He has always been an independent thinker. In 1972, I returned from a year at a European university and made an appointment with West Point’s academic dean, a colonel, to review my cadet records. When the colonel saw my sandals and ponytail, he immediately postponed the meeting and culled the records. Wes, a captain, invited me to attend the political-science class he was teaching there, and even asked me to speak. He didn’t give a hoot what the big brass would say. As you report, Wes Clark is indeed intense, brilliant, bold and independent, with extraordinary confidence. But he is also a warm, humorous, charming human being. Theodore P. Hill Atlanta, Ga.
I appreciate the coverage given to the possible impact on the Democratic field by Wesley Clark’s candidacy for president. Your articles, however, left me feeling that he may be politically too untested, temperamentally too reactionary and too late in entering the race. But after seeing him speak at a rally recently, I observed a man of sharp intelligence, clear vision and genuine warmth who appeared confident and comfortable in his own skin. Democrats concerned about Howard Dean’s weakness on the national stage now have at last a credible, exciting and independent-minded alternative. Bill Ryan Concord, N.H.
Before the United States got bogged down in the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq, the Bush administration did a superb job of appropriating the flag and turning the concepts of patriotism and love of country completely upside down. In order to redress this situation, the Democrats have no other choice but to select Wesley Clark as their presidential candidate for 2004. Not only will Clark appeal to independents, but he could also have the support of many Republican-leaning veterans who have become disaffected with Bush administration policies. As a retired four-star general with 34 years in the Army, a former commander of NATO forces, a decorated Vietnam War veteran and Purple Heart recipient, and an author of two books on war and diplomacy, Clark is an excellent candidate. His appearance on the ballot would also represent symbolic payback for many veterans who have had their loyalty impugned for questioning the motives behind this administration’s war in Iraq. Doug Martin Middletown, Md.
Your otherwise excellent introduction of Gen. Wesley Clark nearly buried an important item: his Jewish roots. When both international terrorism and the Arab-Israeli conflict stand near the heart of American foreign policy, that connection (whatever the general’s declared religious preference) is relevant and deserves further scrutiny. This voter, for instance, would like to know how those roots might affect Clark’s instincts as he approaches that crucial, long-term foreign entanglement. Howard Dean, to his credit, insists we should be evenhanded. Would Clark be this impartial? Jamieson Spencer St. Louis, Mo.
Your article on Wesley Clark contained interesting tidbits about Clark’s life, but the only detail you offered about his experience as NATO commander was an anecdote that seemed to glorify an insubordinate officer. Where were the details about how the general seamlessly maintained a potentially fractious multinational coalition that disarmed a dictator and prevented thousands of innocent deaths in Kosovo? I would have liked to know more about the general’s many public statements about the importance of diplomacy and multilateralism to America’s national security. Indeed, if the current president had a clue about how to answer those questions he wouldn’t have to fear answering them on national television next year, face to face with the general. Arthur Harris Washington, D.C.
Jonathan Alter is plain wrong (“Why Money Won’t Matter,” Sept. 29). In every presidential contest since 1984, the candidate with the most money raised in the year prior to the election has won his party’s nomination. This isn’t a “fancy and not terribly accurate poll,” it’s the wealth primary, and it matters a great deal, to our country’s shame. Sure, live-TV skills and success with free media matter, too, but on Super Tuesday millions of dollars for paid ads matter most. If that wasn’t the case, why did John McCain drop out of the 2000 race? Yes, “momentum generates money,” as Alter argues, but the opposite is also true. George W. Bush would still be living in Texas if it weren’t for the record-breaking $37 million he raised early in 1999–before he had any public momentum. Nick Nyhart Executive Director Public Campaign/Public Campaign Action Fund Washington, D.C.
In reference to Wesley Clark, Jonathan Alter writes that “even Karl Rove might have trouble turning a winner of the Silver Star into a weenie.” Democrats who believe that having Clark as their nominee will inoculate their party from Rove’s attacks have apparently never heard the story of former Democratic senator Max Cleland, a Vietnam vet and triple amputee, who, in his bid for re-election in 2002, was portrayed by the GOP as unpatriotic for voting against President Bush’s domestic-security bill. Tom Gibson Bentonville, Ark.
Saving Forests by Setting Fires
Hats off to wildland firefighter and self-described nonscientist Samuel Sheridan for his excellent article about the need for change in the handling of our priceless public forests (“We Must Fight Fire With Fire–Literally,” my turn, Sept. 29). As someone who has a scientific background in wildlife biology, I think Sheridan hits the nail right on the head. All concerned parties need to set aside their egos and put together a plan to keep our forests healthy, vibrant and safe–today and a hundred years from now. Brenda Potts Mt. Union, Pa.
While I believe that we should fund forest-thinning projects near communities to protect people and property, it appears that the management strategies advocated by wildland firefighter Samuel Sheridan will primarily benefit the timber industry by allowing them deep into previously protected areas. As he points out, thinning projects are not profitable for timber companies, and the only way to prevent “future bad fires” is to reduce small trees and underbrush from the 30 million to 40 million acres of threatened forest (an area the size of Montana) by allowing the timber industry to take trees of all sizes. We must protect forests while maintaining sustainable timber-harvest practices. Cindy Jackson Seattle, Wash.
Not Blown Away
I was extremely disappointed by NEWSWEEK’s coverage of Hurricane Isabel (“By a Tempest Tossed,” Sept. 29). In your Aug. 25 issue you ran four articles and a 12- page photo essay about the Blackout of 2003. That event was significant, but why did the hurricane and its aftermath warrant only one page containing three photos and a paragraph under the heading of weather? After the big blackout, power was restored to most people the following day. More than a week after Isabel, hundreds of thousands of us in Virginia and North Carolina were still without electricity. Many homes and businesses were damaged or destroyed. And what about the economic impact here? What about the effect of schools and businesses being closed for more than a week? It was a disservice to your readers to minimize the reality of this event. Craig Miller Williamsburg, Va.
At What Cost a United Europe?
I have always liked George Will’s educated conservatism, but his Sept. 29 column, “The European Project Sags,” let me down. His first sentence, “From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic,” an echo of Churchill’s cold-war quote, does not apply to today’s Europe. Bad as its problems are, they pale with those of the cold—war era. Europe is going through tremendous growing pains partly to help erase the scars of its postwar divisions and, yes, the French are not helping and the Eurobureaucrats anger many, including the new member nations. The accession referendums of some new EU countries passed by relatively narrow margins. Yet the Continent that produced two horrendous world wars seems to have done much better with this unwieldy Union, which, although it irritates many, has thus far managed to maintain peace, prosperity and stability. Jerry Gidaszewski Sycamore, Ill.
Contrary to George Will’s observations, the French are enjoying great popularity in Europe. Their courageous stand against the war in Iraq (opposed by as much as 80 percent of Europeans) made them popular. But what most disturbed me about Will’s column was the way he presented the smaller nations (Ireland and Portugal) as victims of the efforts to build a unified Europe. In the past 12 years, these countries have experienced newfound prosperity that is visible everywhere, from road and house construction to well-stocked supermarkets. Perhaps most striking is Ireland, where, in the late 1980s, grocery stores offered no more than a few cans of goods. Now the selection is as rich as that in the United States. Hesitations to adopt the euro do not originate in poor countries, but in such nations as the United Kingdom, Denmark and Sweden. These countries want the benefits of belonging to the EU (they voted to be part of it) but don’t want to make certain sacrifices. It is the old “having your cake and eating it, too” syndrome. Odile Ayral San Luis Obispo, Calif.
George Will surprises me when he makes the observation about “Europe making a mistake they repeatedly accused the United States of making.” Will is comparing what Sweden is to Europe as what Iraq is to the United States. A more similar historical struggle is what the United States experienced when turning from a confederation into a federation. The Civil War brought about a more unified type of government, despite arrogant state behavior. Yet France and the United States have something in common: both are conceited powers, one by virtue of its culture, the other by its weaponry. Ron Scholten Los Angeles, Calif.
