Well, I actually take that back. I'm sure the DNC and Democrats are the only negative people in this country when it comes to politics...if you can believe some of the conservatives on this board.
Would you briefly recap some of the arguements you cite from the other thread? It seemed to me that it was mostly a matter of how one interprets what Clark said, but I also think there's plenty of additional evidence out there of his changing stance on the war, and most of it predates Drudge's "exclusive revelations." I wrote in the other thread that he'd be far more creditable if he just came out and said that "yes, he initially supported the war and removing Saddam is certainly a good thing, but recent revelatons about the manipulation of intelligence and the continuing lack of evidence of WMDs has caused him to reevaluate his position." this has the virtue of at least being intellectually honest, and gives his audience far more credit for making complex value judgements than he does now. he's been gunning for the dean anti-war vote, and last night may have shown us the limits of that. it'll be interesting to see if he changes his tune a bit. as you said, we're both doing a better job of outlining his position than he is and that troubles me. One of the hallmarks of many politicians who have served in Vietnam is over-caution in the use of american military power. the is epitomised by the powell doctrine, that, among other things, stipulates that we will only use force when the american people are fully committed to doing so, and will only engage the enemy when we have amassed overwhelming force superiority. This philosophy worked quite well in GWI, but it's limitations are apparent in the war on terror. Rumsfeld has worked hard to overcome this mindset w/in the pentagon, and the Afghanistan and Iraqi campaigns demonstrate the value of quick, light forces, backed by air superiority. There's also a political dimension to the powell doctrine, that calls for the broadest possible support from other countries, before taking action. once again, events of the past two years have demonstrated that not only is this not always possible, it may not even be always desirable as it can needlessly restrict our range of options. I'm concerned that Kerry will be too bound by his past harrowing experience of war to be able to make the leaps of imagination and daring necessary to combat an utterly unconventional enemy. I greatly admire him for his service in Vietnam, but I fear it brings forth both good and bad qualities.
Edwards is very, very intriguing as a candidate. I'll have to pay a little more attention to him now, which shouldn't be hard since he's the flavor of the week. Clark gives me the heebie-jeebies, strikes me as a political opportunist & pretty much an empty suit. Kerry, who I think could make a fine President, and Dean can't win. I really, really don't want to vote for GWB, so hopefully there'll be a Kerry/Edwards ticket come November.
Last night, on The Daily Show, they had a piece about wackos running for President. Included in this was "Lobsterman". At the end, they were talking about those running for President and how hard it would be for a "Lobster" (showed picture of Lobsterman), a "Jew" (showed picture of Liebermann) or a "Republican" (showed picture of Clark) to win.
I've been reading the "dean hammered" thread, and these two really ought to be merged- there's so much overlap.
My last post from your Clark thread: basso- I don't think you're the type to avoid or ignore a point, so right now I'm thinking there's something you're not getting. Clark was for regime change. This does not conflict with the fact that he wanted to "build legitimacy, exhaust all diplomatic options, and use force as a last resort." Let me repeat: Clark was for regime change, but was not in favor of rushing in. There are no conflicts here. It seems to me you surmise that if someone is pro-regime change then they must have been pro war, or war as our administration waged it. That is not the case. Look, the Clinton administration was for regime change. The whole damn world outside of Saddam's regime was for regime change. Does that mean they also were for for utterly ignoring the UN, world opinion, the will of the people of the USA, invading without a strong coalition or a solid plan for a post-Baathist Iraq? Setting a precedent for pre-emptive war? God, what if they at least had waited long enough to get Turkey on our side, get permission to use their airfields and airspace, and done a good and proper two-front invasion from the north and the Gulf? How much shorter would the war have been? But no, it had to be now now now. I digress. For the third time, I state that there are no conflicts in Clark's stance on the war.
This is a bad thing? It certainly is easier to send our boys and girls to die when you haven't experienced war up close yourself, which we know is the case with GWB. Don't know about Rumsfeld. I would certainly find it a positive quality in a leader that he had experienced the horrors of war personally and was dedicated to judicious use of military power. Again, you think this is bad? There may be the occasional really rare instance where something just has to be done, like Bosnia, but you're never going to get UN approval because they just don't get anything done. But in the case of Iraq, this was just a major screwup. Just look at my example of Turkey above. That is only one nation who we certainly have diplomatic leverage with, that would have had a huge effect on the speed and effectiveness of the actual war. I'm not even touching on the immense political fallout post-war. One thing I agree about though, is the new era of extremely quick light forces and special forces backed up by air power and highly coordinated intelligence. I'm really glad that's how we ran the campaign in Afghanistan.
I think Clark, and by extension you, are trying to have it both ways. Here's a sampling of quotes from two oped articles Clark wrote for the Times of London last April: "Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back"? "Liberation is at hand. Liberation — the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, eases lingering doubt and reinforces bold action. Already the scent of victory is in the air"? "The operation in Iraq will also serve as a launching pad for further diplomatic overtures, pressures and even military actions against others in the region who have supported terrorism and garnered weapons of mass destruction. Don't look for stability as a Western goal. Governments in Syria and Iran will be put on notice — indeed, may have been already — that they are 'next' if they fail to comply with Washington's concerns"? "If there is a single overriding lesson [from the campaign in Iraq], it must be this: American military power...is virtually unchallengeable today. Take us on? Don't try! And that's not hubris, it's just plain fact"? "President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt"? "Let's have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue — but don't demobilize yet. There's a lot yet to be done, and not only by the diplomats"? As far as "exhausting" all diplomatic remedies, when do you say enough is enough? After 12 years? If you see the war on Iraq as part of the war on terror (which the admin surely does), why would you bend over backwards to enlist the support of an organization (the UN) that can't even agree on what the definition of terrorism is? Despite his rhetoric, Clark is vulnerable on the war question. This was the point of my original posting of the Drudge article and clark's testimony to congress. He'll pay a political price for it, either now from the other dems, or in november if he gets that far, unless he comes up with something better than "my position has been consitent from the beginning, which in the face of substantial evidence to the contrary is just not creditable. Let me reiterate that I'm not bashing Clark- merely subjecting him to the same scrutiny to which we should subject all the candidates, including W.
In both instances I was referring to the new reality of unconventional war/ anti-terrorist ops, where, in order to be successful we must adopt a "forward strategy of defense." again, in the case of iraq, the supposes you accept the Bush arguement that Iraq is part and parcel of the war on terror.
It's true you have to more than anti-Bush. You've got to have good taste in music. Looking back, I think it's clear that when Dean pandered to the young and hip with Jean his nomination was cooked. Kucinich doesn't exactly look like one would expect a big Willie fan to look, but he gets a little credit, sort of similar to how he doesn't look like a President but gets a little credit. What was Lieberman thinking? Way too elitist and the Classical vote is not that big of a demographic. A clear example of shoddy decision-making that will haunt him in the future. Sharpton's makes sense for his background and constituency, but Gospel lacks the broad-based appeal. That leaves the rockers. Clark goes way down in my estimation by picking (cough) Journey. Doubly bad because Journey comes from San Fran, that hotbed of licentiousness... no help in the heartland for Clark. (I'll have to let my wife know this, but first need to figure out a nice way to break such horrible news.) Kerry goes safe and picks The Beatles... that was his generation and they have legs with the younger sets as well. Going outside the US shows foreign policy savvy. Solid, but predictable. Edwards is interesting. You would expect another country pick here, but no... he goes for The Boss further exhibiting his multi-regional appeal. Big winner in the music primary: Edwards, with Kerry second. _____________ WASHINGTON (AP) - The Democratic presidential candidates have the musical spectrum covered. An Associated Press canvass of the candidates on what album they'd most like to pop into their CD players turns up gospel, opera, hip-hop, country and rock. The rock fans are Wesley Clark, who likes Journey's "Greatest Hits"; Sen. John Edwards, "The Essential Bruce Springsteen"; and Sen. John Kerry, the Beatles' "Abbey Road." Howard Dean singled out the music of Grammy-winning hip-hop singer Wyclef Jean. Rep. Dennis Kucinich chose country's Willie Nelson (who has endorsed him), and Al Sharpton favored gospel's Yolanda Adams. Sen. Joe Lieberman's favorite album is "Sueno," by classical Italian tenor Andrea Bocelli.
Clark's also an Outkast fan...when a skeptical MTVJ heard this, she went to a Clark spwaking engagmentn ( about 3 months ago) and challeneged him on this, asking if he even knew any Outkast songs, to which Clark replied " I can shake it like a polaroid picture." The stunned MTVJ siad he made a believer out of here, and said she anticipatesvoting for Clark. God, we're deep.
Did you see The Daily Show last night? They did a piece on the "Senior Political Analyst" types and what they said about Iowa. It was hilarious. My favorites were the ones along the lines of "If Kerry does well in Iowa, that may help his campaign." We're not that far behind the "experts."
Abbey Road's defensible but square. Bruce? Ick. Journey? If I believed Clark had any access to irony he'd win this game, but he doesn't so he comes in last. Can't fault the Reverend for going gospel, but Willie's the only good answer up there. What a bunch of dorks.
and, 'scuse me, but Bocelli is just Celine Dion in Italian....doesn't qualify as opera. dude can't sing without a mic, the bare minumum to qualify. i think Con te Partiro was a nice song the first 25 times I heard it. But real opera? Try Bjorling...
Wow. If Clark said/wrote those things, the repubs can indeed roast him if he sticks to anti-war stance for his campaign. If he's so against the war as it was waged, he better outline real well what he would have done differently, because he obviously didn't have much negative so say back there. I don't think he contradicted himself in his full pre-war testimony, but these quotes are another ballgame. cool.
Okay, this explains a couple of things that I don't have to ask questions about when you would say "the war on terror." I definitely don't agree that Iraq was part of the war on terror. ps-try shrinking the font on your sig, it's so huge it dwarfs your posts.
Bingo! Thank you! Bocelli and Charlotte Church are about as 'classical' as the Andrew Lloyd Webber Requiem. Viva Bjorling!
