Gen'l Wes Clark says

[Undertoad]

"And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice... people I know very well - our president George W. Bush. We need them there."

-- Wes Clark, May 2001

Dat's until they (he feels) dicked them. So now he feels that he's seen their true colors, and he thinks he can do a better job.

And I'm not in a position to say either way.

[Happy Monkey]

I'm not a big fan of that quote. Even back in May 2001, Bush was bad. But he had not yet slipped to the current level of failure. And if Clark believed half of Bush's campaign problems, things may have looked rosy.

In the final call, though, I would prefer someone who didn't need for things to get this bad before they noticed.

He noticed a long time ago. He just hadn't by May, 2001. It was a few months later. Go read up about it.

[Beestie]

men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice...

So, is there somethign we should know General Clark?

[Torrere]

General Clark? Or Condoleezza Rice?

[Undertoad]

The context: a Republican fund-raiser in local Arkansas.

It's a long rambling speech and not all that interesting to read, and the thing I take away from it is that there is no path from where he was then to where he says he is now. I read that and I get the impression that he is an interventionist of the first order, the evil anti-Griff. He sees a specific need for the US to be militarily involved in many different places. Iraq would have been a test of his theory as it played out.

I will wait to see how that person who was a serious hawk/interventionist pre-9/11 could convert to being anti-Iraq war.

[Griff]

Originally posted by Undertoad
I read that and I get the impression that he is an interventionist of the first order, the evil anti-Griff. He sees a specific need for the US to be militarily involved in many different places. Iraq would have been a test of his theory as it played out.

The Bomber of Belgrade probably won't be getting the much desired endorsemonte de Greiff. It would look like a pretty cold calculation for him to get the Dem nomination. That would also be quite a boon for the Greens, who've taken quite a beating since the Gore near hit. It seems that in their fear of looking weak on fatherland defense/law enforcement the Party's main actors will behave as badly or worse than Republicans. Where is the opposition?

This whole concept of using our military personel to reshape world to the specifications of our ruling party isn't questioned, even given the understanding that the goals will not be pursed long term unless the people screw up and crown another FDR. Both parties know that their own use of grinding violence is always justified whereas the others is always mistaken. We need to elect a hobbit.

edit: We need to take a pledge not to vote for another Southerner. They've embraced the lessons of reconstruction a little too warmly, everything is now the business of government, there is no private life. saw Dr. Zhivago last night it contained good lessons about what happens when everything is political

[Undertoad]

The Clark campaign is saying that Clark voted for Gore in 2000.

[tw]

Originally posted by Undertoad
I will wait to see how that person who was a serious hawk/interventionist pre-9/11 could convert to being anti-Iraq war.

Posting is one of those "hawks" who was pissed at the majority (ie Cheney). A majority that said we could not kick Saddam out of Kuwait. How is this brutal realist also so anti-Iraq? He is not. He is anti-"We are gods chosen people who can lie about WMD". He openly opposed people who "*know*" aluminum tubes would be used for nuclear fuel processing only because they know. Their politics toldl them so. IOW they lied.

This hard nose realist is against polictally inspired extremists - people who know only because they are blessed with divine knowledge or words from George Jr. People who somehow "knew" those alumumin tubes must have been for WMD were challenged. Its called first learning facts. Facts so obvious that I will be blunt about the lies from right wing extremist supporters. We knew those aluminum tubes were not for WMD. AND we knew there was no smoking gun to justify an Iraq invasion. We now know there was no smoking gun because there were no WMD. That is how one who advocated the liberation of Kuwait before it was popular can also oppose a lying administration. Its called being consistent Its called first learning facts.

Its not "hawk" and "doves" as UT portrarys it. Its about using military force to excess if necessary - but only when honest facts -the smoking gun - first exist. The WTC was a smoking gun. Milosevik was a smoking gun. Peral Harbor was a smoking gun. There was no smoking gun for Iraq. We now know the administration also knew that - but lied anyway. That is how an administration abuses military personal - just like in VietNam. Its not about hawk and dove. Its about honesty - such as the aluminum tubes. A lie that will not stay buried. A lie that demonstrates why "we are stuck" in Iraq - a direct quote from General Zinni.