If elected, Clark said he would repair relations with other nations and use force as a last resort. He said he would be willing to launch a pre-emeptive strike against threats to the United States, and promised to seek a legal definition of terrorism from the United Nations to bring offenders to justice under international law.
Hmm. The reader who sent this thinks so, and I can see why, but it's all a paraphrase. No doubt he'll clarify things later.
UPDATE: Reader Jorge del Rio has these comments:
Actually, the key point in that article that stuck out to me was the last line: "...and promised to seek a legal definition of terrorism from the United Nations to bring offenders to justice under international law."
Two points. First, the UN General Assembly is the last place I would look to for a legal definition, especially for something like terrorism. I can just see this long list of activities that would be terrorism with the caveat, unless done against Israelis. Second, this is approach seems to me to try and make terrorism into a police matter. It is not. This was the same approach used on the first WTC attack as well as the attacks on the USS Cole and the US embassies in Africa. National security matters are NOT police matters.
Thinking like this should preclude anyone for even thinking about running for the presidency.
Yes, it's a discredited approach.
ANOTHER UPDATE: This James Lileks column on Dean is worth reading. And why doesn't Lileks put links to his columns alongside The Bleat?