I can’t think of a politician less sincere and less comprehensible than Wesley Clark. I can’t accuse him of being a flip-flopper, however, because I neve have a clue of what he is saying – other than the ever-fungible “other guys bad, me good.” Today he brought his self-promotional blather to the Democrat’s weekly address. Who would want to watch or listen? Not me or anyone else with something better to do (in my case reading the gardening section of the Seattle Times).
But… there is a good side… a very good side.
By promoting this soporific character the Democrats are beginning to ackowledge the importance of a strong defense and, more importantly, that something really must be done about Islamic facism other than beefing up the Bakersfield police force. This is for the best because, in the grand tradition of you-touch-you-own-it, the Democrats may wind up in the White House the next time around and we don’t want it occupied by a Howard Dean clone. I’d even prefer Wesley Clark to that (if push came to the proverbial shove)… not that that’s about to happen…. but you know what I mean.
Your inability to recognize Clark’s sincerity reflects more on your own character than his.
Liberals and members of the Democratic Party have been having serious discussions about foreign policy and what to do about Islamic fascism FOR JUST AS LONG AS YOU AND EVERYONE ELSE READING THIS HAVE. You simply disagree with the points they raise and the conclusions they draw. And you caricature their views, just as they caricature neo-conservative views.
A good place to read and have a serious discussion with non-moonbat moderate and liberal Democrats is http://americaabroad.tpmcafe.com/
I wish that some of the intelligent, non-trolling conservatives and neo-conservatives who regularly post here would join the fray sometimes over at TPMCafe, the way that myself, Shouchu John, a few other dissidents post here.
After all, you guys are the ones with the facts on your side, and we’re the ones stuck with defending the guilty client, right? Plus, like Hillary Clinton, most of us liberals don’t believe anything in particular anyway. We’re only liberals because we want to gain power, and god knows, in a democratic country like ours, there is no surer route to popularity and riches than being a liberal!
Or so I’ve learned from some of the LESS intelligent posters here.
Seriously, it would be good for both sides.
markus,
Like I always say – The only thing worse than the Democrats is no Democrats.. Thar be Dictators thar.
Why do you think we get so dam* mad at you! Because we (R’s) are all Theocratic, Dictator-loving Imperialists?
markus-
Simply saying “Liberals..have been having serious discussions about foreign policy and what to do about Islamic fascism FOR JUST AS LONG AS YOU AND EVERYONE ELSE READING THIS HAVE” doesn’t make it so!
My best freind is a US historian at his state’s flagship university and an isolationist, and he just spouts straight past the real issues of the day on foreign policy. Even writing books (one of which I edited) and teaching classes need not make one informed about Islam and Islamism or aware of the ancient problem of their pacification.
This, it appears, sums up the equal unseriousness of the Democrats.
As for tpmcafe, perhaps I’ll drop in. I’m surely tired of pissing in the wind at salon. SO, for that pointer, I thank you.
ìLiberals and members of the Democratic Party have been having serious discussions about foreign policy and what to do about Islamic fascism FOR JUST AS LONG AS YOU AND EVERYONE ELSE READING THIS HAVE.î
I can assure you that Iím extremely knowledgeable about the somewhat diverse views of those actively involved within the Democratic Party. Regrettably, their consensus viewpoint is that the United States is ultimately responsible for terrorism. We allegedly screwed over the citizens of the Third World. 9/11 is merely an understandable ìblow backî response. Deep in their guts, the Democrats who dominate the national scene do not really believe that a real war on terror is required to defend the United States. The political activism of the 1960s left an indelible mark on their souls. They are essentially pacifists to the core. At best, a few of them can order bombs to be dropped at 15,000 feet.
Did Wesley Clark say anything specific? No, he merely blasted the Bush administration. Thatís not good enough. The man is not to be trusted. He seems to be driven by pure ambition. Do you doubt me? Well, has Clark had his ìSister Souljahî moment? Does anyone sense that the radical leftist Democrats are afraid of him? If not, why not?
Markus:
I went to the site you recommended, clicked on the “Bolton Watch” and found out that Blair is Bush’s poodle, a rousing post about the evils of the Project for a New American Century,ooh, maybe if I go back there will be some black helicopter stories,. that America is overhyping the Iran nuclear threat, that damn Bush war machine, and that we should count on the IAEA to deal with the Mullah Bomb, of course, their track record is so outstanding and the Iranians are just waiting to make a deal.If they don’t it will be because Bolton is rude. I will go back and take a longer look but on first glance I am not impressed.
ìLiberals and members of the Democratic Party have been having serious discussions about foreign policy and what to do about Islamic fascism FOR JUST AS LONG AS YOU AND EVERYONE ELSE READING THIS HAVE.î
Yes, yes, yes, they discuss more than the R’s but
they never DO resolve to DO anything.
markus
I found the following comments at the site you suggested.
the US and Israel have no intention of allowing Iran to have ANY nuclear energy program. It’s that simple. The entire “crisis” is a smokescreen for regime change and nothing more. So it doesn’t matter WHAT Iran agrees to – the US will simply demand more until Iran cannot agree to it. Anybody who believes differently simply doesn’t comprehend the goals of the neocons and the Zionists.
there was no possibility of launching the war without lying about its aims and costs. That inevitably has led to disappointment with many people conned by the pretence that it was about “disarming Sadaam” or their assumptions that it would strengthen American hegemony and benefit Israel now resentful of having been conned.
I was in particular agreement when you noted the utter impossibility of beginning this war without lying to the American people.
An immoral war of choice is a war of aggression. This breaks international law. To con the post 9/11 traumatized American people into supporting a war so the “mushroom cloud” won’t be unleashed on them USA compounds the crime. See today’s NY Times for even more evidence of Bush’s dishonesty in this matter.
THIS is why America is hated the world over – and deservedly so.
It’s what we’ve got within our body politic and within our borders that worries me a lot more than a huge Hong Kong corporation operating in the Bahamas. Not to mention the illusions we have that China and UAE are inherently more corrupt and dangerous than we are ourselves! I think America has more than enough capability within our own nation to bury freedom and democracy and more. And we’re well on the way!
I’d say that many of the commenters there qualify as moonbats, although some of the bloggers seem open to reason.
On a positive note – lefties expressing themselves without swearing!! Like grownups!! I guess it’s a step in the right direction.
“Anybody who believes differently simply doesn’t comprehend the goals of the neocons and the Zionists.”
Trust me, this is not the viewpoint of a few crazy commenters. It is also the consensus opinion of the liberal bloggers. The latter are simply more prudent with their rhetoric.
My favorite Wesley Clark not-ready-for-primetime moment was in the 2004 primaries where a TV interviewer asked his view on partial birth abortion, & he said he thought it was a purely a matter for a woman & her doctor. The interviewer, somewhat taken aback, asked him if he meant that a woman 8 months pregnant wanted an abortion, it would simply be between she & her doctor, & Clark said Yes.
The next day, his harried spokesman was spinning like a top
My favorite Wesley Clark not-ready-for-primetime moment was in the 2004 primaries when he explained that our forefathers founded our country on the principle of progressive taxation. Now I am just trying to figure out whether it was the rich guys or the poor guys that were dumping tea in Boston Harbor.
Hmmm, so markus thinks Liberals and members of the Democratic Party have been having serious discussions about foreign policy and what to do about Islamic fascism FOR JUST AS LONG AS YOU AND EVERYONE ELSE READING THIS HAVE at tmpcafe.
Well, I suppose he does think that. Meanwhile, “serious” Democrats, you know, the ones that run for office and get elected, mostly from Blue states, just published “Real Security Protecting America and Restoring Our Leadership in the World.”
It is an utter joke, pathetic in the extreme and, frankly, a demonstration as to why the Democrats shouldn’t be allowed to get any closer to the levers of national security than we’d permit a pedophile to a cub scout troop. Democrats promising “real security” while preaching forced retreat and defeat in Iraq is totally transparent. It seems, to borrow a phrase, they were for the war before they were opposed to the war, but now they’re for the war again, but war against an ally, Pakistan, against all those terrorists already in Iraq. It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.
hf_jai,
Sorry. Wesley Clark is a scumbag whose only interest is the fortunes of Wesley Clark. That you and others consider him “sincere” (or any other complimentary description) is a testimony to either your obliviousness or your partisanship, or both.
The only reason he’s a Democrat is that the Republicans turned him down. That’s because Republicans know and appreciate the military, and Wes Clark is the ultimate political general. SACEUR is a plum post, or used to be, a place where people who’ve done well and need a rest, along with some good wine and food, are assigned. Clark was never either senior or valuable enough to merit the assignment. On the contrary, he was/is such a snob that he alienated most of the officer corps and all of the enlisted in every assignment he’s ever had as a senior officer. He does enjoy one unique distinction: he’s the only SACEUR ever relieved early at other than his own request.
George S. Patton was an elitist snob, but he was a good general. Wes Clark is an elitist snob who was a disaster as a general. No sane military person will ever vote Democratic so long as you keep holding the likes of Wes Clark up as exemplars of military virtue.
Regards,
Ric
From:
Kosovo
Clinton’s View: NATO Spoke Rashly, Unwisely
BY DOUGLAS WALLER in WASHINGTON
TIME MAGAZINE, APRIL 26, 1999 VOL. 153 NO. 16
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/notebook/0,9485,1101990426,00.html
excerpt:
From:
Who let the dogs out?
By Roger Simon (not Roger L. Simon)
11/24/2003
U.S.News & World Report
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/031124/24notes_2.htm
excerpt:
Liberals and members of the Democratic Party have been having serious discussions about foreign policy and what to do about Islamic fascism FOR JUST AS LONG AS YOU AND EVERYONE ELSE READING THIS HAVE.
Of course, the only answer they can come up with is “Blame the Republicans”, so we tend to discount the usefulness of their efforts.
Wesley Clark is an evil man.
Probably the single most despicable Democrat strategy during the pre-war debate was the “we need allies!” argument. It was an appeal to both internationalism and isolationism at the same time. Some people genuinely wanted international approval, and others just wanted other nations to take some of the weight off America’s shoulders.
The average person thinks of countries like France, Germany, Spain, etc. as great and mighty nations. This perspective mostly comes from their high school European history class. They just sort of assume that the French and Germans have these huge and capable armies that are ready to be depoloyed to Iraq if only we win UN approval for the action. Germany is a modern country that gave us the Nazis and all, and France had Napoleon, Lafayette — they must have mighty armies, right? I mean, you know, they are France and Germany!
The truth is that France and Germany have pathetic miltiaries. They are unable to deploy much of anything to Iraq, and even if they were capable of doing so — and they are not — they would refuse to deoploy them, or at the very most would make only a token gesutre with 5,000 or 10,000 troops or some other meaningless number like that. The Foreign Legion was never going to take Baghdad or Fallujah for us, UN resoluton or no.
Even if we had “allies,” the US would still be doing literally 90% of the fighting and dying.
The things that makes this argument evil is that: (a) it preys on the ignorance of well-intentioned American people; and (b) every senior Democratic politician who makes it knows it is an outright lie. And no one was a more outspoken advocate of this policy than Wesley Clark.
The other, related, argument that Clark was a big fan of was the “Arab Armies” meme. The idea was that American and European forces would be perceived as crusading occupiers by the people of Iraq, and that if the occupation were run by more culturally sensitive Arab armies, things would go much smoother.
This argument is even more laughable to anyone who knows anything at all about military stuff, even rank amateurs like me. But again, to Joe and Jane Schmoe it has a surface appeal. The fallacy of this argument can be best illustrated by an analogy. If we had invaded Iran, instead of Iraq, would we have wanted the Iraqi Republian Guard to help us occupy and administer the country? No? Becuase that’s exactly what having Egyptian, Syrian, and Saudi troops partcipate in the Iraq reconstrucion would have amounted to.
The “arab armies” strategy would have been a disaster for two reasons. First, they themselves know nothing about democracy and are obvioulsy not in a position to help teach Iraqis learn about it. Second, most of these “armies” are little more than ill-trained and ill-disciplined rabble. They would have started raping, pillaging, and plundering almost immediately. If the Arab armies had entered Iraq we would have seen what a real “resistance” looks like, the Iraqi street really would have risen up against the occupying forces. The Arab armies, for their part, would either (a) turn tail and run, never leaving their fortified compounds (most likely); (b) start randomly shelling the cities and indiscriminately killing men, women, and children in an effort to “send a message” and “impose their will” on the Iraqi people; or (c) cut deals with local militia members and outlaws to keep the city quiet. Maybe even some combination of all of the above.
Again, Wesley Clark was a big proponent of this argument, which he knew to be complete and utter BS. The man is not a person of character.
That Wes Clark is the presumptive face of the Democrat argument for national security says as much or maybe even more about the Democrats as it does Wes Clark. Sure, he’s a rank opportunist despised by his fellow officers, the men he led, the allies he worked with, but most all by the Democrats who appointed him to command and then fired him from that command.
But now they finally realize they need to persuade America that they too care about national security, they turn to this opportunist, knowing his ambitions, and use them for their own purposes – masking their woeful impotency on national security.
The funny thing is, in the end regular Americans – you know, the ones Democrats think are so stupid for voting Republican they can be persuaded to vote for them with Wes Clark’s face on national security – will see through this pathetic charade and vote for the party that is working to win the war. Americans know Democrats hate Bush and the Republicans more than they hate America’s enemies – and aren’t going to elect a Democrat to the White House (or to majorities in Congress) who care more about impeaching Bush than they do fighting the war, let alone winning the war.
The thing that Markus doesn’t get is that when one argues from a position who’s base assumptions have been proven fatally flawed everything that flows from it is at best suspect. Who would give any credence to a geography professor who believes the earth is flat?
This is why no intelligent conservative would waste their time giving any credence to leftist positions other than as a cautionary tale. Virtually every assumption of the “progressive” left has been demonstrated to be wrong. From the nonsense of “international law” to Zionist conspiracies to name but a few. Wrong assumptions lead to wrong conclusions. People who continue to believe in ideas and concepts that have been shown time again to false or illogical are either crazy or stupid. Either way not to be taken seriously as people who’s opinions ought to be respected but rather as a possible danger.
It’s funny, a lot of the Dems’ predictions about this war have been proven false, but the media, as always, has been covering for them, so you never hear this discussed these days.
For example, remember how the “insurgency was growing” a couple of years ago? The Iraqi people were getting increasingly frustrated with the security situation, the lack of electricity, etc., etc?
Or remember how the experts were saying that we had a “rapidly closing window of opportunity” to make real changes in Iraq?
And then there was the Muqtua Al-Sadr uprising. He was at the vanguard of a popular insurgency, remember?
On the other hand, Wes Clark is the prototypical, almost definitional present-day Democrat: Anything good that happens is his triumph, whether he had any input or no; anything bad is somebody else’s failure, whether or not anyone else was even involved; and he always has a plan.
Regards,
Ric
cubanbob — “Markus doesn’t get is that when one argues from a position who’s base assumptions have been proven fatally flawed everything that flows from it is at best suspect.”
So…dear sir, since most “progressive” positions on public policy are fundamentally flawed, and the people who hold them are crackpots, worthy of no more respect than someone who believes that the earth is flat — why should I and other crackpots be allowed, from a moral perspective, to retain political rights at all? How is it our nation’s interest for Howard Dean or Nancy Pelosi to be allowed to spread their sophistry and destructive lies? Particularly when those lies –far from remaining marginalized like those of real flat earth theorists — are allowed to infect our media and political system at the highest levels. Just look at the pressure building for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, how destructive this pressure is to our national interest, and WHO is spreading this poison!
Such a view is the logical extension of your disrespectful, intolerant, obnoxious attitude toward non-conservatives. It is also destructive to the conservative movement, preventing it from examining its own failures, and tweaking its policy prescriptions to reflect lessons learned. Just as doctors don’t have reason to waste their time talking to faith healers, why should you have anything to gain from a dialogue with a progressive?
Liberals made the same mistake in the sixties, seventies and eighties (and leftists still do today), by refusing to take the conservative intellectuals seriously, along with their critiques of certain sacred cows of contemporary liberalism seriously.
why should I and other crackpots be allowed, from a moral perspective, to retain political rights at all? How is it our nation’s interest for Howard Dean or Nancy Pelosi to be allowed to spread their sophistry and destructive lies?
I like the way you’re thinking, markus. We must be rubbing off on you.
why should you have anything to gain from a dialogue with a progressive?
I don’t think we have anything to gain from dialogue with a progressive, as a progressive. If somebody demonstrates an ability to say something useful and interesting then he should be listened to, regardless of his views. But it’s been a very long time since the progressive community has had much of importance to say. I checked out the link you provided, and the various learned fellows of the Wilson school at Princeton sound a good deal less insightful than the typical blog commenter.
Even with the horrific toll this weekend in Iraq, and the sickening news that the Administration was willing to paint an American plane in UN colors to try to provoke an Iraqi attack to help justify the war and that neither he nor Tony Blair actually expected to find WMD in Iraq, new winds are blowing in the Middle East.
That drive-by sliming was brought to you by Anne-Marie Slaughter, Dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and the Bert G. Kerstetter ’66 University Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University. She is also the convener and academic co-chair of the Princeton Project on National Security, a multi-year research project aimed at developing a new, bipartisan national security strategy for the United States. Prior to becoming Dean, she was the J. Sinclair Armstrong Professor of International, Foreign and Comparative Law and the Director of Graduate and International Legal Studies at Harvard Law School. She is also the former President of the American Society of International Law. And she appearently is one of the dwindling band of people who believe what they read in the NYT.
markus, you are a more worthy advocate for the progressive cause than Slaughter is.
Flenser — Given the state of our dialogue a few months ago, I appreciate the compliment, and your other comments.
I’m unclear though what Slaughter says in that article that is inaccurate or false. Cetainly her tone is not very friendly to the Bush administration, but this should be secondary to the points she raises. Unless the incident with the UN plane is a lie, it seems to fall in the above-the-belt catagory of rhetorical hits. The second accusation — that neither Bush nor Blair expected to find WMD’s — is also either true or false. If true, how is this a problem, given all that we have heard in the last couple years from invasion backers about the irrelevancy of finding WMD’s, since Saadam was just biding his time in order to build weapons AFTER sanctions were lifted anyway.
Also, she raises these points as a introduction to the main point of the article, which is the opposite: that POSITIVE things are happening in the region (specifically in Lebanon) in addition to or in spite of the bad news.
The “airplane paint” thing is not just a lie, it’s a stupid lie. Painting recon planes faux colors is a totally useless exercise. Go somewhere near an airport. How far away can you tell what airline a particular plane belongs to? And those are designed to be uniquely noticeable. Aircraft markings are only useful when they’re parked. They could paint the recon planes International Orange and glare green in zebra stripes, and at 50,000 feet they’d still be just black dots.
And OK, say for argument Bush knew there were no WMDs. Ignore for a moment the fact that the WMD controversy is purely an artifact of the Left and the Press, a matter simple enough for their simple minds to grasp. Take for granted that Bush is a vile, evil, conniving plotter. Why the Hell wouldn’t he have had some taken along? Simplicity itself to hide a few drums of Sarin in the kilotons, possibly megatons of materiel the military carried along. Again, not just a lie, but a stupid lie.
Repeating stupid lies demonstrates either evil intent or indefeasible ignorance.
Regards,
Ric
Ric –
1) “‘airplane paint’ thing is…stupid lie”
The memo in which Bush is quoted as suggesting this was written by Tony Blair’s top foreign policy advisor, David Manning. It summarized a meeting held on January 31, 2003, between Blair, Bush and six of their top aides.
According to the NY Times, “two senior British officials confirmed the authenticity of the memo.”
2) “the WMD controversy is purely an artifact of the Left and the Press”
There were other good reasons for invading Iraq besides Hussein’s purposted WMD’s, and Bush did talk about some of these before the war. However, Congressional authorization for going to war was based solely on the WMD issue. This is why the question of what the Administration really knew about WMD’s, and the fact that they were DETERMINED to go to war regardless of what was found, are such relevant issues. Congress would not have granted Bush open-ended warmaking authority to build democracy in the Middle East, avenge massacres that took place in the late eighties, or to prevent Saadam from trying sometime in a post-sanctions future from attempting to get his hands on some unconventional weapons.
Of course, some happy armchair warriors here probably believe the President doesn’t even NEED Congressional permission to go to war.