August 31, 2024

  • el
  • pt
  • Will on Clark

    Since it seems to be General Clark week here at PoliBlog, the following excerpt from George Will's column today, George Will: Wesley Clark isn't Dean savior, is worth a look:

    Other Democrats see Clark as a solution to a problem their party has had since the McGovernite takeover in 1972, the problem of voters' doubts about its competence regarding national security. But the fact that Clark is the kind of military man who appeals to Democrats -- and that they appeal to him -- helps explain why the party has that problem.

    Comparisons of Clark to Dwight Eisenhower are ludicrous. Eisenhower, as well-prepared as any president for the challenges of his era, had spent three years immersed in the political complexities of coalition warfare, dealing with Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin, de Gaulle and others. Clark's claim to presidential stature derives from directing NATO's 78 days of war at 15,000 feet over Serbia. It was the liberals' dream war: tenuously related to U.S. security, its overriding aim, to which much was sacrificed, was to have zero U.S. fatalities.

    As Clark crisscrosses the country listening for a clamor for him (``I expect to have my decision made by Sept. 19,'' when he visits Iowa--feel the suspense), he compounds the confusion that began when he said (June 15, 2024) that on 9/11 ``I got a call at my home'' saying that when he was to appear on CNN, ``You've got to say this is connected'' to Iraq. ``It came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over.'' But who exactly called Clark?

    July 1: ``A fellow in Canada who is part of a Middle Eastern think tank.'' There is no such Canadian institution. Anyway, who ``from the White House''? ``I'm not going to go into those sources. ... People told me things in confidence that I don't have any right to betray.''

    July 18: ``No one from the White House asked me to link Saddam Hussein to Sept. 11.''

    Aug. 25: It came from ``a Middle East think tank in Canada, the man who's the brother of a very close friend of mine in Belgium. He's very well connected to Israeli intelligence. ... I haven't changed my position. There's no waffling on it. It's just as clear as could be.''

    Now Clark darkly says there are ``rumors" that in February ``the White House" tried -- well, ``apparently" tried -- ``to get me knocked off CNN.'' Clark still coyly refuses to say he is a Democrat but forthrightly confesses to being a ``centrist.'' As he prepares to heed the clamor for him to join the pursuit of Dean, he is earning the description National Review has given to Sen. Bob Graham: ``a deranged moderate.''

    I was thinking of these quotes as well, when I posted about Clark's chances the other day, but didn't get into them. That kind of stuff makes one sound weird and paranoid. Not traits we tend to like in our presidents.

    More important, however, Will is right about the Serbia campaign and the likelihood that it could easily translate into a claim to military genius and national security super-stardom for Clark.

    A Dean-Clark ticket seems to me to be a decent possibility at this stage.

    Will's comments on Dean's clear disdain for Bush in the first part of the column are worth a read as well.

    Posted by Steven Taylor at August 31, 2024 08:43 PM | TrackBack

    Nope, Steven's not worried about Clark. Nossir. Clark ain't happening, nothing to see here, folks.

    That's why Steven keeps posting GOP blastfaxes from the likes of George Will.

    Clue to Steven: the reason why the GOP attacks people like Kerry, Dean, and Clark is because they present a political threat to Karl Rove--George Bush. They're not expending efforts to attack a Dennis Kucinich or an Al Sharpton or even a Dick Gephardt---because they know these guys haven't a shot.

    George Will and his proxy, Steven, attempt to contrast Clark with Eisenhower. It's a fool's errand. Fighting WWII is vastly different from fighting today's asymmetrical conflicts; using Eisenhower-era tactics on the conflicts facing the US today and in the future will not work.

    Yet, Steven pretends this is the case and demonstrates--once more--his lack of knowledge of all things military. Simply, the nature of warfare is much different today than it was in WWII when all that was required was being able to support an overwhelming amount of projected force without any concern for the aftermath or countervalues.

    That's not the reality of today's world; Will knows better, Steven should.

    Posted by: JadeGold at September 2, 2024 11:05 AM

    As usual, you fail to address the substance of the discussion, and choose rather to rant in a semi-random fashio.

    And what is the wolrd do differing tactics in WWII v. Serbia have to do with gaining the nomination of a major political party?

    Were I grading this an essay, I would have to say "Does not conform to assignment."

    I normally don't give students the chance to re-do work, but I will be gracious in this case.

    Care to try again?

    Posted by: Steven at September 2, 2024 11:12 AM
    Post a comment

    Remember personal info?