Josh Marshall on Clark's war position -sees no inconsistency at all

[kstewart33]

Only a thoroughly considered position which is more than he can say for the other Dem candidates.

"This last criticism goes to the heart of the matter -- the difference between thinking that this war was ill-conceived and poorly planned (which I think is Clark's position) and being 'anti-war' in the sense of some broader political ethic (which seems to be how FAIR is defining the phrase.) Expecting a retired four-star general to fall into this latter category seems a bit much to expect.

The truth is that Clark's position on the war is at least as consistent as any other candidate in this race. He is one of the few candidates who strikes me as having given any serious thought to the question -- outside the context of the politics. And he is the only one who's written extensively on the national security challenges which face the country, Iraq, and the strategic and diplomatic shortcomings of the president's policy. (In other words, not just "me too!" or "no way!") And -- imagine that -- his arguments are the same now as they were a year ago."

For more:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

[DoveTurnedHawk]

1. You've Just Turned Half of the Board Off of Josh Marshall

I think he's a canny thinker, myself.

DTH

[FauxNewsBlues]

2. I am a big Josh Marshall fan myself

Am I saying this because sometimes he responds to my emails to him? Probably ;)

[Patriot_Spear]

3. Everything looks like a nail when all you have is bag full of Hammers.

What did you expect? -He's a freaking general for chissakes.

[blm]

4. He says it's "at least as consistent

as the other candidates" and he says it's considered "outside the context of the politics"...That's a bit different than what you emphasized, k. This actually sounds like Marshall's defense of Kerry recently, too. Good for him.

Marshall must be catching shit from the Deanut Gallery. He only alludes to them in his last paragraph. heh

>>>>>
The truth is that Clark's position on the war is at least as consistent as any other candidate in this race. He is one of the few candidates who strikes me as having given any serious thought to the question -- outside the context of the politics. And he is the only one who's written extensively on the national security challenges which face the country, Iraq, and the strategic and diplomatic shortcomings of the president's policy. (In other words, not just "me too!" or "no way!") And -- imagine that -- his arguments are the same now as they were a year ago.

Republicans and a number of Democrats who support a certain candidate have teamed up -- made common cause, really -- to argue that it's not possible to have voted to authorize the president to use force and then to criticize the circumstances and manner in which he chose to do so. The supposed flip-flop isn't one at all. What he's saying is that he probably would have voted to give the president the power to use force but never would have voted for the war he actually ended up waging. (We'll discuss in a later post why there's nothing necessarily contradictory about this.)
>>>>>

[JI7]

6. yes josh marshall gets it

he actually looks at what the candidates say and the context. he knows it's not all black and white. he was right about kerry and right about clark.

[Eloriel]

7. Oh, it's possible

Republicans and a number of Democrats who support a certain candidate have teamed up -- made common cause, really -- to argue that it's not possible to have voted to authorize the president to use force and then to criticize the circumstances and manner in which he chose to do so.

It's possible, it's just NOT ENOUGH. There's also a tad bit of incongruency to a position like that.

Eloriel

[DoveTurnedHawk]

10. It Must Be So Comforting To View the World in Black-and-White, Eloriel

The fact is, foreign policy is all about shades of gray. I think Dean understands that. It's a pity some of his supporters don't.

DTH

[blm]

18. so is supporting Biden-Lugar and claiming you're antiwar

while pointing at others.

So is saying that you were never fooled about the WMDs when you had already released a statement saying you never doubted the need to remove those WMDs. heheh

[Patriot_Spear]

9. You know, I'm really tired of this horse-shit.

Currently my choice of candidates is Dean- but I like them all for different reasons.

Can we get through one freaking post without someone having to slip in a bash against ANYONE who happens to support a particular candidate?

Deanut- how fucking stupid is that?

[RichM]

5. Wasn't Josh Marshall in favor of the war? (Just asking.)

I don't read Marshall, myself. But I'm sure I remember discussion on DU where people were saying, "I just don't understand it. I usually LOVE Marshall's viewpoint -- but he's supporting this thing."

[JI7]

8. yes he supported it

and that's why he understands the position of clark and kerry. just because he supported it does n't mean he supported how bush went about it.

[diplomats]

11. Kind of

But he thought Bush handled it horribly by pissing off our allies, not letting the U.N. do its job, etc. He's no PNACer.

[kstewart33]

13. He supported the war and appears...

To be having second thoughts. I like Marshall because he thinks and he is not a hack.

I agree with other posters who've said we've become too nasty with each other. I support Clark entirely because I admire his character and his resume and most of all because I believe he can beat Bush. You don't see any Repub writers writing bad stuff about Dean because they want Dean to get the nomination. They are all going after Clark because they are scared of him. Watch Drudge in the coming weeks---he will do everything he can to smear Clark. But Dean---Drudge won't give him the time of day because he doesn't take him seriously.

I don't support Dean, because I agree with the Republican view that he doesn't have a rat's chance of beating Bush. That is the only reason I don't support him. But I will not trash him on this site.

Come on, guys. We are or should be united in our desire to defeat Bush. Any of these Dem candidates can be a president who's so much better than Bush. That common belief should unite us.

[kayleybeth]

12. To my recollection

...Josh supported the war to begin with, after reading The Threatening Storm by Ken Pollack. I think he changed his mind after shrub's diplomacy horror show back in February or March.

[diplomats]

14. That's right

I think he even posted some interviews he had with Pollock.

[charlie]

15. Yes, he explicated his support

right in the midst of an article he wrote about the scary neocon PNACers forcing the issue with lie upon lie, without consideration of less-than-perfect outcomes, or the results thereof. It astounded me that wasn't squalling for a halt to the drive for war until the president was apprised of sane and sober advice. His attitude seemed to be, it's a done deal, the cause if not execution is right, what can I or anyone do -- here's what I'll be writing about next week. REALLY disappointing.

[disgruntella]

16. kick, because i almost posted this as a dupe

blah blah blah blah :kick:

[dsc]

17. Just once I would like to see a journalist

who takes pot shots at Dean supporters for daring to write them provide the following when doing so. A link to what the Dean supporters are writing about and what the Dean supporters have written. Is that really too much to ask. This is the third such article I have seen which complains about us and the third which provides no examples.