"Decline of the Wes" (Clark) in Slate

[boxster]

From Slate: http://slate.msn.com/id/2090437/

That's why it's so troubling today to see Clark join in the same self-fulfilling wave of determined pessimism and obstruction he battled four years ago. "This president didn't know how he wanted to end. He doesn't know what he's doing today," Clark charged in Sunday's Democratic presidential debate. "I would not have voted $87 billion. … The best form of welfare for the troops is a winning strategy. And I think we ought to call on our commander in chief to produce it. And I think he ought to produce it before he gets one additional penny for that war."

I don't know whether we'll win the postwar if Congress approves the money Bush asked for. But I know we'll lose it if Congress doesn't. That's what happens when a nation at war starts to think like the Wes Clark of 2003. Just ask the Wes Clark of 1999.

The author tries to claim that the pessimism surrounding the current invasion/occupation/target practice is the same as that faced by Clark in 1999 re: Milosevic and that the situations and the decisions to be made are similar.

What a crock. The difference between Wes Clark dealing with Milosevic and Bush currently dealing with Saddam/Iraq is that MILOSEVIC was still running the opposition when Clark was dealing with him. Saddam isn't running anything other than for his life.

It's pretty obvious to just about everyone (except this writer, apparently) that Saddam isn't running the show in Iraq, and we unquestionably know that he isn't in the same kind of position of power that Milosevic held in 1999. Comparing the two and suggesting that they should be dealt with in a similar manner is ludicrous.

Even Bush and his administration are publicly blaming "foreign terrorists" for the recent attacks. Bush also tries to blame Saddam's regime, but I think we all know that his "bring 'em on" comment did exactly that - it brought potentially thousands of terrorists into Iraq who have their own reasons for targeting our troops, in addition to the forces we were already facing.


Edit: minor typo and minor mods

[Avalux]

1. There's no comparison

and the writer is obviously all about flaming Clark. Where's Milosovic right now? On that one I can say, Mission Accomplished.

[boxster]

4. Re: Mission Accomplished - why do I get the feeling that M.A.

will show up in approximately six million campaign ads in the next year??

Hehe. It's going to be everywhere. And, I look forward to the next President, whether it's Clark, Dean, Kerry, or whoever our candidate ends up being, stepping up to the microphone on election night and saying, "Mission Accomplished!"

}(

[Avalux]

5. That would be sweet

I will think of that moment and wish it to be so. :toast:

[boxster]

9. Yep, it would be a comparison if Saddam or Osama were at

The Hague awaiting trial.

Or, maybe if Bush was at The Hague, awaiting trial!

[neuvocat]

2. I must have missed that part

especially when Clark is tied neck and neck with Dean:

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04dem.htm

[KittyWampus]

3. Dean Has A Neck?

:D

[Wickerman]

10. THAT

was hilarious!

[boxster]

6. Ack, I realize that polls are a necessary evil, but an MOE of 6%??

How can Gallup expect us to take a poll seriously when the MOE is more than one-third of what the highest candidate is polling?

[Pastiche423]

7. Clark is tied w/Dean?

[boxster]

8. Did you bother to look at the poll?

16-15 Dean-Clark with a 6% MOE.

Sounds tied to me.

The 6% MOE is a joke, however. No one should ever release a poll with a 6% MOE when the candidates are only getting 16% at most in the first place. I guess that means Dean is 10%-22% and Clark is 9%-21%. That's terribly helpful.

[DemCam]

11. Wishful thinking