January 17, 2004
Are Blair, Clark and Bush Brothers?
At least they seemed to be, until Clark decided to run for President. A short time ago he thought Saddam had WMD, and was unwilling to take the chance that he didn't. He was willing to go it alone, if the UN demurred. He thought the Saddam/Qaeda link was genuine. All pretty decent positions, I think. So what did the little green men do to him that changed his mind? First he was pro-war, then anti-war, then pro-war again, then anti-war again. (Those damn ETs!) As Andrew Sullivan observes: "He's a colossal phony." I'd prefer Dean over this guy.
Allah snapped a nice picture of him though.
Sort of has that mysterious quality voters are sure to love, don't you think?
Posted by Demosophist at January 17, 2004 08:15 PM | TrackBackI'm extremely biased in my opinions here because of my army brat background, but as far as the military people that I talk with goes, the general consensus seems to be that the problem with Clark is not his commanding abilities (his attempt to order an attack on Russian posistions in Kosovo notwithstanding) so much as the fact that the man has a definite Machiavellian streak to him and it strikes me that Clark does whatever he believes will be in the best interests of Clark, though the difference between his beliefs and the reality the rest of exist in is rather striking at times.
As such, Clark in his judgement supported the war until it became politically expedient (insert the byzantine-esque theories as to the internal intrigue of the Clintons here) in his judgement for him to do otherwise. Ever since then, he has adopted a number of increasingly bizarre or at the very least exceedingly complex rationales for why he did what he did beforehand which, once again, may or may not bear much resemblance to the reality that you and me co-exist in ...
Posted by: Dan Darling at January 18, 2004 11:58 PM