Then There Were Ten

September 16, 2003

Looks like Wesley Clark is in.

Comments

JSM|9.16.03 @ 1:00AM|#

Unless Bush himself falls flat on his face right before Dean.

Sir Real|9.16.03 @ 1:16AM|#

Stand back and give him some rope... er, room.

|9.16.03 @ 1:30AM|#

Yea, the stars on his collar are going to make up for the Democrats trashing their credibility in national security for thirty years.

thoreau|9.16.03 @ 1:47AM|#

Actually, the stars on his collar will make up for whatever national security mistakes the Dems have made over 30 years. He only has his own record to defend, and while reasonable people might disagree over some of his decisions over the years, nobody can deny that the man has genuine experience with matters of national security. Nor can anybody deny his patriotism (although no doubt many wingnuts will do so anyway).

bennett|9.16.03 @ 2:50AM|#

How can the party of the peace movement nominate a former general?

Lefty|9.16.03 @ 3:13AM|#

Unlike chickenhawks, real warriors don't go running into battle for the fun of it.

That's why.

|9.16.03 @ 3:27AM|#

The question was how, not why.

In fact, a substantial number of the people who vote in Democratic primaries are profoundly hostile to the idea of American power and to the military as an institution. As Clark makes clear that he is not he will attract their vocal hostility. Moreoever the obsequious deference Democratic Presidential candidates are required to show to specific interest groups, particularly blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals, and labor unions, is not the kind of thing a career Army officer should be expected to excel at. I don't see Clark's candidacy as realistic.

Lefty|9.16.03 @ 3:48AM|#

Until Powell whored himself on Iraq, the Dems loved him. Clark doesn't have that baggage -yet.

I'm not sure about him, really. Nobody knows what or who he really is other than a Bush alternative. It's late (maybe the others were early) but I've heard a lot of Dem money has sat on the sideline waiting for someone to pull away. If he starts looking credible, look out.

Karl Rove hates him. That's good enough for me.

thoreau|9.16.03 @ 3:55AM|#

If Rove fears him, that says something.

The best candidate is someone who scares the opponent, not somebody who hates the opponent, and certainly not somebody who mimics the opponent.

bennett|9.16.03 @ 4:03AM|#

Thanks, lefty. I ask a question about Clark and you give us a jab at GWB. Just great. You even managed to get the chickenhawk thing in too. Good job.

Jean Bart|9.16.03 @ 4:22AM|#

Someone is going to have to explain to me why the Democrats as a rule are worse at FP or National Security than the Republicans. Where did this meme come from, and does it have a shred of validity?

|9.16.03 @ 4:24AM|#

JB,

The GOP and 'no'.

Lefty|9.16.03 @ 4:26AM|#

Sorry, bennett. You're correct, that wasn't called for. Thoreau's right, too. Hate is a poor term for Rove's concern about Clark.

I'm grouchy today. Need a nap.

joe|9.16.03 @ 4:27AM|#

"How can the party of the peace movement nominate a former general?"

Intruiging. Please tell me more about this "Peace Party." In the meantime, I'm going to stick with the party of FDR, JFK, and Bill Clinton.

All kidding aside, military men have consistently been less bloodthirsty than eyes-bigger-than-their-heads armchair generals like Kristol, Rumsfeld, and Shrub. First hand knowledge of the horrors of war tends to make one less enthusiastic about repeating them when at all possible.

John Hood|9.16.03 @ 4:29AM|#

Several observations on the Clark candidacy. First, it is no accident that the announcement was made on the same day John Edwards announced. Clark is trying to move onto the same political turf that Edwards hopes to win -- at least that which will lead to the Veep slot. The goal today (largely accomplished) was to crowd out Edwards' round of free media.

Arkansas-native Clark's campaign is so full of former Clinton people that it is hard not to suspect the former First Couple's involvement. They may have flattered him and encouraged him to run, taking advantage of an ego that is reportedly sizable. I think their real goal is to further complicate the prospects of a salable Democrat (Gephardt or Edwards at this point, I think) making it through the nomination process, thus leaving the presidency to Bush in '04 and setting up Hillary's run in '08.

Mark A.|9.16.03 @ 4:40AM|#

John Hood,

I suspect the Servants of Cthulhu! :)

Lefty|9.16.03 @ 4:50AM|#

Jean, I think the Dems are still haunted by Viet Nam. LBJ had his hat handed to him there, the Powell Doctrine became gospel and the Dems haven't had any stomach for real aggresssive military ventures since then.

Personally, I think it's healthy. When we have to leave Iraq with less than a "victory" maybe the GOP will settle down a bit, too.

John Hood|9.16.03 @ 4:56AM|#

>

What's with the Lovecraft reference, Mark A.? Haven't heard that one in a while.

bennett|9.16.03 @ 5:14AM|#

Did I say anything about the "peace party"?

However, if you look at any of the politicians that attached themselves in any way to the peace movement, they were democrats. Is that even arguable? Is it arguable that if an impromptu poll were held at the peace rallies of the past couple of years you would find more Dems than Reps?

Regardless of what happened in 1941, that is the way things are now.

Gene Berkman|9.16.03 @ 5:24AM|#

Let's look at this National Security Issue that the Republicans are so strong on.
They aided the Afghan rebels - the first serious Islamist movement - with stinger missiles that are still unaccounted for.
President Reagan ordered military aid to Saddam Hussein - at US taxpayers expense - and we were still providing it in 1988 when Hussein gassed the Kurds.
The Reagan administration forced Cambodian anti-Communists into an alliance with the Khmer Rouge-an idea thought up under Jimmy Carter, so it is bipartisan.
The Reagan administration supplied plutonium to Pakistan, which helped them build the "Islamic Bomb." We better hope the Taliban does not take over Pakistan.
If anybody supports the Republicans because of National Security, they need to read more books.

thoreau|9.16.03 @ 5:35AM|#

Let's twist a phrase from Ann Coulter:

Most people who vote for Democrats are not pacifists, and most people who vote for Democrats respect the armed forces.

Most people who are pacifist and/or have no respect for the armed forces vote for Democrats.

(Note that pacifism and lack of respect for the armed forces are not always one and the same, since a person can oppose war but respect the courage and patriotism of those who choose to serve their country in the armed forces.)


I don't think the preferences of one very small segment of society should reflect poorly on Democrats and the people who vote for them. Just as I don't think the preferences of small GOP-leaning segments of society should reflect poorly on the GOP or people who vote for them.

Douglas Fletcher|9.16.03 @ 6:24AM|#

The biggest effect this is going to have on anything is that the other Dem. candidates are going to be confused about whether they should call him "General" or "Wes".

If the Democratic base was worried to any degree about national security Leiberman would be doing better than he is. I don't see how Clark is going to do anything but muddy the waters between them.

Phil|9.16.03 @ 6:50AM|#

All kidding aside, military men have consistently been less bloodthirsty than eyes-bigger-than-their-heads armchair generals like Kristol, Rumsfeld, and Shrub.

Are you talking about military men in general, or in the White House? Because either way, you're wrong. Patton and Westmoreland are two easy counterexamples.

Jean Bart|9.16.03 @ 10:14AM|#

Warfare does not neccessarily satiate the appetite for warfare; it did not do so for Ghenghis Khan, Napoleon I or Patton for example.

Rex Stetson|9.16.03 @ 12:54PM|#

Uh...it's awfully late, isn't it? No doubt he was encouraged by the lukewarm reception most of the candidates have been getting, with the exception of Dean (who appeals to the liberal/progressive base- good for a primary but not a general election)...

|9.17.03 @ 2:15AM|#

It seems obvious that Clark is trying to catch a bit of the leftover Powell cachet. Hell, if Powell changed parties and ran, we'd have him as president without a doubt.

Clark, like Powell, is a former general and all-around moderate. He has serious credentials in foreign policy (which the Bush team, outside of Powell, is clearly weak in), and a solid image. He's got a chance.

|9.17.03 @ 7:23AM|#

"They aided the Afghan rebels - the first serious Islamist movement - with stinger missiles that are still unaccounted for."

Helping out the Afghans at that time was a good idea--the USSR was our most serious threat, and their Afghan quagmire helped speed up the demise of the USSR. Besides, most of the batteries the Stingers use are probably dead now. I'm assuming we sent the combat non-recharghable batteries, not the recharchable traing ones.


"President Reagan ordered military aid to Saddam Hussein - at US taxpayers expense - and we were still providing it in 1988 when Hussein gassed the Kurds."

You sure about that? I wasn't sure we provided them with any military aid. Certainly, the weapons they use tend to have Russian, French, or German origins.

|9.17.03 @ 7:26AM|#

"Warfare does not neccessarily satiate the appetite for warfare; it did not do so for Ghenghis Khan, Napoleon I or Patton for example."

Herbert McBride, an American who headed North to Canada to get in on the Great War, wrote a book about it afterwards--"A Rifleman Went to War". Three years or so on the Western Front didn't satiate him; a fellow soldier who reviewed it said he should tone it down. The other fellow agreed with McBride's assesments, but didn't think civilians would get it.

|9.17.03 @ 7:32AM|#

Clark was one of the people who came up with the bomb-at-60,000-ft combat idea for Kosovo. Really stupid: it wasn't effective, and showed the likes of Al Quada that we were willing to kill civilians but we were not willing to risk our own lives. Of course, it protected Clinton from any fall out about US casulties, so maybe it wasn't so stupid if the Clinton legacy, and not the well-being of the US, was the goal.

Clark also tried to have a run-in with the Russians in the Balkins. You would think a well educated professional military man would have read a little history on the origins of WW1. Well, at least the British officier in charge managed to rein Clark in.

joe|9.17.03 @ 9:55AM|#

bennet, do you not remember Albright and Cohen catching hell from those college students? The majority of soldier-haters and pacifists do not vote Democrat - they vote Green, or LP, or something with the word "worker" in the name.

Regardless of what happened in 1971, that's the way things are now.