Clark-mentum?
The Next Iraq Offensive - New York Times
We need to keep our troops in Iraq, but we need to modify the strategy far more drastically than anything President Bush called for last week.
It's not everyday that I agree with Wes Clark on Iraq, or even foreign policy in general. Oh, he's a sharp guy and if we were fighting a war, I'd be fine with him as a commander in it. But his take re: Iraq is so lethally spot-on, even I have to stand in awe of it.
Back when I blogged on Joe's mixed-message Op-Ed, I made this comment:
There's a point somewhere between immediate withdrawal and a lifetime of acquiescence to incompetence that seems to be "just about right" in terms of the urgency with which to finish the job in Iraq. The importance of finishing the job right, sooner, is that the opportunity may not be there to do so later. Foot-dragging and a lack of urgency will only go hand-in-hand with a deteriorating lack of trust on the part of the American public that Iraq remains a worthwhile endeavor. Murtha's midpoint between the extremes may yet prove to be a bit closer to the mark needed than Joe's at this point in time. But there's no mistaking that more and more of the argument is taking place in a smaller and smaller range of debate somewhere near the vital center.
For better or worse, Clark's own midpoint is precisely where I stand these days. It'd be great if it weren't a temporary alignment. But by all means, read the rest of Clark's column.
It may not be likely that we can expect to see the Bush administration execute any of the particulars Clark lists: diplomacy, more troops, drastic reversals of flawed agreements of the past, etc .... But it's refreshing to see some reality-based alternatives put forth for those capable of stealing good ideas to do so.
SIDENOTE: Given that Clark has been leading the KOS/MyDD online Presidential polls since they started, I guess there's the predictable meltdown on that front to look forward to. Advantage Feingold? My vote remains with Hillary, though.
Hilary of all people? Why?!?
Coalition of the Adults, baby. Loads of reasons, actually.
Dude, it is like wickedly hard to comment on your blog. Wow. A little unsolicited advice: make it easier, if at all possible.
Anyhow, Hillary? Oh man, why? Specifics please. Because I am a way loyal Democrat and cannot think of anything worse for the Democratic party and the country.
I refuse to vote for HRC.
S-P,
Yeah, I'm looking at moving to a new webhost soon. I get the occassional spike from spammers and the like flooding the site every once in a while and that's caused a few CPU load issues from time to time. Hence, the gatekeeper system in place (which I'm not fond of as well).
As for HRC, I'll get around to it at some point in time, but current campaign work has a way of keeping my eye a little closer to home. So if it doesn't happen till we get into 2007, you'll know why. Gotta get some friends elected first and foremost.
I have problems with Hillary running but not as much with her specifically as with the baggage that the GOP is going to haul around for her. I think a lot of Democrats, including myself at one point, thought that baggage was too much to overcome.
But Hillary has shown herself capable of dealing with that GOP wurlitzer, to the point that she probably understands how it works and how it can be defeated probably better than anyone else. What makes Dems so fearful of her running is that 1) it reminds of Bill's failings and lies and 2) we see she makes the conservatives angry and mobilizes them. But I think the fact is that we exaggerating a very vocal minority.
As for Hillary on the issues, you can't agree with any candidate on every thing. But I think she, like Bill, is a mature moderate. She might not be as liberal as I'd like on some issues, but she operates from many of the same values that I care deeply about.
I have no preference for president right now, but I would gladly support her, if for no other reason that President Hillary would send a great many far right extremists into sudden apoplexy. Who knows how long Fox News would be off the air because of comatose personnel. :)