Wesley Clark was clearly NOT using that turn of a phase in the manner that you define. Your definition is EXACTLY what Bush did that had the Democrats all hot and bothered. We went to the UN (Resolution 1441) and when they wouldn't back the penalties they agreed to, we went forward without "Old Europe." Clearly, Clark is not saying he would act just like Bush, but he is saying he would let Old Europe have a veto on his decisions.
While Mr. Bush's domestic audience is pleased to treat his charades as if they're sincere, General Clark (and the international community) still recognize the distinction between "going through the motions" and "doing." Remember that it was March of 2002 when President Bush said "Fuck Saddam, we're taking him out."
To put it another way, some of us believe there's a difference between saying "you're either with me or against me; now, are you with me?" and "we feel strongly about the need to take action, what are your concerns and can we alleviate them without compromising our own goals?"
But seriously, I have a question for you Kevin. And you can answer honestly since this is just a little comment box in a little corner of blogspace. Do you really think Wesley Clark would let European nations veto his national security decisions or is this just a very nice opportunity to stick it to a Democrat?
"Do you really think Wesley Clark would let European nations veto his national security decisions or is this just a very nice opportunity to stick it to a Democrat?"
Your question alone implies that you do not believe he would allow them to veto his actions. If that is the case, the premise for your question is we can't Wesly Clark at his word. Why would we ever even consider someone as a candidate when we are beginning the discussion with the premise that we can't take him at his word and we will not hold him accountable to things we find objectionable?
Come on Kevin, quit playing with me. Obviously, you and I disagree about what "his word" means in this case. I'm asking you seriously, do you think he would let European nations veto his national security decisions?
I would put little past this man who was fired by Clinton and Bill Cohen (I worked for Cohen so I trust him). Clark seems to have a bizarre world-view and his desire to attack the Russians shouldn't be dismissed lightly.
I guess ultimately I do believe he would let Europeans veto his decisions. Very much the way Clinton "spoke loudly but carried a very small stick" internationally.
I appreciate your honesty Kevin. But we disagree on some of the facts. To say Clark was fired by Clinton, who, to this day, is a strong supporter of Clark, is a stretch. Hugh Shelton called Clark to relieve him of his duties and immediately called the Washington Post to leak the news. This is all before Clinton did anything regarding Clark. (It's true Cohen didn't like Clark and I agree that Cohen seems like a stand-up guy, but I don't particularly care that he didn't like Clark, who clearly tried to go around and over Cohen pretty frequently.)
To say that Clark wanted to "attack the Russians" is also a stretch. Here's a story that's entirely sympathetic to Michael Jackson, the British commander now famous for the "Third World War" line. But look at what Jackson himself says: "We were [looking at] a possibility....of confrontation with the Russian contingent which seemed to me probably not the right way to start off a relationship with Russians who were going to become part of my command.'' Yikes. The man misses the entire point: the Russians were going to take the airport and were also refusing to be "under" anyone's command. "Moscow insisted its troops would be answerable only to its own commanders. Nato refused to accept this, predicting it would lead to the partition of Kosovo into an ethnic Albanian south and a Serbian north." Clark got it, Jackson didn't. Working with allies is hard work and Clark obviously understands how to be hard-nosed.
People accuse Clark of being a war-monger on the one hand, and of being anxious to cede American sovereignty on the other. They put the two together and decide Clark must be nuts. No. It's just that Clark understands that "allies" doesn't mean "chums," and he knows from experience that keeping a coalition together requires hard work and tough negotiating.
Why would we ever even consider someone as a candidate when we are beginning the discussion with the premise that we can't take him at his word and we will not hold him accountable to things we find objectionable?
Well, that disqualifies Bush.
Kudos to you for checking in and linking to Bush-supporting websites -- your blog is better for the debate, and it's something that the blogosphere needs more.
That said, I disagree with you on this issue. I've posted about this twice, and this is my reasoning, which I will shamelessly lift from my post today, apologizing for the length:
First: Clark was asked what he would do differently than George Bush. Bush took the Iraq issue to the UN Security Council twice before taking military action with a coalition instead of explicit UNSC approval. If you think of "right of first refusal" in Professor Bainbridge's terms, George Bush offered the UN this "right" twice and was rejected both times. This, according to your argument, would have made George Bush a free agent and allowed him to shop his action to third parties willing to buy it. This is exactly what happened. If Clark meant this in a legal sense, then he's saying he would do exactly the same thing as Bush, and he obviously isn't saying this at all. While I am excruciatingly aware that the leftist meme is that Bush is a unilateralist that was never sincere about his overtures to the UNSC, it remains a fact that he went there twice for approval, and his predecessor never attempted that in our Balkans efforts, facts with which Clark should be intimately aware.
Second: Clark speaks about creating a new Atlantic charter, presumably eliminating NATO and possibly redefining the UN at the same time, and incorporating this "right of first refusal" for our European allies. It's hard to imagine that a complete replacement of NATO could possibly be less radical than anything in George Bush's dreams in international relationships. We just added several new members of NATO, including Turkey, and simply tossing out this security arrangement to replace it with something new calls into question whether we'd hold the alliance together at all during such a process. Clark cannot be proposing this radical notion just to give Europeans a voice for consultations, as you assert. Nothing in NATO's current charter precludes American executives from consulting on such a basis.
In the context in which the remark was made, it is obviously much more radical than just "we'll consult you first on anything we want to do," which we have done and continue to do anyway.
Okay, I've had my (long-winded) say. Feel free to fire with all cannons!
Ed
converter sat on the roof next to the chimney The Professor landed his best gambling web site him a suspicious look on her face You want something kid she asked .
He stopped He had almost blurted it out pai gow poker Marty went downstairs and into the kitchen Professor Brown had left .