The anti-Iraq war part of the general election

Before anyone gets angry, this is intended to be a thoughtful comparison of the front runner and his leading competitor, not a bash of anyone. Please respond in kind.

Dean gets a lot of publicity for attacking Bush on invading Iraq, but I find Clark's reasoned critique much more powerful. A substantial part of his book "Winning Modern Wars" is devoted to examining Bush's war and precisely what is wrong with it. It convinces me that, although Dean is right that Bush's war was horribly wrong, and has been right about it for some time, Clark is a better spokesman to make that point to the Americans that haven't figured it out by now, including the Republicans that are wavering.

Clark also does something (in his book, and more and more in his campaign speeches) that Dean doesn't seem to have the experience to do: outline in detail what we can do from this point on to move forward from where Bush has left us. I think it is clear that Dean sees this, too, which is why there is all the talk about Clark as VP. But Cheney was supposed to fill that role for Bush, too. I don't think Clark as VP would carry much weight with voters, given the example Bush+Cheney has set. Plus, as I've said several times in other threads, Clark won't go for the VP slot, it doesn't match his background or his abilities and I'm sure he feels he would be more useful in some other capacity.

the example Bush and Cheney has set is that the VP is very capable of ruling foreign policy. In fact, I don't think youll find one DU'er who doesn't think that presidential policy is being DICKtated to the president by Grima Wormtongue Cheney.

it hasn't worked out very well, has it? That's what I think most people will see as the example Bush+Cheney have set. To be a little clearer: I've heard the question raised often in the media "What does Bush do when Cheney and Rumsfeld disagree?" The answer is usually that he makes a mess of things. That's the thing I'm considering the national perspective on the example Bush+Cheney have set: having a VP that knows more about foreign policy than the president leads to poor foreign policy decisions.

And I like your reference to the fiend of Rohan. You should consider calling Bush "little George"; I find it expresses more of my feelings in a seemingly benign phrase than Shrub or Bush II or Bush the unelected.

I understand the post better having been given this context.

One, my problem with Clark's Iraq plan has much less to do with his competence than with his intentions. He wants to "win" the "war." In the first place, I find that a morally indefensible position-- it was wrong to illegally attack their country but if we do manage to subdue them it will somehow be ok? In the second place I don't think the invasion of Iraq presents us with any "winnable" situation. Do we really want to follow Israel's example in the Middle East?

Two, well, for a man who has never held an elected public office before, saying only the Presidency will do, only the Oval Office itself will serve his interests or somehow "match his background" sounds a bit arrogant at best and gives me real shivers at worst. Only absolute authority will be sufficient to induce General Clark to contribute to the goverance of his country? Them's mighty big ego shoes, IMO.

Subduing Iraq is not what Clark means by winning that war. He wrote two books, "Waging Modern War" and "Winning Modern War", about how the definition of winning a war has changed. I didn't read the first (it sounded like too much about the military for me), but I was given the second for Christmas and read it. What he means by winning the war is ending up with Iraq as a stable, self-governing country that is not a rogue state. Clark has only the harshest criticism for Bush's decision to invade Iraq, and for any of the likely motives Bush may have had for doing so--including the neocon ideal of an American Empire. And for what it is worth, I deplore Israel's example in the Middle East, and would not support Clark if he didn't.

As for the second point, I don't believe Clark is saying that nothing but the presidency will do; I believe he has no interest in the specific job of Vice President. If Clark doesn't win the nomination and the Dem nominee wins the presidency, I think Clark would be very tempted by an offer of Secretary of Defense or Secretary of State. The VP is two things: a Senate babysitter/policy pusher, and a stepping stone to the presidency. I don't think Clark is interested in either of those roles, as I've said many times in various threads.

...in order to implement Clark's hopes for the future of Iraq? His speeches on the topic are filled with patriotic rhetoric about "ending up with Iraq as a stable, self-governing country that is not a rogue state," but that is pretty much what Iraq was this time last year, and that's been an integral part of the Bush rhetoric as well. I'm sorry, but I'll have to take Clark's statements on "how to win the war in Iraq" at face value until he says something different. What I want to hear him talk about is how to lose the war in Iraq-- we are going to lose because the situation is not winnable-- so the important thing becomes "how we lose," not "how we win." Long, hard, slow, and bloody, or short, contrite, hats, wallets, and mea culpas in hand at the U.N.?

on edit: And while Clark might "deplore" Israel's example in the ME, our continued occupation of Iraq, in contravention of international law, is precisely in accordance with that example.

Last year at this time Iraq was a stable, self-governing rogue state. It had attacked two of its neighbors, and had every intent of becoming strong enough to do so again. Clark did not and does not support Bush's invasion of Iraq, and has said many many times that it was a stupid, costly mistake. You can call doing the best we can for Iraq "how we lose" if you want, but I don't expect someone running for president to phrase the same goals that way.

The UN is not calling for the US to remove its troops. It is calling for the US to make an orderly transition of authority back to the Iraqis. Clark is calling for an all-Iraqi governing body NOW, not after the election, and turnover of the control of the security and nation-rebuilding efforts to an international body, with a non-American leadership. There is no resemblance between Clark's plan and either Bush's or Israel's history in the Middle East. This is the plan Clark has been calling for since his book "Winning Modern Wars" was published in September. And despite the Dean party rhetoric, Clark questioned both the necessity and the advisability of invading Iraq publicly, as an analyst for CNN, from the time it was first mentioned in the assault on Afghanistan through the start of the invasion.

I believe Clark was MSNBC. minor, i know. I believe Clark is very capable, and if he gets the nod he has my vote, and I will be singing in the ballot booth.