Wes Clark

One last post before I fall off the planet for the day –

Mark Kleiman leads me to Andrew Sabl, who joins Calpundit in supporting Wes Clark. I haven’t dug into choosing a Democratic candidate I’ll support yet, because I’m still wrestling with the broader issues of where the party’s going.
But there were a few choice quotes from Kleiman and Sabl I’ll pass along:

Sabl:

Clark isn’t indifferent or hostile to American power: He wants the U.S. to be the most powerful country in the world in a hundred years, thinks it will be good for the world if that happens, and is here to tell us how to do that. His answer is that of FDR, Truman, and Kennedy. The U.S. triumphs when it supports institutions that embody our values — universally attractive, if pursued seriously and humbly — and further our interests — to the extent that they’re compatible with those of most of the world’s citizens.

Kleiman:

As I would have expected from Andy, the essay has a highly original slant on what this campaign could be about: making the Democratic Party once again a comfortable place for those who are comfortable in their patriotism, and linking a progressive domestic agenda to the requirements of world leadership. You might call Clark’s message as interpreted by Sabl — though Sabl doesn’t himself use this label — the liberalism of national greatness.

I like both of those quotes a lot.

I’ve been put off from Clark by the sad fact that many of my military friends (albeit a self-selected and highly conservative group) actively detest him.

I’ll go read the book and do some more thinking over the next month or so.

3 thoughts on “Wes Clark”

  1. “because I’m still wrestling with the broader issues of where the party’s going.”

    You need a map and a compass?

    Honestly,what does the party offer?Beyond the blind Bush hate of the far left they have nothing of substance beyond more of the sme failed policies of the past.

  2. A.L. – Are you supporting Sabl for President or Clark? *Clark said* the reason HE opposes the invasion of Iraq is “The imminence of stopping a guy from committing a crime in progress – it wasn’t there.” Glossing over of course the killing fields, the pushing people off buildings, the disappearing school children, and the effects of the sanctions that were there for the exact purpose of preventing the imminence of WMD.

    The Democratic party of Kennedy and Truman no longer exists. The opposition to FDR’s foreign policy was the isolationists, ie. the Democrats of today.

    Clark’s criticism of Bush for attacking without UN permission goes well beyond supporting an (undemocratic) institution to capitulating to it.

  3. A.L… the man says he wants to ally with *Saudi* commandoes to hunt down terrorists.

    He says that the countries that neighbor Iraq should be handling reconstitution of a government. (Iraq’s neighbors are Turkey, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria. That’ll work real well.)

    He says he wants to give Europe the “right of first refusal” on American security issues. I’m not sure what he means by that, and I suspect the phrase “right of first refusal” does not mean what he think it means, but I don’t like the sound of any of the possible interpretations.

    He does not, to put it mildly, strike me as someone who has thought seriously about these national security issues. (Which is strange in someone with a military background, but there are the statements.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>