As someone who supports President Bush, I continue to rub my hands with glee at the antics of the Democratic candidates for President. I’m hoping that Howard Dean is nominated…and I think there is a decent chance of that actually happening.
It’s a statement that has to be taken on faith, that’s for sure.
But not that much faith.
Allow me to quote the Bush playbook, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html :
The National Security Strategy, and the section in particular, above identifies enemies (plural) who must be proactively confronted. I guarantee that one of the plans to proactively confront these “rogue states” involves kicking the living shit out of them.
Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan are all nations listed unfavorably in the 2002 Patterns of Global Terrorism. Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan and Syria are designated state sponsors of terrorism. Lebanon is considered by some to be a client state of Syria. Somalia’s “lack of a functioning central government; protracted state of instability and violence; and long coastline, porous borders, and proximity to the Arabian Peninsula makes it a potential location for international terrorists seeking a transit or launching point to conduct operations elsewhere.”
Lest one get the impression that the U.S. considers all Middle East nations to be nests of terrorism, consider the following quote from the same source: “Egypt’s solid record of counterterrorism cooperation included efforts at brokering a cease-fire among Palestinian rejectionist groups that would halt terrorist violence in Israel and the Occupied Territories. The Governments of Algeria, Tunisia, and Morocco all actively supported the global campaign against terrorism.” Who would have thought of it from these guys? You’ve got good guys and you’ve got bad guys, all nice and black and white.
And allow me to point you to this illuminating article from September 21, 2001:
Colin Powell, as I recall, is retiring at the end of this term. Just a coincidence, I’m sure.
Again, you have to take Clark’s statement on faith alone. But if Clark is bullshitting, he’s spinning a pretty fucking credible yarn, because if I were a frothing war-hawk looking to kick ass in Africa and the Middle East, those seven nations would be at the top of my list. Do we have any frothing war-hawks in the current administration?
(And no, I still don’t work for Wesley Clark. Yet.)
I assume that the planning department at the Pentagon has contingency plans to invade just about ANYWHERE (England? Berkley?), just in case they are needed.
If there was a grand scheme to occupy half the ME, it seems that it’s not going to be easy. Based on the evidence so far we will need Canada’s full support, and Poland to up its armed forces by a factor of 10, AOT. (among other things) Check back for further reqirements.
While this is something that most Canadians believe as if it was the holy writ of Jesus, it’s not entirely true. Actually, it is true, it’s just not the whole story. Both sides tried to invade the other on the Great Lakes front in the War of 1912, neither succeded at all. So, while it’s accurate to say that we tried to invade Canada and failed miserably, it’s just as accurate and important to note that the British tried to invade us from Canada, and failed miserably.
Besides, whenever a Canadian mentiones this to me, I simply smile and ask;“Game for a rematch?” That usually shuts them up. 
I’d settle for substantial expertise in either arena, accompanied by a decent grasp of the issues in the non-expert area. All Clark can point to is his military record, which his starry-eyed supporters are confusing with expert knowledge of foreign policy issues.
From the Associated Press story by Ron Fournier on Clark’s announcement of candidacy:
*"Clark, 58, also has no political experience — not even a student council election to his credit — and he has never been pressed to produce a domestic agenda. None of this deters Clark or his supporters, who point to his foreign policy credentials and television-tested charisma.
“It’s not too late to get in the race,” Clark told The Associated Press, adding with a wink and smile, “if I decide to run.”
Asked if he was ready to start telling Americans about his position on domestic issues, Clark said, “I’ll do my best, but there will be a lot of things that I don’t know right away.”
“I want to learn,” he said. “I’ve got a whole period of time. I’ve got to go around America. I want to talk to people about the issues.” *
Yep, if “television-tested charisma” is all you need, and you’ll settle for “a wink and a smile” instead of a candidate putting himself on the record on domestic issues, then ol’ Wes is your man.
We can do a lot better.
The past two and a half years have been hard on me, too.
Hell, it worked for Ronnie, didn’t it?
puts hands on hips, stern look
Domestic issues? Where the fuck are Dubya’s domestic issues?
The comments by three of the last four posters (suggesting that any degree of ignorance and duplicity are acceptable in a candidate, provided he is not George Bush) are extremely good evidence that we need a viable third party.
What is it with you people? Did he promise to let you rub his medals or something?
I’ve heard Laura spanks him regularly for huffing Testers’ model airplane glue and “cleaning up his room” by pushing everything under the bed. Does that count?
Well, I wouldn’t be suprised if the current administration continued into Iran, the signs have been there for a while. People have also spoken about the strategical importance of Somalia.
Considering Iran, IMO there has been a steady escalation similar to the process that led to the invasion of Iraq. From Debkafila, a website which I haven’t yet decided if I can trust, but they appear to have good sources:
Of course, Iran don’t like it and parade with their new missiles:
But Britain is not on board with the US yet:
It’s no doubt that Iran funds and harbors terrorists (at least not according to Debkafile again and others), so that should be an easy sell for Bush. And he has said it will use military force if Iran won’t comply.
The question is, can he go to war in an election year? According to various reports he has to act during the first half of 2004 if he wants to prevent Iran from obtaining thier first primitive nuclear bomb. If, if, if …
I suppose it might not hurt to pull one straight from the horse’s mouth, from September 14, 2001:
And again, the list of states which sponsor terrorism include Iraq, Iran, Lybia, Syria, and the Sudan. Lebanon is Syria and Iran’s bitch, and Somalia is FUBAR and just across the way from the Arabian peninsula.
We know that Rumsfeld and Perle wanted a piece of Iraq in 1998 as members of the Project for the New American Century. We know that those members of the PNAC who didn’t get a job with the Bush Administration wanted a chunk of Iran and Syria on September 20, 2001 (“Should Iran and Syria refuse to comply, the administration should consider appropriate measures of retaliation against these known state sponsors of terrorism.”) We know that the PNAC includes Norman Podhoretz, who wants to take 'em all on (“The regimes that richly deserve to be overthrown and replaced are not confined to the three singled-out members of the axis of evil. At a minimum, the axis should extend to Syria and Lebanon and Libya, as well as “friends” of America like the Saudi royal family and Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, along with the Palestinian Authority, whether headed by Arafat or one of his henchmen”).
And we know that the PNAC got exactly what it fucking wanted with Iraq, without a legitimate casus belli.
It seems to me all we don’t know is which one of those PNAC psychos told someone in the Pentagon to start working on taking them all on, who in turn told Wesley Clark.
And then again, maybe Clark is making it up, because he hates America.
Note to Alien: Do not trust Debka. Not unless you agree that Israel is always right.
Note to matt: Invading Canada would be superfluous. We already own your asses, and you even like it.
Well, he did keep cutting the taxes of the upper class until the economy flowered into its current state of prosperity.
Dave, is that you?
He’s still better than what we got now. despite the tax cuts, i take home less money each paycheck now due to the ruined economy’s high gas prices, higher bus pass costs, higher health insurance costs (for lower benefits, also), higher car insurance costs, etc.
So fuck Bush. You’re just jeleous Clark actually showed up for military service instead of playing dressup on an aircraft carrier.
Hey Bri…
Before you accept as fact the right-wing lies that George Will and William Safire are spreading about Wesley Clark and how he supposedly claimed that the White House called him on 9-11 and that there is no Middle Eastern think tank in Canada, you might want to check out the following link.
http://www.dailyhowler.com./dh092303.shtml
The truth shall set you free.
I can’t decide which would be worse: if Clarke is lying, or if he’s telling the truth. If he’s lying, he’s doing so for political gain (not surprising from a politician, perhaps a little surprising from a General) and he’s doing it within a forum in which the Bush Administration can’t respond adequately without jeopardizing troop movements and/or the credibility behind threats to force Iran, et al. into compliance with US demands. If he’s telling the truth, he’s willfully disclosing confidential information regarding troop movements and plans, which I believe is a felony of the highest order. You’d think a (former) general would be more concerned about the lives of his (former) troops.
Then again, maybe he’s just using the same logic used by Sofa King: “ending states who sponsor terrorism” = “declare war on 7 Muslim nations.” See? No messy, fussy logic problems there, right?