If enough of the others flame out ,he could be the last one standing. There is a lot of time for a small gaff to be exploited.
I personally do not like generals in office. They do not have a great track record and much graft follows.
I agree in general, with the exception of Washington.
Well, if the invasion of Iraq had gone smooth as silk, why the fuck WOULDN’T we be looking around for other countries to liberate? If a quick invasion and capture/neutralization of the ruling class were all it took to change these third world dictatorships into semidemocracies with rose petals strewn on the streets to greet our troops, then it would be crazy not to move in and shake things up.
However, it turns out in the real world that it isn’t that easy. If it were, it would, but it wasn’t so it isn’t. So what’s the point we’re debating again?
Ah, Wesley Clark. Thing is, his moment has passed. He was going to be the anti-war military man who could defeat Bush and get us out of Iraq without being smeared as a pansy like the other Democratic challengers.
Except there’s no particular need for such a candidate in 2008. Bush isn’t running, and Bush and Bushism as been largely discredited. Whoever the Republican candidate in 2008 is, it will be someone who isn’t part of the Bush Administration, someone who has no loyalty to the Bush machine and who will have no compulsion to carry on Bush’s policies merely to avoid embarassing Bush. And whoever the 2008 Democratic candidate is won’t need the cover of being a former general to oppose the Iraq war, such opposition is no longer controversial, quite the reverse. Nowadays those who voted FOR the war are the ones scrambling for cover.