by Andy » Dec 21, 2003 @ 10:34pm
You're starting to sound like Jadam, Brig. Bush may have got into Yale on his old man's ticket, but he earned those C's all on his own. Calling Bush a moron wouldn't be entirely unjustified (he is a Christian afterall), but it's not accurate. I'm sure he's at least in the 90th percentile intelligence-wise. Although thats a little low by presidential standards, he's got an edge over the majority of this board.
And Clark is a tool. He "led" a war? I could do that to:<finds highest ranking Air Force/Navy officers in the room> "Draw me up a bombing plan, so I can stamp it."
It also appears that his military record in Kosovo wasn't even very good. He seemed to think things were in Kosovo that weren't there, and that's a much smaller country than Iraq.
Don't make the mistake of percieving Clark as your standard "kick ass and take names" general. He's a politician. Upper-level military, by and large, is little more than an especially dirty form of politics. Generals never have a shortage of work after they retire; when he loses this campaign, he'll probably end up (if he isn't already) on Lockheade-Martin (or whoever makes those cruise missiles) payroll as an "advisor" -- ie he attends a meeting once or twice a year, then collects a 6 figure paycheck.
Furthermore, what argument can be made for the war in Kosovo that can't be made for the war in Iraq? Clark is a hyprocrite on war; he's simply bashing Bush for some easy votes.
But there is a lot to learn about the way Clark approachs problems from analyzing his Kosovo-choices. Conventional suggests a ground-based strike with overwhelming force, supported by air. Clark decided to throw virtually every cruise missile and guided bomb he could get his hands on at it. That, from what I can see, is Clarks' way of "solving" problems.
He throws money at them, that's his solution. I'm not entirely surprised to see that he's worked a a lobbyist; there's no problem that can't be solved with a little green in Washington. But, don't take my work for it, look at his major goals plans:
* For higher education: pluck ~$6,000 dollars from the money tree, and give it to whomever wants it for their first two years of college.
* He's going to combat AIDS by throwing $30 billion/year at some worthless agency or another.
* He's going to give $40 billion more to homeland security.
* He's going to give $40 billion to the various state governments; you know, so they don't have to bother balancing their budget.
* He's also going to "remove barriers for job growth", whatever the fuck that means. All I can see is that he's going to increase environmental laws and legislate worker unions so that they're practically manditory; you know, because the federal government is really just a big workers union (sad, but true).
* He wants to expand healthcare; although he doesn't put a pricetag on it, it's probably 40 billion like eveyrthing else. The guy really likes the number 40 for some reason.
* The guy is FOR affirmative action; you know, because employers shouldn't be allowed to pick the best person for the job.
* He wants to repeal Bush's tax breaks.
I can go on, each and every one of his plans is a spending-plan. I dont think Dean's policy could possibly be much more leftist than his, and everyone seems to think he's too radical; the only real difference between Dean and Clark, is that Dean doesn't pretend his leftist bullshit isn't leftist bullshit.
I'm not voting for Bush
