Bush may yet fall victim to the electors' revenge

[T_i_B]

Interesting article from the UK Guardian on how Bush can be beat. Hugo Young seems to be leaning towards Wesley Clark here, who I know little about personally so if you want to fill me in on the guy feel free. Make of this what you will.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1029225,00.html

There have been a good few wars in our time, but none like Iraq War Two. Most, in the finish, have been quite clean-cut. Even Bosnia ended. They've all, naturally, been messy. The Falklands, simplest of all, had its perilous moments. But few have had enduring, possibly lethal, political consequences for the main good-guy combatants, which is to say the US and the UK.

The battles finish (two months or so has often been the span), the warriors return to base and the politics are mostly over. But Iraq is quite different. The formal war is over, but the afterburn sears into the body politic of both aggressor powers. The politics are nowhere near over. There has been no catharsis of moral or strategic rectitude. Nothing has been simplified by the so-called victory. In this respect, the situation in Iraq, and probably the region, is as bad as those who opposed war foresaw. The leaders, of course, deny that. But their problems are getting deeper. Four months after President Bush declared the war was over, they face electorates that worry away, as never before, at both the causes and the consequences of an event that should, by normal reckoning, already be docketed as an historic victory. After all, we won, didn't we?

Bush is another matter. Despite the macho confidence, he looks vulnerable. He has no answer to what's happening in Iraq, and after another year, the American people may be asking what this is all about. That depends on a few variables, chief among them the presence of a Democrat who doesn't flinch from asking the question himself. General Wesley Clark, anti-war and once Nato's leader in the Balkans, could soon be turning things upside down. Much will turn on the economy, where Bush has seen more jobs disappear than any president since Herbert Hoover, but which now shows signs of perking up.

The big thing, though, is this: Iraq is a war Americans bought into on grounds that turn out to be false. So far there are no WMD, and the Middle East gets rougher not smoother. Terrorism multiplies. The prophets of doom are, unfortunately, looking correct. After another year, the agent of world triumph, dressing in and out of his fake bomber jacket, could look ready for the electors' revenge.

[Rhiannon12866]

1. There is little known about Wesley Clark or his positions

since he has not yet declared himself as a candidate. He says he will make up his mind around Labor Day, but I have heard it said that this is a little late to get into the race. The other Democrats have been running their campaigns for months and have already had two ``forums.''

I saw an interview with him on MSNBC and liked what he had to say. He is career military, obviously, and was very critical of Bush* on Iraq. I have also heard that Howard Dean is considering Clark as a possible running mate.

Also, this was a great article! Let's hope this prediction comes true! Thanks for posting it.:-)

[T_i_B]

2. WESLEY CLARK AT MY HAMSTER!

Sorry, just had to do something in honour of this thread. :-) The Clark v Dean flame wars do seem highly stupid from where I am standing but there ya go.

Like you have said Rhiannon12866, the fact that he is not yet a candidate would explain why there is so little known about him, although perhaps somebody can tell us what his platform for president might be.

As to the article, I too hope it comes true but it all depends on a good few if's and the challenge now is to do all we can to turn the situation round and turf $hrubya out of the whitehouse.

[Rhiannon12866]

3. Dean vs. Clark threads seem pointless if Dean is considering

Clark as a running mate. Clark appears to be a good match, as Dean came out against the war with Iraq, as did Clark, who is career military. Clark would have better credentials than anyone else that the Democrats would choose, since, of the nine declared Democratic candidates, only Sen. Kerry ever served in the U.S. military, in Vietnam.

The Bush* administration is comprised of ``chicken hawks,'' those who favor military action, but never served in the military. Colin Powell is the only one who saw military action and he was the only one who, initially, favored diplomacy over the use of force.

This a good thread, so you can depend on a kick from me. You make an excellent point. Any Democratic candidate is preferable to the squatter-in-chief currently occupying the White House.

Here are some links to C-Span footage. Most of them are from those who are trying to draft Clark. They admit that they are not in touch with him.

http://www.cspan.org/search/basic.asp?ResultStart=1&ResultCount=10&BasicQueryText=Wesley+Clark&image1.x=28&image1.y=7

[Rhiannon12866]

4. Kick!

:kick:

[Zuni]

5. Clark and Dean will beat him

if they team up. Every day it seems that Bush's popularity is dropping fast.

[Myra]

6. Joe Conason seems to like Clark

Wrote about him in his current journal.

[T_i_B]

7. The UK press seems to prefer Clark too!

Clark's coverage in the UK press has increased of late. He seems to get more favourable coverage than Dean, who is all too often lazily labelled the McGovernite candidate (The Economist is particularly guilty of this).

On the basis of what I have seen in the UK press even if Clark and Dean were to run identical platforms the press would still find Clark more attractive as he is a general. I don't know enough about Clark to draw too many conclusions though.