In my journeys across Blogistan, I've found a lot of politically active Democrat types who, whichever candidate they're favouring at the moment, say that they'd switch sides in a heartbeat if only General Wesley Clark would join the race. See, for example, this article from Not Geniuses, and the comments following, or sentiments from the Cattle Call threads at the Daily Kos. He is painted in glowingly generous terms as having much the same outsider appeal as Dean, only without any actual positions and with the whole general thing going on, making him an unstoppable election behemoth on foreign policy. And while he is a Rhodes Scholar and undoubtedly competent and all of that, I feel deep and serious reservations about him.
And the reason is quotes like these:
'Because there is no pattern, the fact that the Wesley Clark of today is the same one who toured Britain justifying the My Lai massacre is no more than a bizarre coincidence.'
I am having very little luck finding more concrete citations...Most of the 'Clark is a Vietnam apologist' statements I've found on the web have been on sites which at first glance do not seem, as it were, necessarily entirely reliable. But my gut instinct is to always think the worst of the military...
Can anyone confirm, deny, or clarify this for me?
Posted by aloysius at July 25, 2003 09:08 PM | TrackBack |