If you haven’t already, you gotta read Krauthammer this morning on Ted Kennedy’s derangement. Money quote:
You can say [Bush] made a misjudgment. You can say he picked the wrong enemy. You can say almost anything about this war, but to say that he fought it for political advantage is absurd. The possibilities for disaster were real and many: house-to-house combat in Baghdad, thousands of possible casualties, a chemical attack on our troops (which is why they were ordered into those dangerously bulky and hot protective suits on the road to Baghdad). We were expecting oil fires, terrorist attacks and all manner of calamities. This is a way to boost political ratings?
Whatever your (and history’s) verdict on the war, it is undeniable that it was an act of singular presidential leadership. And more than that, it was an act of political courage. George Bush wagered his presidency on a war he thought necessary for national security — a war that could very obviously and very easily have been his political undoing. And it might yet be.
Amen.
THIRD THOUGHTS ON CLARK: Thanks for the emails. Gee. I guess the point of blogs is to write things as they occur to you, to raise points, to argue with yourself and others, etc. This morning a number of people have contacted me to tell me all sorts of things about Clark. The most interesting came from liberals who have spoken with him and heard his private pitch. What he tells wealthy liberals is that he loathes Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al. He thinks terrorism has to be fought as a police operation. He believes the Iraq war was not just a misjudgment but a cynical political semi-coup. Then there’s this email:
You pose that “if” Clark is not coopted by the Clintons and McAuliffe, he might have a real shot at the nomination. He already has been so coopted, at least if the Safire line of commentary is to be believed. As for Clark’s debate appearance, and saying the right things on the deficit, etc., that’s what Rhodes Scholars, like Bill C., do the best! It’s part of the suck up technique that got them to the top. My qualms about Clark are that he, like Bill Clinton, doesn’t really believe in anything other than his own personal advancement. Clark, like Clinton, will say anything that the focus groups suggest is the flavor du jour in order to secure favorable media coverage, and eventually votes, to get them to that next higher rung on the advancement ladder. I suspect that this lack of real values may be what Gen. Shelton was referring to in his lack of character and integrity reference when Shelton predicted that Clark won’t get his vote.
I don’t know yet. But these are surely the issues about Clark we have to figure out. I was wowed by Clinton in 1991 for similar reasons. It took six weeks of him in office for me to realize my mistake. (Oh and by the way, the gay issue has nothing to do with my semi-open mind about Clark. I don’t trust Clark to do anything substantive for gay equality, just enough to keep the money coming in and a supplicant interest group at his disposal. That was Clinton’s mojo. And Clark has said nothing to separate himself from that kind of politics.)
The Dish 