I still don't understand what the big deal is about this Clark thing.
It isn't a smear and it isn't a lie.
So . . .
It hurt people's feelings? I don't really get it either. The hagiography of military service in this country is insane and I'm personally glad that someone is finally saying it in public.
Jacobkosh on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
I have a dim view of any aircraft that requires a quarter of a century of development and $50B to get to the point where it doesn't wipe out dozens of people every time you fire up the ignition.
I used to have an office overlooking the Pentagon and got to watch them fly around the building on exhibitions. They're kind of a neat idea, but couldn't seem to work out the kinks.
The degree of redundancy and stupid waste in our government is ludcicrous. I'd probably cut the size of the military by about 30% for starters. The size of our military is still premised on the need to be able to wage two simultaneous full-scale wars, which we don't need. I'd wager that we actively don't want to encourage our military to occupy two nations at once. See: Afghanistan and Iraq. And that's not figuring the stupid amount of money dedicated to retarded projects. See: the Osprey.
The Osprey isn't really all that stupid, once they figured out how to get it to stop killing whole squads of Marines. I'd have picked the F-22 as a better example.
I have a dim view of any aircraft that requires a quarter of a century of development and $50B to get to the point where it doesn't wipe out dozens of people every time you fire up the ignition.
And if you let me loose on non-military discretionary spending, I would have a fucking field day.
I would love to hear at least a little on what you have to say on this topic.
It would fast turn into even more of a derailment, and getting into specifics would require me to do more research than I'm willing to do right now. Suffice to say that, based on past forays into specifics, I think we could comfortably shave dollars off just about every genre of spending you can think of. In general, when a program is started, if it's a failure, it's not scrapped. It's supplemented with a new program, leaving the first one in place to continue acting as a money sink. Because nobody wants to be the Guy Who Opposed X.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Or ballistic missile defense, which is an absolute failure on any number of levels.
It actually works now. And it's not like we can defund our early-warning radar network, which is the bulk of the MD system regardless.
Really? Last I checked it failed under 50% of the time under perfect conditions. They also had huge issues with simple things like rain foiling their launches. So lets hope the ruskies don't attack during inclement weather.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
The degree of redundancy and stupid waste in our government is ludcicrous. I'd probably cut the size of the military by about 30% for starters. The size of our military is still premised on the need to be able to wage two simultaneous full-scale wars, which we don't need. I'd wager that we actively don't want to encourage our military to occupy two nations at once. See: Afghanistan and Iraq. And that's not figuring the stupid amount of money dedicated to retarded projects. See: the Osprey.
The Osprey isn't really all that stupid, once they figured out how to get it to stop killing whole squads of Marines. I'd have picked the F-22 as a better example.
I have a dim view of any aircraft that requires a quarter of a century of development and $50B to get to the point where it doesn't wipe out dozens of people every time you fire up the ignition.
Well, sure, but the benefits were pretty big and they've finally gotten it to work now, so it wouldn't make sense to cancel it once they've got all the major research done. And I mean, at least it actually fits into the post-Cold War military that we're theoretically trying to build.
Then again, pretty much everything will be like that since they don't bother to declassify new military aircraft until they've already pissed away tons of money on them. The F-22 was still a colossal waste of money, though. I've been working for (or "with", I guess) the Air Force this summer and while I'm just doing some circuit simulation software, the "information briefings" they've been giving have really made me think about how much the U. S. Military is still very much fighting the Cold War. Hopefully now that they've brought in that ex-cargo plane guy (edit: Norton Schwartz) to run the USAF things will change a bit.
edit: come to think of it, that's one of the things that kneecapped Jimmy Carter. He tried to cancel the B-1 because it was a useless interim plane and the B-2 was in development, but he couldn't tell the public that the B-2 was in development because it was highly secret at the time, so Reagan attacked him on trying to make America vulnerable to the commies or something.
Excellent way of putting it, although part of it is I moved as well. Those three issues I pointed out? I used to be passionate about them, but then sometime after adolescense(sp?) I became disillusioned with the church, which caused me to reevaluate a lot of what I thought I believed. College helped too.
You're a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. Congratulations, you're now without a home. You can disagree with liberals on matters of finance, disagree with conservatives on matters of morality, or disagree with libertarians on matters of sanity.
Can someone explain to me that currently counts as "fiscally conservative". Not the GOP line, but what it means to people like ElJeffe. Are we just talking about balancing the budget, or something more complex?
"Fiscal Conservative" typically means...
1. Low taxes/barriers to economic activity.
2. Balanced budgets.
3. Restrained/prioritized spending
4. Free Trade
5. Skepticism about the efficiency of government programs vs. the free market
Generally it comes down to a debate over the function of government, with the more fiscally conservative you get, the fewer functions you assign to the government.
Foreign Policy wise, it is Hamiltonian.
Professor Phobos on
0
Options
tuxkamenreally took this picture.Registered Userregular
Well, sure, but the benefits were pretty big and they've finally gotten it to work now, so it wouldn't make sense to cancel it once they've got all the major research done. And I mean, at least it actually fits into the post-Cold War military that we're theoretically trying to build.
I wouldn't kill the Osprey now. I would've killed it fifteen years ago, when it first turned into a money sink.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Well, sure, but the benefits were pretty big and they've finally gotten it to work now, so it wouldn't make sense to cancel it once they've got all the major research done. And I mean, at least it actually fits into the post-Cold War military that we're theoretically trying to build.
I wouldn't kill the Osprey now. I would've killed it fifteen years ago, when it first turned into a money sink.
As would I.
Hm, but that makes me think: what should get killed now? I'm sure there's a nice long list of targets.
I guess it's a cost-benefit thing. The cost doesn't have to be very high in the long run, but the benefit could potentially be enormous. And Geraldine Ferraro wasn't a 4-star general.
But it's still a bad comparison. Clark went after McCain for saying his pow experience was some how executive experience coming from a position of having been a 4 star general.
Ferraro went after Obama for being a black male as some kind of token reason for being a canadite because she was a token female vp on a failed ticket.
Yeah. Clark's point is defensible. Ferraro's is stupid and demonstrably false.
Clark's point is not defensible in the least looking at his previous comments.
War. War. I've been there. So has John Kerry. John Kerry has heard the thump of enemy mortars. He's seen the flash of the tracers. He's lived the values of service and sacrifice. In the Navy, as a prosecutor, as a senator, he proved his physical courage under fire. And he's proved his moral courage, too. John Kerry fought a war, and I respect him for that. And he came home to fight a peace. And I respect him for that, too. John Kerry's combination of physical courage and moral values, is my definition of what we need as Americans in our commander-in-chief.
Right so for John Kerry his military experience was invaluable and has prepared him to be president, but with Mccain it qualifies him for nothing. I guess doing the 3 purple heart and out thing was smarter than spending 5 years in a box. Clark comes off as nothing but a partisan hack making these comments.
If you want to atack Mccain, you can do it just fine by honoring his service and then pointing out that was 30 years ago and on most days now he looks like he barely knows where he is. He's no longer that man. AS opposed to... You didn't command during wartime, only peacetime, so you suck!
Clark was being an idiot and fucked up his chances for VP. Clark's statement, however, was true. Clark was spouting bullshit in 2004, but really that was the least of the Democratic party's problems in 2004.
War. War. I've been there. So has John Kerry. John Kerry has heard the thump of enemy mortars. He's seen the flash of the tracers. He's lived the values of service and sacrifice. In the Navy, as a prosecutor, as a senator, he proved his physical courage under fire. And he's proved his moral courage, too. John Kerry fought a war, and I respect him for that. And he came home to fight a peace. And I respect him for that, too. John Kerry's combination of physical courage and moral values, is my definition of what we need as Americans in our commander-in-chief.
Right so for John Kerry his military experience was invaluable and has prepared him to be president, but with Mccain it qualifies him for nothing. I guess doing the 3 purple heart and out thing was smarter than spending 5 years in a box. Clark comes off as nothing but a partisan hack making these comments.
If you want to atack Mccain, you can do it just fine by honoring his service and then pointing out that was 30 years ago and on most days now he looks like he barely knows where he is. He's no longer that man. AS opposed to... You didn't command during wartime, only peacetime, so you suck!
Except he was saying his courage and moral values were what made him good to be the president. No where did he say anything like his military service was the reason he was ready to run the country. And yet again Clark didn't attack McCains service, no one has the only person who believes someone did is John "mumbles" McCain.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited July 2008
Okay, I think what we'll do is this.
Clark is not going to be VP. Much as it sucks, and even though he's not even wrong in the first place, he's basically out of the running after this whole incident.
So here's what I propose we do. We'll have a revote. We don't know where all the Clark votes are going to go- wherever they go, they're enough to swing the match in any direction, even to last-place Chris Dodd. In Clark's place will go someone who was knocked out in the heats. The key runner-ups, and note that Clark was in Heat 1:
I'm not going to use up a thread debating who goes in Clark's place, but I favor replacing Clark with Hillary, solely because she was the top runner-up in Clark's heat. Unless I hear a good enough argument as to why someone else should go in her stead, that's what I'm going to do- replace Clark with Hillary, and do this same field again.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
It supports the British Empire against revolutionary France?
Contemptible, if true.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Clark is not going to be VP. Much as it sucks, and even though he's not even wrong in the first place, he's basically out of the running after this whole incident.
So here's what I propose we do. We'll have a revote. We don't know where all the Clark votes are going to go- wherever they go, they're enough to swing the match in any direction, even to last-place Chris Dodd. In Clark's place will go someone who was knocked out in the heats. The key runner-ups, and note that Clark was in Heat 1:
I'm not going to use up a thread debating who goes in Clark's place, but I favor replacing Clark with Hillary, solely because she was the top runner-up in Clark's heat. Unless I hear a good enough argument as to why someone else should go in her stead, that's what I'm going to do- replace Clark with Hillary, and do this same field again.
I'd say go dark horse go Hagel or Lugar. Hillary is as much of a toss out as Clark, more so because of past and hell current comments especially if the Bill Clinton rumors are true.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I'm not going to use up a thread debating who goes in Clark's place, but I favor replacing Clark with Hillary, solely because she was the top runner-up in Clark's heat. Unless I hear a good enough argument as to why someone else should go in her stead, that's what I'm going to do- replace Clark with Hillary, and do this same field again.
If we're eliminating Clark because we now suppose he hasn't a chance in hell of getting the slot, should we really replace him with someone else we suppose hasn't a chance in hell of getting the slot?
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Clark is not going to be VP. Much as it sucks, and even though he's not even wrong in the first place, he's basically out of the running after this whole incident.
So here's what I propose we do. We'll have a revote. We don't know where all the Clark votes are going to go- wherever they go, they're enough to swing the match in any direction, even to last-place Chris Dodd. In Clark's place will go someone who was knocked out in the heats. The key runner-ups, and note that Clark was in Heat 1:
I'm not going to use up a thread debating who goes in Clark's place, but I favor replacing Clark with Hillary, solely because she was the top runner-up in Clark's heat. Unless I hear a good enough argument as to why someone else should go in her stead, that's what I'm going to do- replace Clark with Hillary, and do this same field again.
If we're doing a run-off, why not allow the voting to knock Clark off? We let the voting knock out Webb after 'Why Women Can't Fight'.
Really, I'd be in favor of keeping the top five and running it again as a run-off, with Clark included. If everyone decides that Clark can eat a dick, they'll vote accordingly. I don't think it likely that Clark votes are stealing specifically from any single other candidate, so it's not like Dodd is suddenly a likely candidate.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
I'm not going to use up a thread debating who goes in Clark's place, but I favor replacing Clark with Hillary, solely because she was the top runner-up in Clark's heat. Unless I hear a good enough argument as to why someone else should go in her stead, that's what I'm going to do- replace Clark with Hillary, and do this same field again.
If we're eliminating Clark because we now suppose he hasn't a chance in hell of getting the slot, should we really replace him with someone else we suppose hasn't a chance in hell of getting the slot?
I bring the names I did up because they're the ones with the best chance of getting the slot after the ones we put through. I'm hearing Sam Nunn's name mentioned more and more, for example, so you can't say he doesn't have a chance in hell. We simply didn't qualify him for the finals.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
I still think it doesn't hurt Clark. Honestly he said the truth and didn't attack McCains service just the idea that his service somehow makes him more presidential.
Hell I'd say Clark is finally taking steps to seperate himself from the other "Who the fuck are these guys" group of VP canidites.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I still think it doesn't hurt Clark. Honestly he said the truth and didn't attack McCains service just the idea that his service somehow makes him more presidential.
Hell I'd say Clark is finally taking steps to seperate himself from the other "Who the fuck are these guys" group of VP canidites.
Perhaps not, but Obama immediately distanced himself from the comments, so it's pretty obvious he's out of the running.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I still think it doesn't hurt Clark. Honestly he said the truth and didn't attack McCains service just the idea that his service somehow makes him more presidential.
Hell I'd say Clark is finally taking steps to seperate himself from the other "Who the fuck are these guys" group of VP canidites.
Perhaps not, but Obama immediately distanced himself from the comments, so it's pretty obvious he's out of the running.
Which is a shame, again why is telling the truth a bad thing? Its like if there could be a problem there is one whether its a real issue or not.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited July 2008
...okay, from what I'm seeing here, I think we'll go ahead with ElJeffe's plan. 5-way runoff, with Clark included, and if he wins, he wins.
1- Wesley Clark, Arkansas
2- Joe Biden, Delaware
3- Kathleen Sabelius, Kansas
4- Al Gore, Tennessee
5- Bill Richardson, New Mexico
Meaning we say goodbye to Schweitzer, McCaskill, Bloomberg and Dodd.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited July 2008
Hey who's that general that was like the big shot head for Iraq and Afghanistan and was basically forced to resign because of his disagreement with the Bush Administration over Iran?
Hey who's that general that was like the big shot head for Iraq and Afghanistan and was basically forced to resign because of his disagreement with the Bush Administration over Iran?
I still think it doesn't hurt Clark. Honestly he said the truth and didn't attack McCains service just the idea that his service somehow makes him more presidential.
Hell I'd say Clark is finally taking steps to seperate himself from the other "Who the fuck are these guys" group of VP canidites.
Perhaps not, but Obama immediately distanced himself from the comments, so it's pretty obvious he's out of the running.
Which is a shame, again why is telling the truth a bad thing? Its like if there could be a problem there is one whether its a real issue or not.
Because while it was the truth, it was poorly phrased truth, and gaffe prone VP candidates are generally not the best VP candidates.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Hey who's that general that was like the big shot head for Iraq and Afghanistan and was basically forced to resign because of his disagreement with the Bush Administration over Iran?
Which one?
Fixed.
Though I presume he's referring to Adm. Fallon
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Hey who's that general that was like the big shot head for Iraq and Afghanistan and was basically forced to resign because of his disagreement with the Bush Administration over Iran?
Which one?
Fixed.
Though I presume he's referring to Adm. Fallon
Yeah that's the guy.
Let's get him to run for VP.
Or that Colonel that came back from Iraq and ran for senate as a Democrat but the DNC was like 'no screw you' and he went on the Daily Show.
I still think it doesn't hurt Clark. Honestly he said the truth and didn't attack McCains service just the idea that his service somehow makes him more presidential.
Hell I'd say Clark is finally taking steps to seperate himself from the other "Who the fuck are these guys" group of VP canidites.
Perhaps not, but Obama immediately distanced himself from the comments, so it's pretty obvious he's out of the running.
Which is a shame, again why is telling the truth a bad thing? Its like if there could be a problem there is one whether its a real issue or not.
Because you need to be incredibly tactful to communicate your ideas in politics. McCain's aide who said that a terror attack would benefit his boss told the truth. A bomb going off in New York would redound to McCain's strength as the anti-terror candidate. That doesn't make it a good idea to say it out loud in front of reporters.
moniker on
0
Options
Clint EastwoodMy baby's in there someplaceShe crawled right inRegistered Userregular
I still think it doesn't hurt Clark. Honestly he said the truth and didn't attack McCains service just the idea that his service somehow makes him more presidential.
Hell I'd say Clark is finally taking steps to seperate himself from the other "Who the fuck are these guys" group of VP canidites.
Perhaps not, but Obama immediately distanced himself from the comments, so it's pretty obvious he's out of the running.
Supposedly Obama was distancing himself from something similar that Clark said earlier, at least in part, it's just that the timing had a funny way of working itself out that he said that sort of thing again. Or at least he was going to distance himself anyways.
Obama's more recent position on it was that Clark's comments were "inartful", which is a less than complete condemnation of them. Might hurt him in the VP math but I wouldn't count him out fully quite yet.
Posts
It actually works now. And it's not like we can defund our early-warning radar network, which is the bulk of the MD system regardless.
It hurt people's feelings? I don't really get it either. The hagiography of military service in this country is insane and I'm personally glad that someone is finally saying it in public.
I used to have an office overlooking the Pentagon and got to watch them fly around the building on exhibitions. They're kind of a neat idea, but couldn't seem to work out the kinks.
but it's so cool man
it's like a plane
but like a helicopter too
It would fast turn into even more of a derailment, and getting into specifics would require me to do more research than I'm willing to do right now. Suffice to say that, based on past forays into specifics, I think we could comfortably shave dollars off just about every genre of spending you can think of. In general, when a program is started, if it's a failure, it's not scrapped. It's supplemented with a new program, leaving the first one in place to continue acting as a money sink. Because nobody wants to be the Guy Who Opposed X.
Really? Last I checked it failed under 50% of the time under perfect conditions. They also had huge issues with simple things like rain foiling their launches. So lets hope the ruskies don't attack during inclement weather.
Well, sure, but the benefits were pretty big and they've finally gotten it to work now, so it wouldn't make sense to cancel it once they've got all the major research done. And I mean, at least it actually fits into the post-Cold War military that we're theoretically trying to build.
Then again, pretty much everything will be like that since they don't bother to declassify new military aircraft until they've already pissed away tons of money on them. The F-22 was still a colossal waste of money, though. I've been working for (or "with", I guess) the Air Force this summer and while I'm just doing some circuit simulation software, the "information briefings" they've been giving have really made me think about how much the U. S. Military is still very much fighting the Cold War. Hopefully now that they've brought in that ex-cargo plane guy (edit: Norton Schwartz) to run the USAF things will change a bit.
edit: come to think of it, that's one of the things that kneecapped Jimmy Carter. He tried to cancel the B-1 because it was a useless interim plane and the B-2 was in development, but he couldn't tell the public that the B-2 was in development because it was highly secret at the time, so Reagan attacked him on trying to make America vulnerable to the commies or something.
"Fiscal Conservative" typically means...
1. Low taxes/barriers to economic activity.
2. Balanced budgets.
3. Restrained/prioritized spending
4. Free Trade
5. Skepticism about the efficiency of government programs vs. the free market
Generally it comes down to a debate over the function of government, with the more fiscally conservative you get, the fewer functions you assign to the government.
Foreign Policy wise, it is Hamiltonian.
Games: Ad Astra Per Phalla | Choose Your Own Phalla
I wouldn't kill the Osprey now. I would've killed it fifteen years ago, when it first turned into a money sink.
The same place it goes every time such a party takes power: waaay out the window.
As would I.
Hm, but that makes me think: what should get killed now? I'm sure there's a nice long list of targets.
Maybe this belongs in another thread.
It supports the British Empire against revolutionary France?
Clark's point is not defensible in the least looking at his previous comments.
Right so for John Kerry his military experience was invaluable and has prepared him to be president, but with Mccain it qualifies him for nothing. I guess doing the 3 purple heart and out thing was smarter than spending 5 years in a box. Clark comes off as nothing but a partisan hack making these comments.
If you want to atack Mccain, you can do it just fine by honoring his service and then pointing out that was 30 years ago and on most days now he looks like he barely knows where he is. He's no longer that man. AS opposed to... You didn't command during wartime, only peacetime, so you suck!
It sure does!
Except he was saying his courage and moral values were what made him good to be the president. No where did he say anything like his military service was the reason he was ready to run the country. And yet again Clark didn't attack McCains service, no one has the only person who believes someone did is John "mumbles" McCain.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Clark is not going to be VP. Much as it sucks, and even though he's not even wrong in the first place, he's basically out of the running after this whole incident.
So here's what I propose we do. We'll have a revote. We don't know where all the Clark votes are going to go- wherever they go, they're enough to swing the match in any direction, even to last-place Chris Dodd. In Clark's place will go someone who was knocked out in the heats. The key runner-ups, and note that Clark was in Heat 1:
*Hillary Clinton (4th place, Heat 1)
*Jim Webb (5th place, Heat 1)
*Janet Napolitano (6th place, Heat 1)
*Chuck Hagel (7th place, Heat 1)
*Richard Lugar (4th place, Heat 2)
*Tom Daschle (4th place, Heat 3)
*Sam Nunn (5th place, Heat 3)
I'm not going to use up a thread debating who goes in Clark's place, but I favor replacing Clark with Hillary, solely because she was the top runner-up in Clark's heat. Unless I hear a good enough argument as to why someone else should go in her stead, that's what I'm going to do- replace Clark with Hillary, and do this same field again.
Contemptible, if true.
I'd say go dark horse go Hagel or Lugar. Hillary is as much of a toss out as Clark, more so because of past and hell current comments especially if the Bill Clinton rumors are true.
pleasepaypreacher.net
If we're eliminating Clark because we now suppose he hasn't a chance in hell of getting the slot, should we really replace him with someone else we suppose hasn't a chance in hell of getting the slot?
If we're doing a run-off, why not allow the voting to knock Clark off? We let the voting knock out Webb after 'Why Women Can't Fight'.
Hell I'd say Clark is finally taking steps to seperate himself from the other "Who the fuck are these guys" group of VP canidites.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Perhaps not, but Obama immediately distanced himself from the comments, so it's pretty obvious he's out of the running.
Which is a shame, again why is telling the truth a bad thing? Its like if there could be a problem there is one whether its a real issue or not.
pleasepaypreacher.net
1- Wesley Clark, Arkansas
2- Joe Biden, Delaware
3- Kathleen Sabelius, Kansas
4- Al Gore, Tennessee
5- Bill Richardson, New Mexico
Meaning we say goodbye to Schweitzer, McCaskill, Bloomberg and Dodd.
Because while it was the truth, it was poorly phrased truth, and gaffe prone VP candidates are generally not the best VP candidates.
Fixed.
Though I presume he's referring to Adm. Fallon
Yeah that's the guy.
Let's get him to run for VP.
Or that Colonel that came back from Iraq and ran for senate as a Democrat but the DNC was like 'no screw you' and he went on the Daily Show.
Dammit I have his name on the tip of my tongue.
Because you need to be incredibly tactful to communicate your ideas in politics. McCain's aide who said that a terror attack would benefit his boss told the truth. A bomb going off in New York would redound to McCain's strength as the anti-terror candidate. That doesn't make it a good idea to say it out loud in front of reporters.
and if they don't have that, they have Defeat Snatching disease
Supposedly Obama was distancing himself from something similar that Clark said earlier, at least in part, it's just that the timing had a funny way of working itself out that he said that sort of thing again. Or at least he was going to distance himself anyways.
Obama's more recent position on it was that Clark's comments were "inartful", which is a less than complete condemnation of them. Might hurt him in the VP math but I wouldn't count him out fully quite yet.