More on Wesley Clark.
Greetings loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader might get a whole lot of blogging done today as he is home with the Villainettes. They are confined to the Villainschloss as they are rife with pestalence. (Some viral thing actually...)
The first item to catch my eye today was brought up by the great people at Opinion Journal. It concerns a Lincoln Day speech given in May 2001 by Wesley Clark. (The good people at Opinion Journal were good enough to provide the whole text of the speech. Read it here.) For those of you who may not have ever been to a Lincoln Day event, as the editorial board at Opinion Journal says, they are very partisan Republican events. Your Maximum Leader has attended a few of them, and can personally vouch for them being partisan (oftentimes fundraising) events.
It seems that in May 2001, General Clark said to the Republican crowd in Little Rock a whole bunch of stuff that he evidently doesn't believe now. He said flattering things about President Reagan. He said that the current President Bush's national defence team (including Rumsfeld, Rice, and Powell) was "great." And we in the US "need them there, because we've got some tough challenges ahead in Europe." If only he knew how much we would need them in the months to come.
Alas, somehow since May 2001 the President and his team have now lead the nation astray and only Wes Clark can right us. I don't get it. As I mentioned in an earlier blog, I am not as concerned about what the Democrats have to say about how we came to get into Iraq. What are they going to do now? All of the candidates at the debate the other night (except Dennis Kunich and Al Sharpton) said they were for the $87 million requested by the White House. If that be the case, what differentiates them from Bush. They can say all they want the they wouldn't have gotten us into Iraq, but since we're there they'll do the same thing as the incumbent. That doesn't seem to be a winning strategy.
Allow me to digress for a moment on Al Sharpton. He is the most entertaining of the Dems running for president. Because he is honest and engaging. Of course he is also as close to pure evil as you can get. (Trust me I know, I am the Maximum Leader after all.) I am so conflicted by Al Sharpton. I am both repulsed by him (and his past behaviour), but he continues to entertain me is a twisted type of way. I think he is in the race simply to garner enough support to be a force in whatever administration the Democrats hope to put together. I give Al one thing. He has come a long way since starting race riots and fighting in the streets. Way to go Al!
Back to Wes Clark, I am just getting turned off by all the stories I am reading about his naked ambition. (Here is one.) Perhaps your Maximum Leader is too familiar with the founders of our nation who believed that naked ambition to be president was a bad thing. (That is why Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr had their duel afterall.) His naked ambition, coupled with what is apparently some opportunism in joining the Democratic party, is not very appealing to me.
Of course, in our modern age I know you have to want to run for president. It is not fun to run. You and your family step into a spotlight that is unpleasant at best. I suppose I want my candidates for president to skirt a fine line between not wanting the job, and wanting it too much.
At any rate. I hope to blog a little about Tony Blair today. So more to come.
Carry on.
The first item to catch my eye today was brought up by the great people at Opinion Journal. It concerns a Lincoln Day speech given in May 2001 by Wesley Clark. (The good people at Opinion Journal were good enough to provide the whole text of the speech. Read it here.) For those of you who may not have ever been to a Lincoln Day event, as the editorial board at Opinion Journal says, they are very partisan Republican events. Your Maximum Leader has attended a few of them, and can personally vouch for them being partisan (oftentimes fundraising) events.
It seems that in May 2001, General Clark said to the Republican crowd in Little Rock a whole bunch of stuff that he evidently doesn't believe now. He said flattering things about President Reagan. He said that the current President Bush's national defence team (including Rumsfeld, Rice, and Powell) was "great." And we in the US "need them there, because we've got some tough challenges ahead in Europe." If only he knew how much we would need them in the months to come.
Alas, somehow since May 2001 the President and his team have now lead the nation astray and only Wes Clark can right us. I don't get it. As I mentioned in an earlier blog, I am not as concerned about what the Democrats have to say about how we came to get into Iraq. What are they going to do now? All of the candidates at the debate the other night (except Dennis Kunich and Al Sharpton) said they were for the $87 million requested by the White House. If that be the case, what differentiates them from Bush. They can say all they want the they wouldn't have gotten us into Iraq, but since we're there they'll do the same thing as the incumbent. That doesn't seem to be a winning strategy.
Allow me to digress for a moment on Al Sharpton. He is the most entertaining of the Dems running for president. Because he is honest and engaging. Of course he is also as close to pure evil as you can get. (Trust me I know, I am the Maximum Leader after all.) I am so conflicted by Al Sharpton. I am both repulsed by him (and his past behaviour), but he continues to entertain me is a twisted type of way. I think he is in the race simply to garner enough support to be a force in whatever administration the Democrats hope to put together. I give Al one thing. He has come a long way since starting race riots and fighting in the streets. Way to go Al!
Back to Wes Clark, I am just getting turned off by all the stories I am reading about his naked ambition. (Here is one.) Perhaps your Maximum Leader is too familiar with the founders of our nation who believed that naked ambition to be president was a bad thing. (That is why Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr had their duel afterall.) His naked ambition, coupled with what is apparently some opportunism in joining the Democratic party, is not very appealing to me.
Of course, in our modern age I know you have to want to run for president. It is not fun to run. You and your family step into a spotlight that is unpleasant at best. I suppose I want my candidates for president to skirt a fine line between not wanting the job, and wanting it too much.
At any rate. I hope to blog a little about Tony Blair today. So more to come.
Carry on.
posted by The Maximum Leader at 9/26/2003 03:10:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home