If Wes Clark is Obama's VP pick, then it proves that Obama does not have the intelligence or the experience to be in a leader in America.

Wes Clark? Who the heck is calling the shots in the Obama team? Is the back bench really that thin?

Silence on Obama's VP choices is the best policy.

Wait until Obama makes his choice, and broadcasts his choice to the world --
before rejoicing in Obama's stupidity.

I have faith in Obama making a really stupid choice.

But then maybe it will not be Obama's decision to make. He may not be eligible for the Office of President,
rumor has it, he traveled to Pakistan in 1981, not as a US Citizen.
This would have been about the time that Harvard would have been required to verify that he, as a US Citizen, was registered for the draft -- Did Obama avoid registering by applying to Harvard as a foreign citizen?

No way that's true. Hillary would be a better choice, for God's sake.

Obama is smarter than that.

Not that I'm a fan of Wesley Clark, but I'm curious why everyone thinks he's worse than any other potential Democratic veep.

I really just think Wes Clark is a walking disaster. The example I always think of is this one: after months of running for president in '04 he changed his position on gay marriage (he was for it then learned you can't win the presidency being for it) because, and this is a quote, it's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. I mean, THAT was his reasoning. He just strikes me as dumb as a stump and liable to say the most ridiculous things. I just see that as a crushable ticket.

Well Jim, he wore out the knees in his uniform trousers about ten years ago, whilst sucking dick at the Clinton White House. Not the first fellow with stars to do that sort of thing, but easily the most craven. The fact that he got stars at all goes back to his relationship with the dope from Hope. He's a total lightweight.

BO's problem is that any D with brains was a Hillary supporter, and now Silky Pony is radioactive. Reminds me a story of the early space program, you know back when civil rights was first making it's shakedown bones. Nahhhh, better not tell that one.

"...why everyone thinks he's worse than any other potential Democratic veep."

Jim, IMHO Wes Clark is a walking gaffe-machine.

Wes Clark gives Obama some war credibility. Probably not a bad choice given the current geo-pol environment. Clark would somewhat offset Mccain far superior military background and may even have more strategic experience than the Senator from Az. Clark is subject to the occasional gaffe but judging by the current administration that doesn't seem to be a pre requisite. Nor does appearing to be intelligent (also see current administration).

Speaking of the race card, how about Colin Powell pulling a Ronnie Reagan and switching parties... O.o.o.o.o.o.ooo

Wes Clark would about triple the "HA ha" factor of the upcoming election. I'm for it.

Ha ha ha ha ha!

That this is even a possibility shows the absolute zero understanding the Dem elite has of defense issues and why they have a problem with 'em.

Please please please...

Anyone see McCain leaning towards picking Tom Ridge as his Veep. I've been thinking this would be the case for quite some time. A nice, old white man Republican ticket. ;)

The people who you are trying to get "war cred" with by selecting Wes Clark are mostly smart enough to know just how dumb that choice is.

Just sayin'.

Not to mention, you thought John Kerry got Swiftboated? Please. That little contretemps would be a Savo Island to the Leyte Gulf of veteran outrage Wes Clark would generate. Seriously. We're talking "order of magnitude" actually being applicable for once.

I don't think the demographic being targeted is the die hard neo-con but I do get your point. However there aren't too many Leyte Gulf guys left for the Cons to pay to appear on TV. But your right I'm sure they'll find a bunch. Maybe even some Japanese...Clark is no Kerry, you guys should read up on him. You may not agree with his politics/qualifications but the man did a great service to the country. He didn't have "more important priorities in the 60's than serving in the military".

Wes Clark is a legitimate war hero on par with McCain. Again I don't think the choice would be "dumb" although I find that conclusion as somewhat "ignorant". Obama has as much military experience as say Bush and Cheaney, well sans the drunkeness and veiled draft dodging, wich is zero so he needs a military guy. Clark may not be the best choice but Powell is sort of anti politics right now. Thanks again Bush (Cheaney)...

But then again McCain wants to commit NATO resources to defend Georgia.... Hmmm wonder what Wes would do.......

Airborne!!

I hope I don't come off as abrasive but sometimes the tone of a discussion is tough to manage with posts.

Snoop, while Hillary as his running mate or VP, there's no way in hell that Obama could get life insurance ever again.

I'm reminded of a friend's brother's joke:

Barack Obama appears in front of St. Peter at the Pearly Gates.

St. Peter asks, "Name, please?"

Barack stands up and beams, "Don't you recognize me?"

"Well, I'm afraid not."

"I'm Barack Obama, President of the United States!"

"Oh, well, I'm afraid we don't keep up with most politics down there."

"Surely you must have heard about me, though. You know, I'm the first African-American President of the United States? And Hillary Clinton is the first female Vice President."

"Wow, no, I didn't hear. When were you inaugurated?"

"About 30 seconds ago."

Dan,

I sincerely hope that you are not implying that I'm a neocon. That word has been applied in so many ways to so many people that it's lost its original meaning or effectiveness (much like the word bastard). Even if you were using it as you appear to be, i.e. neocon = warmonger or neocon = someone who has never served in the military yet thinks war is a brilliant idea, you'd be wrong.
Wes Clark managed to ratf*ck Kosovo so bad that he was fundamentally relieved by President Clinton. The first reason for this relief was integrity. Yes, let's wrap our minds around the fact that the man was so bankrupt on truth telling that he was fired by the Snake Oil Salesman from Arkansas. That alone should be reason for disqualification. On top of that, he was such a screw up our allies openly agitated for him to be replaced. Early. As in, there was tension about 5 days into the air campaign. It'd be one thing if said tension came from the French or anyone else of suspect martial value, but it was the BRITS who were convinced Wesley was in over his head. Finally, Wesley Clark committed ground troops into Kosovo without any real clear plan what he was going to do if, say, the Russians decided to make a dash for Pristina. This, in turn, led to the famous "I'm not starting World War III for you..." comment from the British brigadier.

So, basically the one time Wes Clark was in charge of a major, strategic level operation he crapped the bed. Then, after crapping the bed, he basically implied if it wasn't for his uniform and the Constitution he would've pissed on Bill Clinton's desk on his last day in the Army. Yet not even five years later there he is switching parties and trying to kneecap John Kerry for the Clintons. Yep, that's the kind of guy I want being one heartbeat away from the Presidency. Sorry, but I'm the kind of guy who if I say I hate your guts today, barring some major intervention I'm still not stopping to p*ss on you if you're on fire four years later. Different strokes for different folks, but I'm afraid I'm going to trust General Shelton's opinion of the man over most others.

Now, none of this means that I'm denigrating Clark's service as a company commander or his physical courage. However, I'm saying we have some idea of how he'd perform at the strategic level and, sorry, that performance gives me a great deal of pause.

Finally, as to the more important things to do in the '60s, didn't we have this discussion already in '92? Again in '96? So basically by bringing it up again with regards to whomever you're referring to (I suspect our current President but, hey, wouldn't want to put words in your mouth) then we can infer that you didn't vote for Bill "Oxford" Clinton? Personally I'm ready to put that unpleasantness in Southeast Asia behind our nation, but for some reason it seems like folks keep bringing it up for political gain.

Bottom line, I think if someone bailed out of World War II by staying in college or jumping the border that indicates a lack of moral fortitude. War for the survival of the Republic and all that. However, if a person decided they would rather get an education (even if they were REALLY taking a long time about it) than go spend a year in Southeast Asia playing bullet dodgeball with the Ho Chi Minh All-Stars, I'm not necessarily going to hold that against them. I will, however, hold it against them if they came back from said war and proceeded to slander without any real evidence their fellow soldiers. _That_ was why John Kerry had the Swiftboaters rise up, in my humble opinion.

J

P.S. We should commit resources to defend Georgia or stop f-ing around in Eastern Europe. It's that simple. Someone sends a brigade worth of troops to your fight, you don't let their larger, abrasive neighbor hold them down and ravish them while you're off whistling Dixie. ("Cape? Why is Georgia screaming about a cape? Hmm, that bear seems to be doing some rather violent things...I might get hurt...um...man that's some serious Ursan stamina...")

I'm not saying we should be already slinging heat, but we should definitely be stating to Russia in clear terms "If you do X, then Y is going to happen. If you do A, then B is going to happen."

We're not prepared for WWIII at the moment. So you don't want to confront the Russians when their country is bankrupt and military disheveled in '92 but in '08 you do...hmmmm..I wonder how you would feel however if the Brits told the US in Iraqi commander something similar if the Iranians were attempting to sieze an airport in Iraq.

On Georgia I flatly disagree with sending in US troops (of course the threat of force needs to always be kept). The last thing our military needs is another conflict with no clear end. Not to mention the casualties. Russia is licking it's chops to give us a bloody nose.. Not worth the risk with the other loose ends we have. You think losing 3 or 4 guys a week is bad.....Not to mention it's not clear if we have the conventional advantage over Russia in the Caucus region.

Ideally I would like my Brother to be raising his kids. So call me selfish. My Bro unfortunately thinks defending Democracy and the USA is much more important than Cheaney did in the 60's when he had greater priorities than the defense of Democracy...a.k.a my quote.

I do appreciate your well thought out and cohesive response and enjoy reading your posts. In regards to my use of the term Neo-Con, it's not as inflammatory as you read it. I think of "Neo-Cons" as the younger generation of conservativism. In the late 90's to early '00's there seems to have been a large number of 20's and 30's who began to embrace conservative ideals. Perhaps taxation and foriegn policy were the key proponents of this trend.

Your brother made a choice to join the military, knowing full well that he could be fighting for the democratic ideals he espouses. On the other hand, Cheney could have been forced into service, knowing full well that he could have been fighting for the democratic ideals someone else espoused. In other words, you subscribe to the nonsense of lamenting your brother's exercise of free will, while decrying Cheney because he avoided compulsion.

In the late 90's to early '00's there seems to have been a large number of 20's and 30's who began to embrace conservative ideals.

Let me give you a little lesson so you can improve your critical thinking skills. "Seems to have been" is statistically meaningless, carrying no weight with anyone who can think. Do you have numbers to show anything either way? Evidently not, so don't go by your mere perception. Have something concrete to back up your assertion.

Now, taxation and a strong foreign policy are hardly a 1990s thing. Ever hear of the Reagan years?

Yet the "young people" who discovered conservatism were not necessarily neo-cons. Karol, for example, is not a neo-con, though she's often called one. Learn what that term means, all right? Political science neophytes like you have made it the most misused political label today.

As a historian (even a professional one as of tomorrow), I hate governing by historical analogy. However, there are a preponderance of cases in history where, in retrospect, a little pain now would put off a lot of aggression later. I think that it was Thomas Paine who said it best with regards to having trouble in his time rather than his children's. I would rather have the possibility of trouble now than live in a world where 10-20 years from now where we have no friends because smaller nations feel like they can't rely on us.

How does this apply, you ask? The Ukraine, Poland, et. al. are watching and if we basically leave Georgia out to dry than A. they'll never send troops to support an endeavour like Iraqi Freedom again and B. there will be no stiffening of the spine that will let the collective countries stand up to the bear.

Yes, the Bear is back--remember that Putin is a man who said that the greatest calamity of the 20th Century was the breakup of the Soviet Union. Not Stalin's purges, the Holocaust, World War II but the dissolution of the most repressive state the world knew in that era. Yeah, that's someone you can take half measures with. Let's look at the evidence, shall we:

Without fear or consequence the man and his cronies introduced radiological poison onto a foreign nation's soil without any regard for that state's citizens. He then used said poison to kill one of his opponents.

Putin then proceeded to tell the Czech Republic that if they based a radar on their soil that in time of crisis they could expect a multi-kiloton bullseye to be painted on said site.

Finally, he has launched a war based on a flimsy pretext that, judging from the major muscle movements involved, was wholly planned.

Now, it's easy to say that we should just let Georgia swing. Problem is, when a nation has been more of an ally than, oh, most of your NATO members (2,000 troops, no caveats versus us having to squeeze blood out of a stone to even get 500-1,000 troops that can't be used offensively) then I think there's a bit of an obligation there. It'd be one thing if Georgia had actually attacked Russia proper, but South Ossetia is recognized as Georgian territory. Ergo, yes, the Russians are in the wrong here if you believe in any concept of a nation state and Georgia deserves our help if the word honor has any resonance.

How many troops' lives is honor worth, you ask? I don't know, last time I checked it was one of those things that our soldiers are supposed to internalize as part of their moral code when they volunteered. I'm sure your brother doesn't want to die (no soldier does), but I am reasonably certain that if you asked him did he know what he was getting into when he signed up the answer would be "yes." As I've said in a past life to a subordinate who was wailing about only joining for the college money: "If the thought that you may die in a horrific, violent manner didn't cross your mind before you signed up then you should really check into brain transplants." Yes, I had just basically told him I would shoot him if the balloon went up--long story--but the point remains. Trust me, I'm quite aware of the projected casualty rates for a potential high intensity conflict, and dead soldiers are not an abstract to me. However, as I said, the binary choice is quite clear--and I don't think we should abandon the Georgians for moral and geopolitical reasons.

Part of the geopolitical calculus is what makes your commentary on the British decision not to seize Pristina fatally flawed. KFOR was built as a peacekeeping force. Moreover, KFOR's mission and authorization were quite different (as well as each allies' understanding of what was to be going on) than Iraq. Finally, the last thing that we needed to be doing in '98 was destabilizing Russia any furhter. Indeed, there is a large amount of evidence that the fact we punked the Russians on Kosovo (they were forced to withdraw their troops due to lack of overflight rights) led to Putin's rise wihtin the Russian government. I can only imagine just how, shall we say, _surly_ the Russians would be right now if we'd have brewed up that motorized rifle battalion.

In contrast, both Iraq and Georgia are much different kettle of fish. First off, if a British commander refused lawful orders in Iraq than he should (and probably would) be cashiered. That whole thing about combat operations versus MOOTW, declared hostilities (not war, but that's because some paragraphs of the Constitution appear to have been whited out since 1950), and people possibly dying because of the failure to carry out the theater commander's directives.

Which leads to Georgia which is yet _another_ different kettle of fish. I'd much rather _not_ face the Russian military. Hence why I said there should be _clear_ escalation points. However, unlike '98 when said confrontation would probably destabliize the government, I'm sure Putin would take his bloody nose or fight to a draw and go home. Then stay there. On the other hand, if we do nothing then he's going to settle a few other accounts. I'd rather prevent him doing that, wouldn't you?

Thank you for the compliments. I try not to be so long-winded, but then again I don't think this is something for one liners. This fight is going to have major implications down the road no matter how it plays out. I don't think enough people are paying close attention to it either.

Wow, what a contrast in responses.

James, again always a pleasure reading your insight. I would be interested in finding out what endeavor your pursuing in terms of being a professional historian (writer, Professor..).

Georgia's troops in Iraq will be sorely missed, agreed.

Perry..ehh..not so much..

I'll take your lack of response as yet another admission you lost the argument with me, Dan.

You're wrong about Cheney, wrong about your brother, wrong on what "neo-con" means, wrong on your use of anecdotes. And that's just this thread! Care to give us more?

Oh, I'm going to enjoy this for as long as you'll comment, even if you make me feel like a bully.

Perry,

I do not want to raise my Brothers Kids.
Cheaney does espouse Democratic ideals.
I use the nickname "Neo-Con" as I see fit and therefore I am correct.

My response was mainly directed at James but I'll take my victory over you just the same.

James in contrast to your self gratification makes a very good morning coffee read..

I do not want to raise my Brothers Kids.

Point to where I implied that.

Oh, you can't? That's because you're a liar. Like typical liberals, when you can't win the argument, you resort to lying.

Cheaney does espouse Democratic ideals.

You might have more credibility if you could spell the man's name correctly.

I suppose you're referring to neo-conservatives' origins in imperalist socialism, which you're falsely extending to modern liberalism and the Democratic Party. Try again. At best your assertion is a non sequitur; at worst it's another of your logical fallacies. Just because A happens to share an overlap with B doesn't mean that A is the same as B.

If I find something where you and I overlap, would that you make a libertarian like me?

I use the nickname "Neo-Con" as I see fit

And are quite incorrect to do so.

and therefore I am correct.

So like Humpty Dumpty, a word means whatever YOU wish it to say? Do you not see the self-delusion in your own words?

In case you haven't yet learned, any segment of human society relies on standards as the basis of proper communication, whether in languages or scientific measurement. Do you understand this, you music-gouging shovel?

Get the point?

Now, if you wish to be taken seriously in discussions, get with the program: learn to use established terms properly. Otherwise, you'll really, really get to dislike commenting here.

My response was mainly directed at James but I'll take my victory over you just the same.

As I just said, you're self-delusional.

James in contrast to your self gratification makes a very good morning coffee read..

I rather enjoy afternoon tea with bitch-slapping you around here.

Perry, I waited for you. You never showed. I'll be there tonight again counting the Che T-shirts.. You can bring your Mom too in case you need money for the train or you just want to commute home together. I gotta say living in Mom's house must make it real easy to be a Libertarian, but you have to get some deductions my friend this way your taxes won't be so hi. I thought you were a bean counter? Oh well I won't charge you for my advice.

Ill buy you a Shawarma at Mahmouns and if it's not enough to fill you up we can get a 2nd one!

Toodles

Your advice? Considering your advice would leave anyone bankrupt, depressed and ready to jump off a bridge, you couldn't pay anyone enough to take "advice" from a halfwit like you.

As I said elsewhere, my cousin was in town that night, so I pushed it back to last night. Yesterday, I said it would have to be pushed back to tonight (Wednesday). Circumstances last night prevented me from seeing that you wouldn't show up and therefore waste my time. I'll be somewhat in the vicinity tonight, however. Look for a blue suit and sunglasses.

As far as buying me anything, save it. But let me know if you want to try 21-day-old balut.

Really, I don't know how people like you exist with such self-delusions, even after being confronted by truth. I can only attribute it to transferring your own inadequacies to others, like the fact that you're probably some pimple-faced schlemiel subsisting off his parents' hard work. My advice, kid, is to make yourself into who you want to be. If you constantly let me berate you like this, you'll never develop enough self-esteem to make it in the world.

Now if you want to get technical, I can't file my taxes with my mother as a dependent. She earns too much for that (over 18, a dependent's income cannot exceed 50% of what the supporter spends for her). However, while she's staying with me, I pay the bills, and she can save 100% of her personal income for her retirement.

Would you ever do the same for one of your parents? Ha, ok, GEEZ that was a good one. I'd better stop now before I die laughing.