February 16, 2004

EACH-WAY WESLEY

Wesley Clark has withdrawn from the race for the Presidency, leaving only memories of his awesome gravitas and consistency. Such as was evident in this February 5 speech:

I don't think you can stand with Bush one day and than against him once you decide to run for president.

Here’s Wes before he decided to run for president:

Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? ... As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt.

And here’s Wes after he decided to run for president:

Iraq did not pose an 'imminent threat' to the United States or its neighbors prior to the war ... the Bush Administration misled us into a war we didn't need to fight.

Please, God, let him be the vice-presidential nominee.

Posted by Tim Blair at February 16, 2004 02:33 AM
Comments

Good grief. The man is inconsistency personified. That is why I am thinking that the whole Kerry/intern nonsense that Wes said would blow Kerry's campaign out of the water, holds not water. Because Wes just does not know or care how he feels about anything actually - he just seems to bend and stretch to suit some wierd juggling monkeys in his head.

Posted by: W at February 16, 2004 at 01:18 PM

Good grief. The man is inconsistency personified. That is why I am thinking that the whole Kerry/intern nonsense that Wes said would blow Kerry's campaign out of the water, holds no water. Because Wes just does not know or care how he feels about anything actually - he just seems to bend and stretch to suit some wierd juggling monkeys in his head.

Posted by: W at February 16, 2004 at 01:18 PM

He thinks that liberating Iraq was a noble thing, and also thinks that the Bush administration was dishonest in its representation of the threat posed by Iraq. How is this contradictory?

Posted by: Andy Danger at February 16, 2004 at 04:50 PM

Andy,

...should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt...

...a war we didn't need to fight.

How is that not contradictory? I one he's saying "Liberty, sweet liberty." the other he's saying, "We shouldn't have given them sweet liberty."

Posted by: Quentin George at February 16, 2004 at 04:58 PM

Please, God, let him be the vice-presidential nominee.

Uh, (R) or (D)?

Personally I'd like a Bush/Rice v Kucinich/Sharpton cage match.

No kidding, I had my Sunday afternoon nap today and dreamed Democrats. Hilary was there, then she was gone. I was sitting in a van with some of the candidates. Kerry was left front, in the driver's seat. Kucinich was right front. Dean and Edwards were seated next to me, but apart from me. We then had a kind of silent auction, me calling out cabinet posts and the candidates, by a nod or lifted finger, accepting them. I looked at Dennis when I called out "Agriculture" but he just stared at the floor-boards. I was glad when, later, he waggled his hand for "Transportation." Dean took three posts, Edwards one. John Kerry sat still and didn't say a word throughout the entire dream. And that, in a dream, can be pretty scary.

I need to eat better/exercise more/spend less time on the internet looking at politics.

And why was the dream set in Indianapolis?

Posted by: Timothy Lang at February 16, 2004 at 05:15 PM

Quentin,

Clark certainly changed his tone and slant to appeal to the anti-Bush crowd, sure. But there's still been no substantive change in his position. There's still no logical contradiction between saying that we didn't need to fight this war and it's a good thing that the Iraqis are now free.

My objection to Clark's alleged flip-flopping is that it's sort of like the "Bush lied" meme. There's a small grain of truth to it in that there were some deliberate exaggerations made and some shaky evidence used, but it's still not accurate.

Posted by: Andy Danger at February 18, 2004 at 02:42 AM