Reply #110: OK, I will say it really sloooooowly

[mojowork_n]

I am trying to be cordial, and disagree "agreeably", if that's at all possible.

Seriously.

1.) Cenk Uygur and the Young Turks, YES, for sure. I e-mailed a link last month, and this one is absolutely hilarious ("Democrats agree to confirm Beelzebub"). Funny as hell, as they say:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/democrats-agre...

Although on the topic of presidential endorsements, it may still be a little early for them to commit
to one candidate:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=24445

2.) As far as being too quick and free with the casting of evil party affiliation aspersions goes, the New Yorker link in the post that you replied to, (to which this is a reply)... the guy in The New Yorker brings it up near the very end, again, the whole "if Rove had returned my calls" snot-bubbler. But not, as you would have it, "a really funny joke", but something not to be dismissed lightly. I'm not saying it's true, necessarily, and the New Yorker guy adds under-the-subtext invisible italics and question marks, it's just not completely outside the realm of possibility. (For someone who voted for Nixon, Bush the First, etc., etc.) MY BAD for writing that Clark had addressed more than one Republican fund-raiser. That *was* too risky an assumption to make. (Did they only ask him once?)

3.) history is still Newtonian. (If you have enough eyewitnesses, and it's broadcast on TV on CNN.) Two atoms of hydrogen can combine with one atom of oxygen much more easily than with one atom of helium. Things will continue to fall down, not up. All the commendations, medals and honors for his efforts notwithstanding, the deliberate pattern of attacks on civilians were neither honorable, nor commendable. I'm more than willing to give you Darfur, and spot you Rwanda, too, but for me, Kosovo was the MIC's warm-up for Iraq. An opportunistic military adventure, not an exercise in a new kind of humanitarian diplomacy. And that's where we part company, and why I'm willing to consider the viewpoints of Clark's harshest critics (the folks at Counterpunch, among them) and you're not.