|
Thanks for the link.
The general theme of the speech is the USA has the right and responsibility to save other nations and give them what we have. And that foreign leaders who say bad things about us are lying for domestic political purposes. On the other hand, there are nuances, as when he sees that the military can't save Columbia from itself. But then he says the US military is "underfunded." This from a man pledging to cut the military. Not one mention of Iraq in his whole rundown of global affairs.
The criticism of Clinton seems very mild to me re delays in Bosnia. He seems to put his spin on his ground troop plan. But the praise of Reagan, both Bushes, and all the leading liars and assholes of the * regime, that sits there plain as steaming turds. It's not enough to just say now that he was military and non-partisan back then. His words ring very partisan to me. He was not walking a neutral line in that speech--two years ago, while * was President. People do have authentic Damascus type conversions, but what was Clark's? It just doesn't sound like much of a reason to go Dem because he would have been so "lonely" as a Repub, as he keeps saying in trying to downplay the significance of his long contemplation of going Dem or Repub. If there was such a dramatic difference in his mind between his stands and the stands of the Repubs, then why did it take him so long to decide? If the delay was for political purposes--to appear to be non-partisan so to attract moderate Repubs--that seems so damn disingenuous. Especially when I now read his words to this Repub audience from just two years ago. Was it not a fundraiser? And therefore was this not a speech used to raise funds for Repubs? In 2001? He was clearly not a Democrat of any conceivable stripe when he spoke those words in 2001. It gives me great pause to read his praise for the leading Repubs whose very names cause my guts to lurch and my skin to crawl.
|