Reply #48: My intent is not to bash FDR or JFK

[Tom Rinaldo]

(though Somoza was just the tip of the iceberg in Central and South America) it is just to point out that there has always been serious complicity between America's ruling political structure and America's international Corporate interests, under both Democrats and Republicans. However, even under those circumstances if I felt that there were no significant differences between the Democratic and Republican Parties, and between individual Democrats, I wouldn't be wasting time at Democratic Underground. Your continuing "No Comment" regarding John Edwards and Iraq, however, is duly noted.

I call attention to your selectively pinning labels on Clark because it undercuts the integrity of your critique that you so religiously do so. You separate him out from all other National Democrats in the process, something Clark's many progressive allies in the Party would find bewildering. "Lauding" is a word you choose, your analysis of Clark's Book is not widely shared. Consistent with everything else I know about Clark, if there is an elephant in the Room, he will talk about that elephant, not try to pretend he doesn't see it. Clark's positions on how the United States should interact with the world around us are among the most progressive advanced by any leading Democrat.

Edited to add: Talk about Bizzaro use of language!: "He told WT2 essentially that imposing on Iraq a form of government which serves US interests is right because otherwise we would have to fight wars for oil." "Essentially" will never be a big enough qualifyer of words to justify that type of "fun house mirror" twisted summary. See, it's when you do say things like that, that I get this odd feeling you have a burr up you know where about Clark that distorts everything you say about him. Maybe I'll just leave it at that.