[link|http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/11/12/national0350EST0456.DTL&type=printable|Just work with people!]

Exceprt:

Clark campaign spokesman Matt Bennett outlined Clark's speech and 3-point plan for capturing bin Laden hours before the candidate was to deliver the remarks at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire.

First, Clark said he would pressure Saudi Arabia to contribute to a joint U.S.-Saudi commando force to scour the Afghan-Pakistani border where bin Laden is thought to be hiding.

I say:

Haven't we already got Special Forces doing just that? And we're supposed to trust the Saudis now? Well, maybe after this latest Riyadh incident. But even then, it's a reach.

Excerpt:

Second, Clark proposed reassigning some of the intelligence specialists, linguists, and special operations forces now searching Iraq for weapons of mass destruction to the hunt for bin Laden.

Third, he said the United States needs to repair relations with allies and friends.

"With his unilateral march into Iraq, President Bush has scorned many of our key allies, preventing the necessary cooperation to destroy al-Qaida," Clark said.

I say:

Pretty lame, but at least he has the decency to pretend to have alternatives to offer. That's a lot more than can be said for the rest. These last two points look like particularly transparent excuses to do some partisan bashing.

But hey, the guy's a general, and he has a war record. Maybe he knows something about strategy. If so, he'll have a good record in combat.

Maybe it's just sour grapes, but [link|http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/988320/posts|Mark Steyn has dared to cast aspersions on that war record].

Excerpt:

It is hard to argue that Iraq was a disaster when, in the crappy little war you, General Clark, presided over, the most powerful military on the planet took 78 days of aerial bombardment to destroy just over a dozen tanks; hard to argue that our boys shouldn't be getting picked off on the ground in Iraq when in your war they stayed up at 15,000 feet, nights only, bombing hospitals, commuter trains, refugee convoys, the Chinese embassy, etc; hard to argue that Iraq wasn't worth it when, by most accounts, there's more ethnic cleansing (Muslims against Christians) going on in "liberated" Kosovo than there was in Slobo's day.

I say:

What, so Kosovo wasn't a big success? Next you'll be saying it's a quagmire or something.

It's not really fair to be nitpicking a war like this. We expect things to go wrong in a war. All I can say in Steyn's defense is: he didn't start it. He's merely repaying in kind. (Now those of you who did start it - what have you to say for yourselves?)

On the other hand, if the ethnic cleansing is still going on in Kosovo on a significant scale, after all these years, then yes, the war in Kosovo really was a failure. Its stated objectives have not been met.

Maybe we should put Kosovo on the list. Declare Clinton's Kosovo war as defective merchandise, and demand a replacement.

Oooh... here's a wag the dog strategy for Dubya: declare a humanitarian emergency in Kosovo, and ask Congress for a declaration of war, just before the election! Actually, that's more than just wag the dog. Kosovo I was a distraction. Kosovo II would be a rebuttal.

Excerpt:

If the objective is to squash Bush's war advantage, vote Dean and move on to domestic policy. Vote for the general and you're stuck talking war till next November with a candidate who is not up to it.

I say:

Clark's not up to talking war with Dubya? Now there's a bold prediction. It'll be as ironic as hell if it turns out that way.