Carol Moseley-Braun is the only real contender the democrats have this round of elections. If they weren't such a bunch of hypocrite pretenders maybe she'd have a chance..
I won't go that far, but I really don't like Clark. Generally speaking, I don't approve of military commanders going political unless they are exceptional, and Clark is not exceptional.
I don't approve of any of his patriotism nonsense, and I don't like his protectionist tendencies. All in all he's a boring and uninspiring candidate.
Yeah, getting into west point wasn't exceptional enough, so he had to graduate first in his class. But come on now, someone does that every year! Pfft. Then he was chosen as a Rhodes Scholar (think about it as a slightly easier community college). Then a position as military leader of a coalition of third-rate counties- you know just the United States, countries in Europe, etc. Nothing special. In fact, Wes Clark's career is nothing compared to....George Bush.
Bush well... he's too exceptional to even talk about. Just nod your head and agree.
Before riding too far on the Clark bandwagon, I?d suggest you hop off and take a second look. Regardless of his politics, the man has some serious mental ticks, at least when it comes to coherent political commentary.
The New Yorker had a piece recently which gave some insight into his confused, even loopy, foreign policy mindset. At the University of Iowa College of Law, in September, he declared that one of the major blunders of the Administration was going to war in Iraq without ?the mantle of authority? from the UN, a seemingly valid criticism from the candidate that touts his successful Kosvo campaign ? valid, that is, until one realizes that he once thought the Iraq war worthy of victory parades and that his that own war did NOT have U.N. approval either.
He told the reporter his objections were based on the Iraq war being ?based on false pretenses?. Again, this is at least a debatable point, until you discover that Clark does not have in mind the administration's claim of WMD (he?s already opined that WMDs were absolutely there), or the causalities or cost of the war (which he has lauded as proof of unchallengeable allied power) ? rather as the NY reporter reporter stated in the article:
Quote:
?[Clark] then told me?how he came to learn of a secret war scheme within the Bush Administration, of which Iraq was just one piece?.
It gets even weirder the article goes on to state:
Quote:
?Shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Clark said, he visited the Pentagon, where an old colleague, a three-star general, confided to him that the civilian authorities running the Pentagon--Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his team--planned to use the September 11th attacks as a pretext for going to war against Iraq. "They made the decision to attack Iraq sometime soon after 9/11," ??Clark visited the Pentagon a couple of months later, and the same general told him that the Bush team, unable or unwilling to fight the actual terrorists responsible for the attacks, had devised a five-year plan to topple the regimes in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Iran, and Sudan ... Clark, in repeatedly telling his account, seems to suggest that he had special knowledge of a furtive Pentagon plan that would have the Administration "hopscotching around the Middle East and knocking off states," as he put it. He has acknowledged, "I'm not sure that I can prove this yet."
Huh? There was hardly a hidden agenda or covert plan. Administration spokespersons and supportive neoconservatives have always said that WMDs and potential (if not active) support of terrorism were crucial reasons for war ? and they always made clear that in the long-term, democracy had to come to the Middle East (or for that matter, the Axis of Evil) if we were to stop terrorism and achieve security.
Clark has been contradictory and confused, and has now resorted to a Ross Perot like conspiracy theory, that he admits he cannot prove.
The New Yorker piece is not held in very high regard in a lot of circles. It's something of a smear article. Slate magazine had a rebuttal to its charges, which I believe someone earlier linked to. Navigating Slate's back catalogue is a bit daunting.
Are you saying that Clark maintains that NATO (a Regional Pact) is sufficient for true "international" or UN support ? Nice try...
And frankly, the Balkins were not in NATO nor threatening thier security. But while we are at it, you might note that the international coalition under US/UK leadership was far more numerious and broadbased than NATO membership and, compared to Kosvo, had a greater claim to international law.
Thanks for the references, however, they only re-enforce my doubts about Clark. My politics are conservative but Clark has taken on Carter like personea (less effectively) that allows a wide variety of idealogues to "assume" he represents their perspective.
The man is a political, and personal, enigma. A history as a Republican and Bush supporter, an intially ambivelent position on the war, recent promotion of a laundry list of democratic policies, but a policy depth that makes Sharpton look like a policy wonk.
Look at the recent article headlines in New Republic, a moderate but left of center journal:
"At Thursday's debate, Wesley Clark's position on the war looked shakier than ever."
"General Discussion: Clark didn't screw up at the Dems' New York debate--because he didn't say much of anything."
"Falsely Accused
Conservatives dismiss Wesley Clark as Clinton's general. Actually, the two men's foreign policy instincts couldn't be more different."
"Flip Comment
Did Wesley Clark really change his position on the war?"
"The New Hope
Is Wesley Clark the Clintonites' candidate?"
Your nation article, in particular, shows the lingering doubt on the far left, as well. Not only concerning his ambivelent statements, but an odd mechanical personality -he's present, but not there. And as many have pointed out, its just not his peers, but also his subordinates, that have been hostile to his candidacy.
To my mind, its dangerious for anyone of any political persuasion to assume they understand his politics - unless its the politics of opportunism.
I hear your concerns about Clark but quite frankly I have many more concerns about Bush. Clark is not the most left of center candidate the democrats could have but I see that in a good way. I believe the Democrats can win the next election with Clark as the presidential nominee. He is from Arkansas and unlike Dean has not insulted and misunderstood so many in the "south" as has Dean. Dean has no chance against Bush let's be honest. Clark on the other hand has a very good chance against Bush. I think this has put right leaning media outlets on notice and on the attack of Clark. This with the far left leaning media outlets getting onto clark is no surprise to me. I expect it and take it in stride. Clark is very pragmatic and almost not political and that is the key reason I am drawn to his campaign. He is much more above the fray than the other democrats in the race. He has intelligence without the slick "used car salesman" political cheapness that ruin my thirst for others running for the office. As for Generals I would feel more comfortable with Clark in the White House than with Bush and Tommy Franks. Just look what franks has said.
Quote:
Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government.
This kind of talk combined with an admin which is making the world a more dangerous place is just more reason I will vote for Wesley Clark. I would ask you to listen to more sides of the story than what you read from the perspective of the "media" be it liberal leaning or conservative leaning. The answer is in the middle. Balance and less rhetoric would do this country and the world a great measure of good.
valid, that is, until one realizes that he once thought the Iraq war worthy of victory parades
Please stop spreading misinformation. Ever since that ridiculous FAIR article surfaced, it has become conventional wisdom (on the "prestigious internet"!) that Clark once said, "Let's have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue," as if he were merely suggesting: "Hey y'all, let's have a parade! Woohoo!" Unfortunately, both the context and the quote itself have been dishonestly clipped. The full quote actually read (emphasis mine), "Let's have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue -but don't demobilize yet. There's a lot yet to be done, and not only by the diplomats." He was obviously saying that, yes, we'd just won a great victory, but let's not get carried away...we've got plenty more work ahead of us.
In fact, if you'd actually read the whole article (which was written immediately after the fall of Baghdad, btw), not just the bits that FAIR wanted you to read, you'd see a far more balanced analysis of the war. Yes, Clark praises the efficacy of the military operation, and he was even magnanimous enough to give credit to Bush and Blair for their resolve in seeing it through (remember, we'd just won the first major phase of the war.) But he also warned about ongoing resistance and loyalists who "may fade away, but likely not without a fight." (You may recognize them as the ones killing US soldiers on an almost daily basis for the last 6 months.) He warned about "the matter of returning order and security. The looting has to be stopped. The institutions of order have been shattered. And there are scant few American and British forces to maintain order..." He warned of the need to "quickly deliver humanitarian relief and re-establish government..." He suggested that our relationships with our allies had been "mortgaged" and that "[n]ow the bills must be paid." He warned that "Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and others will strive to mobilize their recruiting to offset the Arab defeat in Baghdad." He warned that "[t]his could emerge as a lasting humiliation of Iraq or a bridge of understanding between Islam and the West."
He concludes with:
"Is this victory? Certainly the soldiers and generals can claim success. And surely, for the Iraqis there is a new-found sense of freedom. But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven't yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed.
Let's have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue -but don't demobilize yet. There's a lot yet to be done, and not only by the diplomats."
Now that's a hell of a lot more balanced than your single throwaway line that Clark "thought the Iraq war worthy of victory parades," no?
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxParrish
He told the reporter his objections were based on the Iraq war being ?based on false pretenses?. Again, this is at least a debatable point, until you discover that Clark does not have in mind the administration's claim of WMD (he?s already opined that WMDs were absolutely there), or the causalities or cost of the war (which he has lauded as proof of unchallengeable allied power)
He said that WMD were probably there, but that they didn't pose any immediate threat and that we had more pressing priorities to contend with. There is nothing inconsistent in Clark's position. The administration wanted the American people to believe that Iraq had some central role in the terrorist threat and that if we didn't act soon, Saddam would give bioweapons to terrorists to deploy over Manhattan. It's patently obvious that this is what Clark is referring to. Paul Wolfowitz is even on record admitting that the WMD issue was chosen more for political expediency than for any honest perception of urgency. Clark is simply arguing that the administration sold the Iraq war to the American people by exaggerating the nature of the threat. For you to pretend that Clark's position is somehow illogical, inconsistent or "weird" (as below) is simply ridiculous.
"In the near term, time is on our side. Saddam has no nuclear weapons today, as far as we know, and probably won't gain them in the next few months. The U.S. has total military dominance of the region. Although Saddam has chemical and biological weapons, he has no long-range missiles with which to deliver them. Certainly, the clock is ticking, because Saddam may eventually acquire the nuclear weapons and delivery systems he seeks. Nonetheless, there is still time for dialogue before we act." -Wesley Clark, October 2002
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxParrish
? rather as the NY reporter reporter stated in the article: ?[Clark] then told me?how he came to learn of a secret war scheme within the Bush Administration, of which Iraq was just one piece?.
It gets even weirder the article goes on to state:
?Shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Clark said, he visited the Pentagon, where an old colleague, a three-star general, confided to him that the civilian authorities running the Pentagon--Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his team--planned to use the September 11th attacks as a pretext for going to war against Iraq. "They made the decision to attack Iraq sometime soon after 9/11," ??Clark visited the Pentagon a couple of months later, and the same general told him that the Bush team, unable or unwilling to fight the actual terrorists responsible for the attacks, had devised a five-year plan to topple the regimes in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Iran, and Sudan ... Clark, in repeatedly telling his account, seems to suggest that he had special knowledge of a furtive Pentagon plan that would have the Administration "hopscotching around the Middle East and knocking off states," as he put it. He has acknowledged, "I'm not sure that I can prove this yet."
Huh? There was hardly a hidden agenda or covert plan. Administration spokespersons and supportive neoconservatives have always said that WMDs and potential (if not active) support of terrorism were crucial reasons for war ? and they always made clear that in the long-term, democracy had to come to the Middle East (or for that matter, the Axis of Evil) if we were to stop terrorism and achieve security.
Digby puts this slanderous bit of bullshit to bed. Just click here.
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxParrish
Clark has been contradictory and confused, and has now resorted to a Ross Perot like conspiracy theory, that he admits he cannot prove.
Ah, nice. Nasty meme spreading! Clark "has some serious mental ticks." Why, he's just as nutty as H. Ross Perot! I believe we call this FUD, and you're obviously (unfortunately) just getting warmed up...
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxParrish
Are you sure want him to be President?
Why the hell not? Are your shoddy and anemic objections supposed to change my mind?
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxParrish
Are you saying that Clark maintains that NATO (a Regional Pact) is sufficient for true "international" or UN support ? Nice try...
He's saying that in lieu of full UN support, the next best thing was NATO- certainly better than just asking Tony Blair.
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxParrish
And frankly, the Balkins were not in NATO nor threatening thier security.
Nobody ever claimed that Kosovo was any kind of act of self defense. It was an attempt to end ethnic cleansing of Kosovar Albanians. After allowing 800,000 Rwandans to be slaughtered in cold blood, Clark was not prepared to make the same mistake again.
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxParrish
But while we are at it, you might note that the international coalition under US/UK leadership was far more numerious and broadbased than NATO membership and, compared to Kosvo, had a greater claim to international law.
While I don't personally have the statistics in front of me, I have to say that I find this extremely difficult to believe. The war in Kosovo involved a whole range of NATO member states in actual combat operations. I believe that at least a dozen nations deployed aircraft into combat in Kosovo. By way of comparison, operations in Iraq consisted of little more than US and British troops (at about a 3:1 margin), with about 2000 Australians and not much else. The "coalition of the willing" was mostly just a list of states pledging some kind of vague "support" sans troops, money or any other form of material aid. A few countries sent a handful of non-combat personnel, and I think the Poles sent a couple hundred troops.
And when it was all over, a true multinational peace-keeping force took control of the post-war efforts in Kosovo.
And actually, fwiw, there was a UN resolution (1199) which had some ambiguous weasel language that "should the concrete measures demanded in this resolution and resolution 1160 not be taken, to consider further action and additional measures to maintain or restore peace and stability in the region." Sort of like the Iraq "will face serious consequences" business in resolution 1441. That resolution passed unanimously with, I believe, Russian abstention. I'm not sure you can make a very strong case that Iraq had much more of a claim to international law. It's not really about law, though, so much as about alliances. Intervention in Kosovo didn't completely piss off the entire world like our forray into Iraq.
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxParrish
Thanks for the references, however, they only re-enforce my doubts about Clark. My politics are conservative but Clark has taken on Carter like personea (less effectively) that allows a wide variety of idealogues to "assume" he represents their perspective.
If you think you can provide a substantive proof of this assertion wherein you demonstrate that Clark supporters project their own personal biases onto Clark to a quantifiably greater degree than any other political figure, you're welcome to try.
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxParrish
The man is a political, and personal, enigma.
More or less so than whom?
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxParrish
A history as a Republican and Bush supporter,
Horseshit. He voted for repub presidents through the 80's and then supported Clinton/Gore in the 90's. He's campaigned for Dems in recent elections. He complimented Bush on his foreign policy team over two years ago. And he voted for Gore. If he's a Bush supporter, he's a pretty shitty one.
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxParrish
an intially ambivelent position on the war,
I see nothing particularly ambivalent about his position on the war. Some on the left have established a false dichotomy wherein one is either marching the streets with "no blood for oil" signs, or one is a pro-Bush warmonger. That's a bunch of crap. Clark is on record going all the way back to summer 2002 saying that this war is "elective surgery" and that Saddam didn't pose any serious or immediate threat to the US and that fighting Saddam now risked distracting us from fighting Al-Qaeda.
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxParrish
recent promotion of a laundry list of democratic policies, but a policy depth that makes Sharpton look like a policy wonk.
I don't even understand what this means.
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxParrish
Your nation article, in particular, shows the lingering doubt on the far left, as well.
Matt "God Can Suck My Dick" Taibbi is a ridiculous asshat with an axe to grind. His opinions mean absolutely nothing to any rational, thinking human being. Click here.
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxParrish
Not only concerning his ambivelent statements, but an odd mechanical personality -he's present, but not there.
This is just so much bizarre character assassination and FUD. "He's present but not there"?? What a bunch of crap. It's the old "Al Gore doesn't know who he is because he wears earth tones" bullshit from 2000.
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxParrish
And as many have pointed out, its just not his peers, but also his subordinates, that have been hostile to his candidacy.
Some have been hostile to Clark, others have defended him vigorously. You're cherry-picking.
"If Wes Clark asked me to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge, I'd ask him if he wanted it done in the summer or the winter," Massa said.
Yeah, getting into west point wasn't exceptional enough, so he had to graduate first in his class. But come on now, someone does that every year! Pfft. Then he was chosen as a Rhodes Scholar (think about it as a slightly easier community college). Then a position as military leader of a coalition of third-rate counties- you know just the United States, countries in Europe, etc. Nothing special. In fact, Wes Clark's career is nothing compared to....George Bush.
Bush well... he's too exceptional to even talk about. Just nod your head and agree.
West Point: not exceptional
Rhodes Scholar: nice, but not necessarily exceptional. I don't really care to explain myslef, but Rhodes isn't entirely based on brain power.
Experience: He was a general, and from what I've found, wasn't considered to be a good one. Besides, I don't think ex-generals should be holding political office. He has a completely un-diversified life history.
But more of the point is that his extremely vanilla campaign platform is extremely worthless. You can't beat an incumbent with as boring a campaign as Clark's. Bush isn't my fav, and I'm not voting for him, but all in all I'd prefer a simpleton in office than a guy with just enough brains to fook things up considerably.
Also a curiosity: Are you behind Clark? I thought liberal dems like you didn't support completely neutral candidates like Clark?
and yes . . . it is unfortunate that Clark seems to either have stepped on one or two vocal Generals' toes (who are probably jealous) or simply on opposite sides of the political spectrum) . . . which has led to the misperception that what he accomplished while a General was not exceptional or worthy of respect.
When you are an officer at that level (my father was a high ranking officer) what you are involved with is very close to politics: all the way from the macroscopic level to the microscopic and inter-personal: you have to know what the world-scene is at the given moment and what is likely to happen if you do X or Y, but you also have to know how your subordinates are doing and what they're eating etc . . . where your supplies are going, what is needed and where you are getting them from, when and how etc etc . . . .
Matt "God Can Suck My Dick" Taibbi is a ridiculous asshat with an axe to grind. His opinions mean absolutely nothing to any rational, thinking human being.
That blog entry about Taibbi was excellent...I had no idea that he worked on eXile (probably not work safe). That goes a long way towards explaining both his disjointed writing style and his animosity towards anyone involved in Kosovo. eXile is an interesting magazine, with some excellent writers, but it's also more than a little out there. I used to be a big fan of one columnist's writings until I discovered what a ardent supporter of the IRA he is. I was also never 100% certain that eXile's prostitute reviews were intended as a joke.
If it were all about policy I'd want to see Kucinich get the nomination. If it were all about charisma I'd want to see Dean get the nomination. The fact is that it is all about getting George W. Bush the hell out of office and limiting the damage he has done to this country. I think Clark is the best bet for doing this.
Rhodes Scholar: nice, but not necessarily exceptional. I don't really care to explain myslef, but Rhodes isn't entirely based on brain power.
What definition of "exceptional" are you using here? How many people can say that they passed up full scholarships to other schools (including Harvard) to go to West Point by choice, graduated at the top of their class and then went on to become Rhodes Scholars? Sounds about as exceptional of an academic history as any other I've heard about. I can understand if you don't like Clark and don't support his candidacy, but the refusal to even acknowledge his obvious personal achievements is truly baffling.
Quote:
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Experience: He was a general, and from what I've found, wasn't considered to be a good one. Besides, I don't think ex-generals should be holding political office. He has a completely un-diversified life history.
Look, some people locked horns with him, others say they'd die for him. I see no logical reason to conclude that he served poorly. I'd bet that he was at least as good of a general as Dean was a doctor, or Kerry was a senator, or Bush was an alcoholic high-school cheerleader monkey-boy.
Quote:
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Bush isn't my fav, and I'm not voting for him, but all in all I'd prefer a simpleton in office than a guy with just enough brains to fook things up considerably.
This makes no sense. We're talking about the presidency, not ResEdit. Bush has both the decision-making authority and the necessary obligation to act on that authority every single day. He and his advisors have and will continue to shape US policy both at home and abroad for better or for worse. Just because Bush is a simpleton doesn't somehow put presidency into a temporary state of suspended activity. Clark is no more or less capable of "fooking things up" than anyone else.
And, by the way, lest anyone get the impression that I'm just some kind of frothing-at-the-mouth Clark supporter, I'll simply say this: I do like Clark, and I support his candidacy, but I just get furious with the amount of bullshit and misinformation people have been spreading about the man. He's well on his way to being "Gored" in 2004, and I'm not going to sit idle and watch it happen again.
By the way, here is a very good article from a liberal democrat who explains how he went from considering Clark to be an "amoral opportunist and borderline con artist" to becoming a Clark supporter. Very interesting read.
By the way, here is a very good article from a liberal democrat who explains how he went from considering Clark to be an "amoral opportunist and borderline con artist" to becoming a Clark supporter. Very interesting read.
What a find! The professor finds as I do that the integrity possessed by Wesley Clark and the attention to the issues over political rhetoric is what places him ahead of the pack.
Quote:
[Snip] Bottom line: Clark is a throwback, a Rip Van Winkle, a pluralistic, optimistic, Greatest Generation-style politician lost, like Howard the Duck, in a world he never made. He's further outside the mainstream political culture than can possibly be imagined. This is what makes him so striking, so hard to parse, and so clearly the best candidate.[Snip]
In 6 months the US is going to significantly reduce its visibility on the streets of Baghdad as a new 100,000 ~ 200,000 local paramilitary force will be taking over from the American coalition forces.
This leaves the Democrats with ???? to stand on, come election day?
The war in Iraq is going to be a non issue. The economy is already starting to become a non issue. And a significant part of their voting base, the "minorities", already largely figured out that the socialist pandering policies of the left only lock them into a cycle of high taxation and dependence on government handouts.
Fellows,
I know you don't like Bush. But better to stick with the devil you know..
This makes no sense. We're talking about the presidency, not ResEdit. Bush has both the decision-making authority and the necessary obligation to act on that authority every single day. He and his advisors have and will continue to shape US policy both at home and abroad for better or for worse. Just because Bush is a simpleton doesn't somehow put presidency into a temporary state of suspended activity. Clark is no more or less capable of "fooking things up" than anyone else.
I'm a libertarian. I don't like government. Clark wants to set up more civil services, etc, that I don't think should exist. When you have a guy like Bush in office, and he has a whole lot of advisors and does a great deal of task delegation, there's less possibility for legislation to go through. I think that's a good thing.
Honestly, Clark has some good academic credentials, yes. But as far as I know that's it. Scholars have academic work to show the world. All Clark has are 34 years (correct me if I'm wrong) of military service and a few diplomas. With all due respect, even Bush has more accomplishments, and is undeniably a much better salesman. . . a skill that can get overlooked. I'm no Rhodes scholar, but I do have patents pending and am working on some technology that will turn a lot of heads.
Just to hammer home the message, my ideal president is one who is a self made man and understands money and markets, and who regularly promotes legislation that cuts government. And if cutting back is impossible, I say don't add any more. (i.e. do nothing). While I'm perfectly confident that a Clark presidency will probably be unproductive since I don't think Republicans or dems in congress will like him much, I don't like his message, probably for the reasons Fellows likes it.
In 6 months the US is going to significantly reduce its visibility on the streets of Baghdad as a new 100,000 ~ 200,000 local paramilitary force will be taking over from the American coalition forces.
This leaves the Democrats with ???? to stand on, come election day?
The war in Iraq is going to be a non issue. The economy is already starting to become a non issue. And a significant part of their voting base, the "minorities", already largely figured out that the socialist pandering policies of the left only lock them into a cycle of high taxation and dependence on government handouts.
Fellows,
I know you don't like Bush. But better to stick with the devil you know..
Typical ideological nonsense:
?The pejorative use of the word "socialist."
?The perception of "high taxation" despite being low relative to other modern countries.
?The idea of a helpful use of government as "handouts"
The cycle of "high taxation" isn't the only thing that's spinning....
Comments
Originally posted by Splinemodel
I won't go that far, but I really don't like Clark. Generally speaking, I don't approve of military commanders going political unless they are exceptional, and Clark is not exceptional.
I don't approve of any of his patriotism nonsense, and I don't like his protectionist tendencies. All in all he's a boring and uninspiring candidate.
Yeah, getting into west point wasn't exceptional enough, so he had to graduate first in his class. But come on now, someone does that every year! Pfft. Then he was chosen as a Rhodes Scholar (think about it as a slightly easier community college). Then a position as military leader of a coalition of third-rate counties- you know just the United States, countries in Europe, etc. Nothing special. In fact, Wes Clark's career is nothing compared to....George Bush.
Bush well... he's too exceptional to even talk about. Just nod your head and agree.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
That's right Fellows is for Wes 04
...I have dropped support for George Bush as I believe America is less safe, less admired, and less in many ways.
The foreign policy of George Bush is wreckless and it makes the world a place of more division and less true progress.
I put my support behind Wesley Clark 2004
Learn more about Wesley Clark
HERE
Fellowship
Fellowship:
Before riding too far on the Clark bandwagon, I?d suggest you hop off and take a second look. Regardless of his politics, the man has some serious mental ticks, at least when it comes to coherent political commentary.
The New Yorker had a piece recently which gave some insight into his confused, even loopy, foreign policy mindset. At the University of Iowa College of Law, in September, he declared that one of the major blunders of the Administration was going to war in Iraq without ?the mantle of authority? from the UN, a seemingly valid criticism from the candidate that touts his successful Kosvo campaign ? valid, that is, until one realizes that he once thought the Iraq war worthy of victory parades and that his that own war did NOT have U.N. approval either.
He told the reporter his objections were based on the Iraq war being ?based on false pretenses?. Again, this is at least a debatable point, until you discover that Clark does not have in mind the administration's claim of WMD (he?s already opined that WMDs were absolutely there), or the causalities or cost of the war (which he has lauded as proof of unchallengeable allied power) ? rather as the NY reporter reporter stated in the article:
?[Clark] then told me?how he came to learn of a secret war scheme within the Bush Administration, of which Iraq was just one piece?.
It gets even weirder the article goes on to state:
?Shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Clark said, he visited the Pentagon, where an old colleague, a three-star general, confided to him that the civilian authorities running the Pentagon--Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his team--planned to use the September 11th attacks as a pretext for going to war against Iraq. "They made the decision to attack Iraq sometime soon after 9/11," ??Clark visited the Pentagon a couple of months later, and the same general told him that the Bush team, unable or unwilling to fight the actual terrorists responsible for the attacks, had devised a five-year plan to topple the regimes in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Iran, and Sudan ... Clark, in repeatedly telling his account, seems to suggest that he had special knowledge of a furtive Pentagon plan that would have the Administration "hopscotching around the Middle East and knocking off states," as he put it. He has acknowledged, "I'm not sure that I can prove this yet."
Huh? There was hardly a hidden agenda or covert plan. Administration spokespersons and supportive neoconservatives have always said that WMDs and potential (if not active) support of terrorism were crucial reasons for war ? and they always made clear that in the long-term, democracy had to come to the Middle East (or for that matter, the Axis of Evil) if we were to stop terrorism and achieve security.
Clark has been contradictory and confused, and has now resorted to a Ross Perot like conspiracy theory, that he admits he cannot prove.
Are you sure want him to be President?
What international coalition did Clark represent?
N
A
T
O
General Clark's Battles: The candidate's celebrated- and controversial- military career (The New Yorker article)
Defending the General: The New Yorker's unfair slam on Wes Clark and his role in the Kosovo war (Slate rebuttal piece)
Clark's True Colors (The Nation cover story- also critical)
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Max,
What international coalition did Clark represent?
N
A
T
O
Are you saying that Clark maintains that NATO (a Regional Pact) is sufficient for true "international" or UN support ? Nice try...
And frankly, the Balkins were not in NATO nor threatening thier security. But while we are at it, you might note that the international coalition under US/UK leadership was far more numerious and broadbased than NATO membership and, compared to Kosvo, had a greater claim to international law.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Yeah, I'll repost the links:
General Clark's Battles: The candidate's celebrated- and controversial- military career (The New Yorker article)
Defending the General: The New Yorker's unfair slam on Wes Clark and his role in the Kosovo war (Slate rebuttal piece)
Clark's True Colors (The Nation cover story- also critical)
Thanks for the references, however, they only re-enforce my doubts about Clark. My politics are conservative but Clark has taken on Carter like personea (less effectively) that allows a wide variety of idealogues to "assume" he represents their perspective.
The man is a political, and personal, enigma. A history as a Republican and Bush supporter, an intially ambivelent position on the war, recent promotion of a laundry list of democratic policies, but a policy depth that makes Sharpton look like a policy wonk.
Look at the recent article headlines in New Republic, a moderate but left of center journal:
"At Thursday's debate, Wesley Clark's position on the war looked shakier than ever."
"General Discussion: Clark didn't screw up at the Dems' New York debate--because he didn't say much of anything."
"Falsely Accused
Conservatives dismiss Wesley Clark as Clinton's general. Actually, the two men's foreign policy instincts couldn't be more different."
"Flip Comment
Did Wesley Clark really change his position on the war?"
"The New Hope
Is Wesley Clark the Clintonites' candidate?"
Your nation article, in particular, shows the lingering doubt on the far left, as well. Not only concerning his ambivelent statements, but an odd mechanical personality -he's present, but not there. And as many have pointed out, its just not his peers, but also his subordinates, that have been hostile to his candidacy.
To my mind, its dangerious for anyone of any political persuasion to assume they understand his politics - unless its the politics of opportunism.
I hear your concerns about Clark but quite frankly I have many more concerns about Bush. Clark is not the most left of center candidate the democrats could have but I see that in a good way. I believe the Democrats can win the next election with Clark as the presidential nominee. He is from Arkansas and unlike Dean has not insulted and misunderstood so many in the "south" as has Dean. Dean has no chance against Bush let's be honest. Clark on the other hand has a very good chance against Bush. I think this has put right leaning media outlets on notice and on the attack of Clark. This with the far left leaning media outlets getting onto clark is no surprise to me. I expect it and take it in stride. Clark is very pragmatic and almost not political and that is the key reason I am drawn to his campaign. He is much more above the fray than the other democrats in the race. He has intelligence without the slick "used car salesman" political cheapness that ruin my thirst for others running for the office. As for Generals I would feel more comfortable with Clark in the White House than with Bush and Tommy Franks. Just look what franks has said.
Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government.
Link
This kind of talk combined with an admin which is making the world a more dangerous place is just more reason I will vote for Wesley Clark. I would ask you to listen to more sides of the story than what you read from the perspective of the "media" be it liberal leaning or conservative leaning. The answer is in the middle. Balance and less rhetoric would do this country and the world a great measure of good.
Fellowship
Originally posted by MaxParrish
valid, that is, until one realizes that he once thought the Iraq war worthy of victory parades
Please stop spreading misinformation. Ever since that ridiculous FAIR article surfaced, it has become conventional wisdom (on the "prestigious internet"!) that Clark once said, "Let's have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue," as if he were merely suggesting: "Hey y'all, let's have a parade! Woohoo!" Unfortunately, both the context and the quote itself have been dishonestly clipped. The full quote actually read (emphasis mine), "Let's have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue -but don't demobilize yet. There's a lot yet to be done, and not only by the diplomats." He was obviously saying that, yes, we'd just won a great victory, but let's not get carried away...we've got plenty more work ahead of us.
In fact, if you'd actually read the whole article (which was written immediately after the fall of Baghdad, btw), not just the bits that FAIR wanted you to read, you'd see a far more balanced analysis of the war. Yes, Clark praises the efficacy of the military operation, and he was even magnanimous enough to give credit to Bush and Blair for their resolve in seeing it through (remember, we'd just won the first major phase of the war.) But he also warned about ongoing resistance and loyalists who "may fade away, but likely not without a fight." (You may recognize them as the ones killing US soldiers on an almost daily basis for the last 6 months.) He warned about "the matter of returning order and security. The looting has to be stopped. The institutions of order have been shattered. And there are scant few American and British forces to maintain order..." He warned of the need to "quickly deliver humanitarian relief and re-establish government..." He suggested that our relationships with our allies had been "mortgaged" and that "[n]ow the bills must be paid." He warned that "Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and others will strive to mobilize their recruiting to offset the Arab defeat in Baghdad." He warned that "[t]his could emerge as a lasting humiliation of Iraq or a bridge of understanding between Islam and the West."
He concludes with:
"Is this victory? Certainly the soldiers and generals can claim success. And surely, for the Iraqis there is a new-found sense of freedom. But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven't yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed.
Let's have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue -but don't demobilize yet. There's a lot yet to be done, and not only by the diplomats."
Now that's a hell of a lot more balanced than your single throwaway line that Clark "thought the Iraq war worthy of victory parades," no?
Originally posted by MaxParrish
He told the reporter his objections were based on the Iraq war being ?based on false pretenses?. Again, this is at least a debatable point, until you discover that Clark does not have in mind the administration's claim of WMD (he?s already opined that WMDs were absolutely there), or the causalities or cost of the war (which he has lauded as proof of unchallengeable allied power)
He said that WMD were probably there, but that they didn't pose any immediate threat and that we had more pressing priorities to contend with. There is nothing inconsistent in Clark's position. The administration wanted the American people to believe that Iraq had some central role in the terrorist threat and that if we didn't act soon, Saddam would give bioweapons to terrorists to deploy over Manhattan. It's patently obvious that this is what Clark is referring to. Paul Wolfowitz is even on record admitting that the WMD issue was chosen more for political expediency than for any honest perception of urgency. Clark is simply arguing that the administration sold the Iraq war to the American people by exaggerating the nature of the threat. For you to pretend that Clark's position is somehow illogical, inconsistent or "weird" (as below) is simply ridiculous.
"In the near term, time is on our side. Saddam has no nuclear weapons today, as far as we know, and probably won't gain them in the next few months. The U.S. has total military dominance of the region. Although Saddam has chemical and biological weapons, he has no long-range missiles with which to deliver them. Certainly, the clock is ticking, because Saddam may eventually acquire the nuclear weapons and delivery systems he seeks. Nonetheless, there is still time for dialogue before we act." -Wesley Clark, October 2002
Originally posted by MaxParrish
? rather as the NY reporter reporter stated in the article: ?[Clark] then told me?how he came to learn of a secret war scheme within the Bush Administration, of which Iraq was just one piece?.
It gets even weirder the article goes on to state:
?Shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Clark said, he visited the Pentagon, where an old colleague, a three-star general, confided to him that the civilian authorities running the Pentagon--Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his team--planned to use the September 11th attacks as a pretext for going to war against Iraq. "They made the decision to attack Iraq sometime soon after 9/11," ??Clark visited the Pentagon a couple of months later, and the same general told him that the Bush team, unable or unwilling to fight the actual terrorists responsible for the attacks, had devised a five-year plan to topple the regimes in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Iran, and Sudan ... Clark, in repeatedly telling his account, seems to suggest that he had special knowledge of a furtive Pentagon plan that would have the Administration "hopscotching around the Middle East and knocking off states," as he put it. He has acknowledged, "I'm not sure that I can prove this yet."
Huh? There was hardly a hidden agenda or covert plan. Administration spokespersons and supportive neoconservatives have always said that WMDs and potential (if not active) support of terrorism were crucial reasons for war ? and they always made clear that in the long-term, democracy had to come to the Middle East (or for that matter, the Axis of Evil) if we were to stop terrorism and achieve security.
Digby puts this slanderous bit of bullshit to bed. Just click here.
Originally posted by MaxParrish
Clark has been contradictory and confused, and has now resorted to a Ross Perot like conspiracy theory, that he admits he cannot prove.
Ah, nice. Nasty meme spreading! Clark "has some serious mental ticks." Why, he's just as nutty as H. Ross Perot! I believe we call this FUD, and you're obviously (unfortunately) just getting warmed up...
Originally posted by MaxParrish
Are you sure want him to be President?
Why the hell not? Are your shoddy and anemic objections supposed to change my mind?
Originally posted by MaxParrish
Are you saying that Clark maintains that NATO (a Regional Pact) is sufficient for true "international" or UN support ? Nice try...
He's saying that in lieu of full UN support, the next best thing was NATO- certainly better than just asking Tony Blair.
Originally posted by MaxParrish
And frankly, the Balkins were not in NATO nor threatening thier security.
Nobody ever claimed that Kosovo was any kind of act of self defense. It was an attempt to end ethnic cleansing of Kosovar Albanians. After allowing 800,000 Rwandans to be slaughtered in cold blood, Clark was not prepared to make the same mistake again.
Originally posted by MaxParrish
But while we are at it, you might note that the international coalition under US/UK leadership was far more numerious and broadbased than NATO membership and, compared to Kosvo, had a greater claim to international law.
While I don't personally have the statistics in front of me, I have to say that I find this extremely difficult to believe. The war in Kosovo involved a whole range of NATO member states in actual combat operations. I believe that at least a dozen nations deployed aircraft into combat in Kosovo. By way of comparison, operations in Iraq consisted of little more than US and British troops (at about a 3:1 margin), with about 2000 Australians and not much else. The "coalition of the willing" was mostly just a list of states pledging some kind of vague "support" sans troops, money or any other form of material aid. A few countries sent a handful of non-combat personnel, and I think the Poles sent a couple hundred troops.
And when it was all over, a true multinational peace-keeping force took control of the post-war efforts in Kosovo.
And actually, fwiw, there was a UN resolution (1199) which had some ambiguous weasel language that "should the concrete measures demanded in this resolution and resolution 1160 not be taken, to consider further action and additional measures to maintain or restore peace and stability in the region." Sort of like the Iraq "will face serious consequences" business in resolution 1441. That resolution passed unanimously with, I believe, Russian abstention. I'm not sure you can make a very strong case that Iraq had much more of a claim to international law. It's not really about law, though, so much as about alliances. Intervention in Kosovo didn't completely piss off the entire world like our forray into Iraq.
Originally posted by MaxParrish
Thanks for the references, however, they only re-enforce my doubts about Clark. My politics are conservative but Clark has taken on Carter like personea (less effectively) that allows a wide variety of idealogues to "assume" he represents their perspective.
If you think you can provide a substantive proof of this assertion wherein you demonstrate that Clark supporters project their own personal biases onto Clark to a quantifiably greater degree than any other political figure, you're welcome to try.
Originally posted by MaxParrish
The man is a political, and personal, enigma.
More or less so than whom?
Originally posted by MaxParrish
A history as a Republican and Bush supporter,
Horseshit. He voted for repub presidents through the 80's and then supported Clinton/Gore in the 90's. He's campaigned for Dems in recent elections. He complimented Bush on his foreign policy team over two years ago. And he voted for Gore. If he's a Bush supporter, he's a pretty shitty one.
Originally posted by MaxParrish
an intially ambivelent position on the war,
I see nothing particularly ambivalent about his position on the war. Some on the left have established a false dichotomy wherein one is either marching the streets with "no blood for oil" signs, or one is a pro-Bush warmonger. That's a bunch of crap. Clark is on record going all the way back to summer 2002 saying that this war is "elective surgery" and that Saddam didn't pose any serious or immediate threat to the US and that fighting Saddam now risked distracting us from fighting Al-Qaeda.
Originally posted by MaxParrish
recent promotion of a laundry list of democratic policies, but a policy depth that makes Sharpton look like a policy wonk.
I don't even understand what this means.
Originally posted by MaxParrish
Your nation article, in particular, shows the lingering doubt on the far left, as well.
Matt "God Can Suck My Dick" Taibbi is a ridiculous asshat with an axe to grind. His opinions mean absolutely nothing to any rational, thinking human being. Click here.
Originally posted by MaxParrish
Not only concerning his ambivelent statements, but an odd mechanical personality -he's present, but not there.
This is just so much bizarre character assassination and FUD. "He's present but not there"?? What a bunch of crap. It's the old "Al Gore doesn't know who he is because he wears earth tones" bullshit from 2000.
Originally posted by MaxParrish
And as many have pointed out, its just not his peers, but also his subordinates, that have been hostile to his candidacy.
Some have been hostile to Clark, others have defended him vigorously. You're cherry-picking.
"If Wes Clark asked me to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge, I'd ask him if he wanted it done in the summer or the winter," Massa said.
Click here for the rest of this.
Originally posted by MaxParrish
To my mind, its dangerious for anyone of any political persuasion to assume they understand his politics - unless its the politics of opportunism.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Yeah, getting into west point wasn't exceptional enough, so he had to graduate first in his class. But come on now, someone does that every year! Pfft. Then he was chosen as a Rhodes Scholar (think about it as a slightly easier community college). Then a position as military leader of a coalition of third-rate counties- you know just the United States, countries in Europe, etc. Nothing special. In fact, Wes Clark's career is nothing compared to....George Bush.
Bush well... he's too exceptional to even talk about. Just nod your head and agree.
West Point: not exceptional
Rhodes Scholar: nice, but not necessarily exceptional. I don't really care to explain myslef, but Rhodes isn't entirely based on brain power.
Experience: He was a general, and from what I've found, wasn't considered to be a good one. Besides, I don't think ex-generals should be holding political office. He has a completely un-diversified life history.
But more of the point is that his extremely vanilla campaign platform is extremely worthless. You can't beat an incumbent with as boring a campaign as Clark's. Bush isn't my fav, and I'm not voting for him, but all in all I'd prefer a simpleton in office than a guy with just enough brains to fook things up considerably.
Also a curiosity: Are you behind Clark? I thought liberal dems like you didn't support completely neutral candidates like Clark?
Originally posted by Josef K.
:
Great post
and yes . . . it is unfortunate that Clark seems to either have stepped on one or two vocal Generals' toes (who are probably jealous) or simply on opposite sides of the political spectrum) . . . which has led to the misperception that what he accomplished while a General was not exceptional or worthy of respect.
When you are an officer at that level (my father was a high ranking officer) what you are involved with is very close to politics: all the way from the macroscopic level to the microscopic and inter-personal: you have to know what the world-scene is at the given moment and what is likely to happen if you do X or Y, but you also have to know how your subordinates are doing and what they're eating etc . . . where your supplies are going, what is needed and where you are getting them from, when and how etc etc . . . .
Matt "God Can Suck My Dick" Taibbi is a ridiculous asshat with an axe to grind. His opinions mean absolutely nothing to any rational, thinking human being.
That blog entry about Taibbi was excellent...I had no idea that he worked on eXile (probably not work safe). That goes a long way towards explaining both his disjointed writing style and his animosity towards anyone involved in Kosovo. eXile is an interesting magazine, with some excellent writers, but it's also more than a little out there. I used to be a big fan of one columnist's writings until I discovered what a ardent supporter of the IRA he is. I was also never 100% certain that eXile's prostitute reviews were intended as a joke.
If it were all about policy I'd want to see Kucinich get the nomination. If it were all about charisma I'd want to see Dean get the nomination. The fact is that it is all about getting George W. Bush the hell out of office and limiting the damage he has done to this country. I think Clark is the best bet for doing this.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
West Point: not exceptional
Rhodes Scholar: nice, but not necessarily exceptional. I don't really care to explain myslef, but Rhodes isn't entirely based on brain power.
What definition of "exceptional" are you using here? How many people can say that they passed up full scholarships to other schools (including Harvard) to go to West Point by choice, graduated at the top of their class and then went on to become Rhodes Scholars? Sounds about as exceptional of an academic history as any other I've heard about. I can understand if you don't like Clark and don't support his candidacy, but the refusal to even acknowledge his obvious personal achievements is truly baffling.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Experience: He was a general, and from what I've found, wasn't considered to be a good one. Besides, I don't think ex-generals should be holding political office. He has a completely un-diversified life history.
More cherry picking. Here, I can do it, too:
http://clark04.com/records/quotes/
See, everybody loves Clark!
Look, some people locked horns with him, others say they'd die for him. I see no logical reason to conclude that he served poorly. I'd bet that he was at least as good of a general as Dean was a doctor, or Kerry was a senator, or Bush was an alcoholic high-school cheerleader monkey-boy.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Bush isn't my fav, and I'm not voting for him, but all in all I'd prefer a simpleton in office than a guy with just enough brains to fook things up considerably.
This makes no sense. We're talking about the presidency, not ResEdit. Bush has both the decision-making authority and the necessary obligation to act on that authority every single day. He and his advisors have and will continue to shape US policy both at home and abroad for better or for worse. Just because Bush is a simpleton doesn't somehow put presidency into a temporary state of suspended activity. Clark is no more or less capable of "fooking things up" than anyone else.
And, by the way, lest anyone get the impression that I'm just some kind of frothing-at-the-mouth Clark supporter, I'll simply say this: I do like Clark, and I support his candidacy, but I just get furious with the amount of bullshit and misinformation people have been spreading about the man. He's well on his way to being "Gored" in 2004, and I'm not going to sit idle and watch it happen again.
Originally posted by Josef K.
By the way, here is a very good article from a liberal democrat who explains how he went from considering Clark to be an "amoral opportunist and borderline con artist" to becoming a Clark supporter. Very interesting read.
What a find! The professor finds as I do that the integrity possessed by Wesley Clark and the attention to the issues over political rhetoric is what places him ahead of the pack.
[Snip] Bottom line: Clark is a throwback, a Rip Van Winkle, a pluralistic, optimistic, Greatest Generation-style politician lost, like Howard the Duck, in a world he never made. He's further outside the mainstream political culture than can possibly be imagined. This is what makes him so striking, so hard to parse, and so clearly the best candidate.[Snip]
Exactly
Fellowship
And most importantly, he's not Bush..
In 6 months the US is going to significantly reduce its visibility on the streets of Baghdad as a new 100,000 ~ 200,000 local paramilitary force will be taking over from the American coalition forces.
This leaves the Democrats with ???? to stand on, come election day?
The war in Iraq is going to be a non issue. The economy is already starting to become a non issue. And a significant part of their voting base, the "minorities", already largely figured out that the socialist pandering policies of the left only lock them into a cycle of high taxation and dependence on government handouts.
Fellows,
I know you don't like Bush. But better to stick with the devil you know..
Originally posted by Josef K.
This makes no sense. We're talking about the presidency, not ResEdit. Bush has both the decision-making authority and the necessary obligation to act on that authority every single day. He and his advisors have and will continue to shape US policy both at home and abroad for better or for worse. Just because Bush is a simpleton doesn't somehow put presidency into a temporary state of suspended activity. Clark is no more or less capable of "fooking things up" than anyone else.
I'm a libertarian. I don't like government. Clark wants to set up more civil services, etc, that I don't think should exist. When you have a guy like Bush in office, and he has a whole lot of advisors and does a great deal of task delegation, there's less possibility for legislation to go through. I think that's a good thing.
Honestly, Clark has some good academic credentials, yes. But as far as I know that's it. Scholars have academic work to show the world. All Clark has are 34 years (correct me if I'm wrong) of military service and a few diplomas. With all due respect, even Bush has more accomplishments, and is undeniably a much better salesman. . . a skill that can get overlooked. I'm no Rhodes scholar, but I do have patents pending and am working on some technology that will turn a lot of heads.
Just to hammer home the message, my ideal president is one who is a self made man and understands money and markets, and who regularly promotes legislation that cuts government. And if cutting back is impossible, I say don't add any more. (i.e. do nothing). While I'm perfectly confident that a Clark presidency will probably be unproductive since I don't think Republicans or dems in congress will like him much, I don't like his message, probably for the reasons Fellows likes it.
Originally posted by majorspunk
And most importantly, he's not Bush..
In 6 months the US is going to significantly reduce its visibility on the streets of Baghdad as a new 100,000 ~ 200,000 local paramilitary force will be taking over from the American coalition forces.
This leaves the Democrats with ???? to stand on, come election day?
The war in Iraq is going to be a non issue. The economy is already starting to become a non issue. And a significant part of their voting base, the "minorities", already largely figured out that the socialist pandering policies of the left only lock them into a cycle of high taxation and dependence on government handouts.
Fellows,
I know you don't like Bush. But better to stick with the devil you know..
Typical ideological nonsense:
?The pejorative use of the word "socialist."
?The perception of "high taxation" despite being low relative to other modern countries.
?The idea of a helpful use of government as "handouts"
The cycle of "high taxation" isn't the only thing that's spinning....
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Typical ideological nonsense:
?The perception of "high taxation" despite being low relative to other modern countries.
Our unemployment rate is also low compared to most other "modern" countries.