Reply #127: Points well taken. There are 2 theories, then, that one could advance

[RichM]

about Clark. One is that he is just being cagey about what parts of the "truth" he's willing to talk about, because he knows how important defeating Bush really is. Under this theory, one can't hold against him the things he fails to say -- because one believes that he's just being careful not to alienate moderate voters.

The OTHER theory, though, is much less comforting. Under this theory, he's someone who's spent his whole career in the elite cadres of the military. He likes those people; he respects and understands them. He shares many of their values. Thus, while he doesn't want to see the American military put into harm's way unnecessarily, or without a well thought-out plan for "success," his conceptual framework does not include a comprehensive analysis of which economic interests are really motivating a given conflict. He does not even think in terms of the US army being used to commit crimes to benefit a clique of gangsters that has hijacked the government.

Under this more ominous theory, Clark has certain tactical disagreements with the Bush-Cheney-Rummy gang. But he's not completely different from them, either. Thus, the reason he doesn't attack them more ferociously is that he just doesn't find them to be all that bad. He wants to replace them - but not to drastically change course. Rather, he would simply be more "multilateral" and "iron out the excesses." This would lead to no fundamental change at all -- merely to cosmetic changes that do nothing to alter the social forces that made a Bush government possible in the first place.