Reply #5: Hmmm...

[JustJoe]

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.