Critics Debate Clark's Military Record (NPR Real Player Report)

http://www.npr.org/dmg/dmg.php?prgCode=ATC&showDate=16-Oct-2003&segNum=2&mediaPref=RM

6 minutes 18 Seconds

Enjoy

http://www.clark04.com/records/

Compared to who--Bush himself?


rocknation

This is an example of how the media treats candidates who can beat Bush the easiest.

I did not see it as a Hatchet job. Just reporting of one of the facets of Clark. It really doesn't cover much that hasn't been saif before.

...as in fact I do, his military record is a grotesque liability.

I don't care about his ambition. Sheesh - that's a non-starter.

But a poor record of bombing civilians - coupled with nearly fomenting WW III - is nothing to brag about.

In a larger sense, it's a pity that Bush has been allowed to move the nation so far to the right that the Democrats may be forced to squeek liberal values into the election behind a uniform.

Our military should be an institution kept in the shadows, silent on policy, and remote from our elections. For a wise people (as opposed to sheepish imperial subjects), the military should be an instrument of last resort.

The time, unfortunately, to combat the growing militarization of US culture was over the past two years, when the putative opposition should have spoken up rather than giving Bush carte blanche. Democratic Party appeasement has set back the cause of liberty and peace by decades, at least.

See the current cover essay in Harper's for a reasonably good discussion of these matters.

a military record is a liability only within the marginalized members of the political class while being a positive to the mainstream, which make up the vast bulk of voters.

That's all there is to it.