I suppose that Clark is still my #2 choice, but he is not aging well with me. The latest piece in Salon contains some choice nuggets of trash from the man which haven't helped a bit.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/12/15/clark/index.html
I'll just give one example to start.
[Clark] criticized Dean for an answer he gave...to a question about whether it was ever acceptable for a president to lie to the American public. (Dean, who was clearly taken aback by the question, had answered: "I can't think of any circumstances, with the possible exception of some national security matter that would -- if some piece of information were put out that would endanger American lives or some circumstances under which people's lives would be in danger or something of that sort.")
"I don't believe you should lie in foreign affairs," Clark said. "You can't lie as a government. You can refuse to answer a question. You can go to the press privately and say please don't print this for national security reasons. You cannot lie.
To give just one example of why Clark should know better: in times of war, governments can and do deliberately misdirect the media about troop movements and other events that could harm operations. Heck, even on Bush's latest trip to Iraq lies were told to conceal the plane (they said it was a Gulf Stream 1 or something, or told air traffic control to lie for them). If Clark honestly believes that this kind of thing should never be done, he's a fool. If he doesn't believe it, he's taking hypocritical cheap shots to score political points. Thanks for the straight talk and wisdom, general!
[yes, I'm angry.]