Wait, Carl. This is what you posted as the basis for your characterization of Clark as worse than Bush.
“Our troops over there are having a very hard time right now. If we gave those troops another division or two, they wouldn’t turn us down,” Clark said. But when asked during the post-speech news conference if he would send more troops to Iraq if he were in the White House today, Clark skirted the issue.
The "skirting" referred to is given in the next line of the piece, which you omitted from your quote:
First, we have to have a far-reaching political strategy,” he said.
I suppose if a yes or no answer is required not to be a skirter, saying "First, we have to have a far-reaching political strategy" is skirting. But it's equally reasonable to interpret that as meaning that he wouldn't send more troops until there was a far-reaching political strategy. (Any more than he would have sent the first troops in without one of those, he is presumably implying.)
As for whether he's a moron, or worse than Bush or not, I don't know. But saying that he wouldn't send more troops in, even if our troops are having such a hard time they wouldn't turn them down, until there was a far-reaching political strategy isn't proof of it, and isn't, imo, skirting anything. The writer of the article wanted a Yes or No, for a headline, and didn't get it so he called what he did get "skirting," instead of writing "he explained," or "he said firmly." He produced a sexier product with the "skirted" verb.
So: I think maybe you were too harsh, Carl.... |
