Interesting Read re: Wesley Clark

[Inmate Trump]

The Democrats' Idea Of A General

DEMOCRATS are so delirious about finding a general who is a pacifist scaredy-cat that no one seems to have bothered to investigate whether Wesley Clark is sane.

On "Meet the Press" back in November, Clark described intelligence as "a sort of gray goo as you look at it. You can't see through it, exactly, and if you try to touch it, it gets real sticky and you might actually interfere with the information that you're getting back. So you have to draw inferences from it." No, wait. I'm sorry. I think that was Clark talking about Monica Lewinsky's dress, not national security intelligence.

Meanwhile, Clark recently said that the "two greatest lies that have been told in the last three years" are: "You couldn't have prevented 9/11 and there's another one that's bound to happen." If he were president, Clark says, there would be no more terrorist attacks.

The adversarial watchdog press did not ask Clark to explain how he could guarantee an end to terrorist attacks, but recited Clark's prior statements calling for better intelligence. Apparently, if we could just refine the gray goo of intelligence to a magical terrorist-prediction machine, Clark could put an end to this terrorism nonsense once and for all.

Yes, I suppose if our intelligence agencies knew who the terrorists were and when they were going to strike, we could stop them. And if we knew who all the raving lunatics were, we could prevent these infernal Democratic presidential primary debates. Which reminds me, I think I know how we can win the lottery every week, too.

Liberals scoff at a system to shoot down incoming missiles, but believe that all random suicide bombers can be located and stopped before they strike. Hitting a bullet with a bullet just isn't feasible, so let's concentrate on something doable like predicting the future.

Democrats are utterly unfazed by the fact that Clark is crazier than a March hare. They are so happy to have a pacifist in uniform, they ignore his Norman Bates moments. When this peacenik criticizes the war in Iraq, he can puff up his puny chest and cite his own glorious experience with blood, sweat and tears in the Balkans.

Asked on "Meet the Press" what advice he would give Bush, Clark said: "I'd say, 'Mr. President, the first thing you've got to do is you've got to surrender' -- stop right there and the Kucinich crowd is yours -- 'exclusive U.S. control over this mission. ... Build an international organization like we did in the Balkans.'" Because, as everyone knows, Wesley Clark "built" NATO. This guy sounds more like Al Gore every day.

Asked what countries he proposed to bring into Iraq that weren't there already, Clark said, "I think you ask NATO ... just as I did in Kosovo, because this brings NATO into the problem." NATO is the logical choice for this job because of Iraq's extremely close proximity to the North Atlantic.

Evidently, Clark is sublimely confident that no one remembers anything about his misadventures in the Balkans.

Yugoslavia posed absolutely no threat to the United States -- not imminent, not latent, not burgeoning, not now, not then, not ever. (Unless you count all the U.S. highway deaths caused by Yugos.) The president of Yugoslavia, Slobodan Milosevic, never tried to assassinate a U.S. president. He never shook his fist at the Great Satan. He didn't shelter and fund Muslim terrorists -- though the people we were fighting for did.

In humanitarian terms, Milosevic didn't hold a candle to Saddam Hussein. Milosevic killed a few thousand Albanians in a ground war. Hussein killed well over a million Iranians, Kurds, Kuwaitis and Shias, among others. Milosevic had no rape rooms, no torture rooms, no Odai or Qusai. He didn't even use a wood chipper to dispose of his enemies, the piker.

And yet NATO, led by Gen. Wesley Clark, staged a pre-emptive attack on Yugoslavia.

Under Clark's command, the U.S. bombed the Chinese embassy by mistake, killing three Chinese journalists. Other NATO air strikes under Clark mistakenly damaged the Swiss, Spanish, Swedish, Norwegian and Hungarian ambassadors' residences. Despite the absence of ground troops, Yugoslavia took three American POWs, whose release was eventually brokered by Jesse Jackson. America was standing tall.

Clark's forces bombed a civilian convoy by mistake, killing more than 70 ethnic Albanians, and then Clark openly lied about it to the press. First he denied NATO had done it, and when forced to retract that, Clark pinned the blame on an innocent U.S. pilot. As New York Newsday reported on April 18, 1999: "American officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the staff of Army Gen. Wesley Clark, the NATO commander, pointed to an innocent F-16 Falcon pilot who was castigated by the media for blasting a refugee convoy." Eventually, even a model of probity like Bill Clinton was shocked by Clark's mendacity and fired him.

At the end of major combat operations led by NATO Supreme Allied Commander Gen. Wesley Clark, arch-villain Slobodan Milosevic was still in power. (At least Clark won't have to worry about any embarrassing "mission accomplished" photo-ops coming back to haunt him.) Today, almost a decade and $15 billion later, U.S. troops are still bogged down in the Balkans. No quagmire there!

That's the Democrats' idea of a general.

--Ann Coulter, Jan. 14, 2004

[NHPolitico]

I'm curious to see if his rivals bring his odd pronouncements up. On one hand, it may help them with independents to show Clark is crazy. On the other hand, it may boost the liberal anti-war base Clark (and Dean) has.

[BrewMaster]

I read that today also.  The Lewinsky dress comment had me ROTFL!

If Clark, Dean, Kerry et al are the best the Dems can find, it's gonna be 1984 all over again.

[Gustaf]

I think you're making a serious mistake in saying Milosevic killed "a few thousand Albanians". The man ordered genocide in Bosnia and tried to wipe out another people in order to hold together his communist empire. He pretty much introduced the world to the term ethnic cleansing. And I believe there were torture rooms in Yugoslavia. They did have concentration camps, if that counts... He deserved to be attacked as much as Saddam Hussein, at least on humanitarian grounds.

To say that the Bosnian, Croatian and Slovenian peoples, trying to form their own nations were sheltering terrorists is grossly unfair to these oppressed peoples.  

Finally, I believe the civilian casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq are every bit as high as in Yugoslavia. You killed children, bombed civilian convoys and so on to a great extent in these countries.

Don't get me wrong: Clark seems like an idiot to me, and I would not feel happy about him being the Dem nominee, but there are better arguments against him than these.

[Inmate Trump]

I think you're making a serious mistake in saying Milosevic killed "a few thousand Albanians". The man ordered genocide in Bosnia and tried to wipe out another people in order to hold together his communist empire. He pretty much introduced the world to the term ethnic cleansing. And I believe there were torture rooms in Yugoslavia. They did have concentration camps, if that counts... He deserved to be attacked as much as Saddam Hussein, at least on humanitarian grounds.

To say that the Bosnian, Croatian and Slovenian peoples, trying to form their own nations were sheltering terrorists is grossly unfair to these oppressed peoples.  

Finally, I believe the civilian casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq are every bit as high as in Yugoslavia. You killed children, bombed civilian convoys and so on to a great extent in these countries.

Don't get me wrong: Clark seems like an idiot to me, and I would not feel happy about him being the Dem nominee, but there are better arguments against him than these.

Well, I'm glad you see Clark as an idiot.  

But I don't see these arguments as being unwarrented at all.  These are very sound arguments...serious stuff that Clark (if he gets the nom) is going to have to deal with - and trust me, he's not going to want to deal with it.

[Gustaf]

I think you're making a serious mistake in saying Milosevic killed "a few thousand Albanians". The man ordered genocide in Bosnia and tried to wipe out another people in order to hold together his communist empire. He pretty much introduced the world to the term ethnic cleansing. And I believe there were torture rooms in Yugoslavia. They did have concentration camps, if that counts... He deserved to be attacked as much as Saddam Hussein, at least on humanitarian grounds.

To say that the Bosnian, Croatian and Slovenian peoples, trying to form their own nations were sheltering terrorists is grossly unfair to these oppressed peoples.  

Finally, I believe the civilian casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq are every bit as high as in Yugoslavia. You killed children, bombed civilian convoys and so on to a great extent in these countries.

Don't get me wrong: Clark seems like an idiot to me, and I would not feel happy about him being the Dem nominee, but there are better arguments against him than these.

Well, I'm glad you see Clark as an idiot.  

But I don't see these arguments as being unwarrented at all.  These are very sound arguments...serious stuff that Clark (if he gets the nom) is going to have to deal with - and trust me, he's not going to want to deal with it.

I just think you're getting Milosevic off way to easy. Beware of the Serbs, they're scary!

[Huckleberry Finn]

NATO operation in the Balkans was necessary and it is one of Clinton's most important decision in foreign policy. In Bosnia war continue three years (200 000 dead) before it's stop in 1995 NATO's two week long airwar campaign. In Kosovo NATO's operation saved lives of thousands people and stoped the ethnic cleanings. It took only year and Milosevic was replaced by revolution which was result of war in Kosovo. And now he sit in Hague War Crime Tribunal. This post was very misleading.

Clark was in Vietnam! Where W. Bush was? In the National Guard! Why not in Vietnam? Did he scare something?

Gustaf I'm very disappointed that you called Clark as idiot. Why you did this?

[Huckleberry Finn]

I think that Clark has best chance to beat Bush. Bush is strong on security issues (or so people think) and among Democrats only Clark has credibility on it. Edwards would be good vice president candidate.

[Gustaf]

NATO operation in the Balkans was necessary and it is one of Clinton's most important decision in foreign policy. In Bosnia war continue three years (200 000 dead) before it's stop in 1995 NATO's two week long airwar campaign. In Kosovo NATO's operation saved lives of thousands people and stoped the ethnic cleanings. It took only year and Milosevic was replaced by revolution which was result of war in Kosovo. And now he sit in Hague War Crime Tribunal. This post was very misleading.

Clark was in Vietnam! Where W. Bush was? In the National Guard! Why not in Vietnam? Did he scare something?

Gustaf I'm very disappointed that you called Clark as idiot. Why you did this?

His remarks on the Iraq war that were posted by jmfcst, leaves no other explanation. He claims to have been consistently against the Iraq war, while being on record supporting it rather forcefully not long ago. That makes him an idiot. I am not passing judgement on other things he might have done. If that Drudge Report isn't true, well then it's a different matter, but so far no contrary evidence has been brought to my attention. Untill then I will maintain my position.

[Huckleberry Finn]

Gustaf. Maybe that information about Clark is not true. If it is, then I have to agree your opinion.

OK. Republicans. Clinton wasn't warhero either.

[NorthernDog]

Clark continues to make over the top statements re. Bush and Iraq.  Today he said Bush wasn't trying to get Osama.  What does he base this on?  He never shuts up either - just keeps yelling at the mic.  I think he is now obsessed. I think he is the new Ross Perot.  Won't surprise me if he runs as 3rd party candidate in the fall.

[Gustaf]

Gustaf. Maybe that information about Clark is not true. If it is, then I have to agree your opinion.

OK. Republicans. Clinton wasn't warhero either.

No maybe not, but I haven't seen anything to disprove it yet. We'll have to wait and see, I guess...

[mossy]

The Democrats' Idea Of A General

"DEMOCRATS are so delirious

 ----pacifist scaredy-cat
----- whether Wesley Clark is sane.

.----" No, wait. I'm sorry. I think that was Clark talking about Monica Lewinsky's dress, not national security intelligence.

Meanwhile, Clark recently said that the "two greatest lies that have been told in the last three years" are: "You couldn't have prevented 9/11 and there's another one that's bound to happen." If he were president, Clark says, there would be no more terrorist attacks.


".......crazier than a March hare. -------- pacifist in uniform, they ignore his Norman Bates strike,  raving lunatics

"infernal Democratic presidential primary debates. "
[Ahem, debates are the norm unless running unopposed.......]




" When this peacenik [4-star General, with purple heart from Viet Nam, FYI] criticizes the war in Iraq, he can puff up his puny chest and cite his own glorious experience with blood, sweat and tears in the Balkans. "



That's the Democrats' idea of a general.

--Ann Coulter, Jan. 14, 2004

(irrelevant stuff snipped)
-----------------------------------------

No, it is not an interesting "Read" at all.   It is an article of the "cheap shot".   It is symptomatic of a once-decent political party in sharp decline------who has adopted clever insults instead of substance---fodder for the uninformed, who while not read, they can certainly recognize an insult and feel a certain smugness over people with real accomplishments.......and so it goes by people like Rush, Coulter, who are paid not by the quality or truth they write but by the number schoolyard names they can come up with.   Such people that depend on name-calling automatically can be assumed to be lying and have the weaker argument.

[Gustaf]

The Democrats' Idea Of A General

"DEMOCRATS are so delirious

 ----pacifist scaredy-cat
----- whether Wesley Clark is sane.

.----" No, wait. I'm sorry. I think that was Clark talking about Monica Lewinsky's dress, not national security intelligence.

Meanwhile, Clark recently said that the "two greatest lies that have been told in the last three years" are: "You couldn't have prevented 9/11 and there's another one that's bound to happen." If he were president, Clark says, there would be no more terrorist attacks.


".......crazier than a March hare. -------- pacifist in uniform, they ignore his Norman Bates strike,  raving lunatics

"infernal Democratic presidential primary debates. "
[Ahem, debates are the norm unless running unopposed.......]




" When this peacenik [4-star General, with purple heart from Viet Nam, FYI] criticizes the war in Iraq, he can puff up his puny chest and cite his own glorious experience with blood, sweat and tears in the Balkans. "



That's the Democrats' idea of a general.

--Ann Coulter, Jan. 14, 2004

(irrelevant stuff snipped)
-----------------------------------------

No, it is not an interesting "Read" at all.   It is an article of the "cheap shot".   It is symptomatic of a once-decent political party in sharp decline------who has adopted clever insults instead of substance---fodder for the uninformed, who while not read, they can certainly recognize an insult and feel a certain smugness over people with real accomplishments.......and so it goes by people like Rush, Coulter, who are paid not by the quality or truth they write but by the number schoolyard names they can come up with.   Such people that depend on name-calling automatically can be assumed to be lying and have the weaker argument.

Did you know that if you make 3 more posts you could register to vote in the Atlas Forum Fantasy elections?

[StevenNick]

I don't know that the merits of the Bosnian war need to be argued to establish whether or not Wesley Clark is an idiot.  No matter how many people Milosevic killed, he deserved to be taken out of power and I'm glad Clinton and Clark did it.  However, I think Wesley Clark is a man who cares more about power than having a coherent political philosophy.  He's virtually incapable of giving a straight answer to any question he's ever asked.  I have yet to figure out how comments he made a year ago in favor of the war can be "consistent" with comments he's made in the last few months that are unequivically against the war.  Wes Clark is Al Gore only a whole lot weirder.

All that to say I can't stand the guy.

[Gustaf]

I don't know that the merits of the Bosnian war need to be argued to establish whether or not Wesley Clark is an idiot.  No matter how many people Milosevic killed, he deserved to be taken out of power and I'm glad Clinton and Clark did it.  However, I think Wesley Clark is a man who cares more about power than having a coherent political philosophy.  He's virtually incapable of giving a straight answer to any question he's ever asked.  I have yet to figure out how comments he made a year ago in favor of the war can be "consistent" with comments he's made in the last few months that are unequivically against the war.  Wes Clark is Al Gore only a whole lot weirder.

All that to say I can't stand the guy.

Thank you fpr at least supporting the Bosnia war...this might be the first and lst time that I agree with you...

[NHPolitico]

I read that today also.  The Lewinsky dress comment had me ROTFL!

If Clark, Dean, Kerry et al are the best the Dems can find, it's gonna be 1984 all over again.

Kerry is not as insane as Clark or Dean by a long shot.

[NHPolitico]

I think that Clark has best chance to beat Bush. Bush is strong on security issues (or so people think) and among Democrats only Clark has credibility on it. Edwards would be good vice president candidate.

Kerry's currently on the Foreign Relations committee.  Kerry could talk knowledgably on the subject of security issues.

[NHPolitico]

The Democrats' Idea Of A General

DEMOCRATS are so delirious about finding a general who is a pacifist scaredy-cat that no one seems to have bothered to investigate whether Wesley Clark is sane.

On "Meet the Press" back in November, Clark described intelligence as "a sort of gray goo as you look at it. You can't see through it, exactly, and if you try to touch it, it gets real sticky and you might actually interfere with the information that you're getting back. So you have to draw inferences from it." No, wait. I'm sorry. I think that was Clark talking about Monica Lewinsky's dress, not national security intelligence.

Meanwhile, Clark recently said that the "two greatest lies that have been told in the last three years" are: "You couldn't have prevented 9/11 and there's another one that's bound to happen." If he were president, Clark says, there would be no more terrorist attacks.

The adversarial watchdog press did not ask Clark to explain how he could guarantee an end to terrorist attacks, but recited Clark's prior statements calling for better intelligence. Apparently, if we could just refine the gray goo of intelligence to a magical terrorist-prediction machine, Clark could put an end to this terrorism nonsense once and for all.

Yes, I suppose if our intelligence agencies knew who the terrorists were and when they were going to strike, we could stop them. And if we knew who all the raving lunatics were, we could prevent these infernal Democratic presidential primary debates. Which reminds me, I think I know how we can win the lottery every week, too.

Liberals scoff at a system to shoot down incoming missiles, but believe that all random suicide bombers can be located and stopped before they strike. Hitting a bullet with a bullet just isn't feasible, so let's concentrate on something doable like predicting the future.

Democrats are utterly unfazed by the fact that Clark is crazier than a March hare. They are so happy to have a pacifist in uniform, they ignore his Norman Bates moments. When this peacenik criticizes the war in Iraq, he can puff up his puny chest and cite his own glorious experience with blood, sweat and tears in the Balkans.

Asked on "Meet the Press" what advice he would give Bush, Clark said: "I'd say, 'Mr. President, the first thing you've got to do is you've got to surrender' -- stop right there and the Kucinich crowd is yours -- 'exclusive U.S. control over this mission. ... Build an international organization like we did in the Balkans.'" Because, as everyone knows, Wesley Clark "built" NATO. This guy sounds more like Al Gore every day.

Asked what countries he proposed to bring into Iraq that weren't there already, Clark said, "I think you ask NATO ... just as I did in Kosovo, because this brings NATO into the problem." NATO is the logical choice for this job because of Iraq's extremely close proximity to the North Atlantic.

Evidently, Clark is sublimely confident that no one remembers anything about his misadventures in the Balkans.

Yugoslavia posed absolutely no threat to the United States -- not imminent, not latent, not burgeoning, not now, not then, not ever. (Unless you count all the U.S. highway deaths caused by Yugos.) The president of Yugoslavia, Slobodan Milosevic, never tried to assassinate a U.S. president. He never shook his fist at the Great Satan. He didn't shelter and fund Muslim terrorists -- though the people we were fighting for did.

In humanitarian terms, Milosevic didn't hold a candle to Saddam Hussein. Milosevic killed a few thousand Albanians in a ground war. Hussein killed well over a million Iranians, Kurds, Kuwaitis and Shias, among others. Milosevic had no rape rooms, no torture rooms, no Odai or Qusai. He didn't even use a wood chipper to dispose of his enemies, the piker.

And yet NATO, led by Gen. Wesley Clark, staged a pre-emptive attack on Yugoslavia.

Under Clark's command, the U.S. bombed the Chinese embassy by mistake, killing three Chinese journalists. Other NATO air strikes under Clark mistakenly damaged the Swiss, Spanish, Swedish, Norwegian and Hungarian ambassadors' residences. Despite the absence of ground troops, Yugoslavia took three American POWs, whose release was eventually brokered by Jesse Jackson. America was standing tall.

Clark's forces bombed a civilian convoy by mistake, killing more than 70 ethnic Albanians, and then Clark openly lied about it to the press. First he denied NATO had done it, and when forced to retract that, Clark pinned the blame on an innocent U.S. pilot. As New York Newsday reported on April 18, 1999: "American officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the staff of Army Gen. Wesley Clark, the NATO commander, pointed to an innocent F-16 Falcon pilot who was castigated by the media for blasting a refugee convoy." Eventually, even a model of probity like Bill Clinton was shocked by Clark's mendacity and fired him.

At the end of major combat operations led by NATO Supreme Allied Commander Gen. Wesley Clark, arch-villain Slobodan Milosevic was still in power. (At least Clark won't have to worry about any embarrassing "mission accomplished" photo-ops coming back to haunt him.) Today, almost a decade and $15 billion later, U.S. troops are still bogged down in the Balkans. No quagmire there!

That's the Democrats' idea of a general.

--Ann Coulter, Jan. 14, 2004

My military candidate is better than your military candidate...

Clark, who didn't compete in Iowa, told campaign workers in Manchester, N.H., that Kerry, a decorated former Navy officer, had a military background "but nobody in this race has got the kind of background I've got."

"It's one thing to be a hero as a junior officer. He's done that, I respect that," Clark said. "But I've got the military experience at the top as well as at the bottom."

--------------------

Clark has foot-in-mouth disease.  

[jravnsbo]

That was STUPID by Clark.  As a fellow officer that offends me greatly.  If I serve honorably and do my duty but then get out after completing my obligation I am less great than you.  Hello!  Love or hate kerry he did other things that Clark didn't.  I don't agree one bit with Kerry's anti-war stances and if Clark would have went after him on that ok, but Kerry is a decorated vet too and LT, General whatever, would a decorated enlisted person be less worthy under this Clark scenario?  

But I guess Clark is known for not caring about the lower ranks anyway, so it fits.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My military candidate is better than your military candidate...

Clark, who didn't compete in Iowa, told campaign workers in Manchester, N.H., that Kerry, a decorated former Navy officer, had a military background "but nobody in this race has got the kind of background I've got."

"It's one thing to be a hero as a junior officer. He's done that, I respect that," Clark said. "But I've got the military experience at the top as well as at the bottom."

--------------------

Clark has foot-in-mouth disease.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[mossy]

Clark is just getting the Karl Rove treatment.  He's steady as a rock.   The entire time he was on CNN as an analyst, I cannot remember him ever being critical of anyone, even when events were not going so well.  He always those making the decisions, as having more intel than "us back here".   He explained tactics, proceedures, but never took a cheap shot at anyone. But you could tell how he evaluated things, militarily and diplomatically, he was a "National Treasure" (as Barry said)gem.    I cannot imagine a Rhode's Scholar being refered to as an idiot.  

It does not look well for him as of this date--the smears are relentless---it is our loss.   No wonder the candidates are hesitant about bringing their family out.   Rove is known for going after enemies' wives.
 

[Beet]

He is also known for installing 30-minute bugs in his own campaign HQ the day before the debate as an excuse to call a press conference.

[mossy]

He is also known for installing 30-minute bugs in his own campaign HQ the day before the debate as an excuse to call a press conference.

Who? I don't get it.