Freepers begin smearing Gen. Clark

Not wasting anytime I see...

Reply 1 - Posted by: wacko, 7/12/2003 5:51:48 AM

Wait till Russert asks him about the time he wanted to open fire on the Russian troops in the Balkans.


Reply 4 - Posted by: lonetown, 7/12/2003 6:30:56 AM

I think Wesley shot his load when he went critical on the Iraq war, and was resoundingly wrong.


Reply 5 - Posted by: fwipper, 7/12/2003 6:37:11 AM

Clark is an absolute idiot.


Reply 6 - Posted by: trotter, 7/12/2003 6:43:53 AM

After watching Clark on a couple shows last weekend, I firmly believe that he will give Dean a run for his money to see who is the bigger loon. Almost reminds me of a calmer version of the US officer in Dr. Strangelove.

Hey Wesley, don't drink the water - it's the fluoride.


Reply 8 - Posted by: remington, 7/12/2003 7:01:45 AM

Yeah, well, our side has got Tommy Franks. And which would have had the more successful career, and been more effectual in combat situations?

MacArthur over Eisenhower.


Reply 9 - Posted by: Private Joker, 7/12/2003 7:10:39 AM

General Wesley Clark.

The Great White Dope.

'Bring 'Em On'


Reply 10 - Posted by: shamus, 7/12/2003 7:23:06 AM

Clark is more likely to be VP. He could be Dean's running mate and provide valuable information, like how many people are in the US armed forces.


Reply 13 - Posted by: Omymy, 7/12/2003 7:52:35 AM

I'm just happy that Clark is an EX-general.
Shudder to think he could have been involed
with our war on terrorism. Yeah, he's a looney
tune alright.

only goes to prove one does not have to have an over abundance of brains to run one's mouth----next----they love the man who got through college with a gentlemans "c" on a legacy scholarship:hurts:

To see the two candidates that I support(Clark,Dean) discussed derisively by freepers confirms that I'm on the right track. Those morons have habitually been wrong about everything from the Clinton impeachment to the 2000 election. Thanks

Why have so many career officers and diplomats resigned?

Franks resigned, after being offered Chief Of Staff of the Army, a real plum, and what every general would lovew to retire as; but he could not work for Rummy and this admin anymore. In fact, the other generals offered the position turned it down as well. They brought on out of retirement to accept the position, (name escapes me at the moment), and that in itself is an embarassment.

Looks like Franks has scruples, and that is fine by me.

As for Clark, and the freepers, I have to laugh at the comparison one made of Eisenhower and MacArthur. MacArthur lost the Philipines because of abysmal planning after he was warned for a couple of years to build up the defenses. In fact, he is the only individual to be awarded the MOH for actually losing a battle! You'd think he never read about what the Japanese were doing in China.

Eisenhower, on the other hand, had to deal with multiple egotistical personalities in an almosdt impossble situation of bringing disparate ideologiestogether, into a cohesive military presence. He did a darn good job. MacArthur had no such hindrance, he was literaly a caesar in Asia, and knew it.

Clark is one of the brightest generals since Marshall, and has earned every bit of respect he deserves.

McArthur and Eisenhower even I can laugh at that. Marshall in Truman and Ike's eyes was a briliiant man if the pre historic freepers aka McCarthyites did this they would know that Ike would be against them on this. Thanks again Ras for proving that we may not be hawkish people but we know history.

ais one of most underrated generals of all times. He wanted to go to Europe to take over in Overlord, but FDR said there was no way he was going to let him go, he was far to valuable in DC.

Marshal also made it a point not to laugh at any of FDR's jokes, even though some of them were gutbusters. This ensured that FDR really trusted him., FDR was smart enough to know Marshal was no "Yes Man", and could be trusted.

A truly amazing individual. And a great democrat and liberal as well!

They both believed he was the best man of WWII. The stupid freepers can have Franks and McArthur I'll take Clark and Eisenhower too. I think Bradley would be with us. Marshall for sure. My dad graduated from Marshall high school.

Like Adm. Kimmel and Gen. Short for Pearl Harbor.
He wasn't sacked, because unlike Kimmel and Short (who were apolitical), MacAurther was a favorite of Republicans.

As for Medals of Honors for losing battles, I would point out Admirals Kidd (aboard USS Arizona at Pearl), Scott (aboard USS Atlanta at 1st Guadalcanal), and Callaghan (aboard USS San Fransisco, also at 1st Guadalcanal) ... All of whom died while losing battles in WW2.

and MacArthur's.

As for Kidd, that MOH was issued for his defense of USS Arizona under extreme circumstances, where planning was not possible due to the circumstances. While I might not necessarily agree with him receiving the MOH for that action, he died on the bridge during an attack.

I will research the other two. But, if my memeory serves me right, one of those, (if not both) were during fighting during the mid-part of the campaign, where the Japanese came down the Slot during a night attack. Also something that was ill-prepared for. And while the battle was lost, at great cost, ultimately, the campaign was a victory.

If you read the citation for MacArthur, the MOH was presented for his preparations of the Philipine defense. Wainwright was also presented an MOH, but he was really defending Battaan and Corregidor, he capitulated, and later was awarded the MOH. SO I stand corrected.

As for MacArthur, he not only refused to prepare for the invasion of the Philipines to any great degree, (believing that the Filipino NG would be adequate, as well certain other stages of defense also poorly polanned), my point is, he actually was instrumental in losing all of Asia under American control at that time. So rather than lose a battle, he came very close to losing the war in the Pacific.

I hold a critical eye towards MacArthur and the myth that has surrounded him. He definately had his moments, and was a pretty good general, but he had many faults as well, which are too often overlooked.

They were #1 and #2, and blew a night ambush. Not totally thier fault, the Japanese were better at night actions than the US.

Kidd, dying at Pearl Harbor at his station, didn't do anything wrong; it wasn't his fault the base wasn't ready, he was just caught in the disaster.

I am very unimpressed with MacAurther's record, both in two world wars (how did he get caught with all his aircraft on the ground 12 hours after Pearl Harbor?), as Army CoS (where he ordered the troops to break up the 'Bonus Army' and became the darling of the right) and his ignoring his intellegence officer in Korea leading to the Chinese jumping in and driving him south of the border again.

When I was younger, I was somewhat in awe of MacArthur, 5 star general, saved the world, etc., but as I got to reading about him, I realized just how egotistical and self-centered he was. A great book: 'American Caesar', shows many of MacArthur's sides, and pulls no punches.

Everythin Mac did, was calculated for the maximum effect on how it would look on MacArthur. There were no other options in his mind. This iss very telling when the "Return to the Philipines" was shot, twice, because the first take had the Filipino Pres. out in front.
Mac didn't like that, so the president of the nation is following Mac by two steps, onto his own soil!, (actually sand).

He had his moments, throughout his life, but he was an arrogant SOB.

And yes, having his AF on the ground and noit disbursed 12 hoours after PH was complete negligence, and he shopuld have been reprimanded, if not relieved. But, we needed heroes, and he fit the bill to the American public. The "bonus march" fiasco is a horrible stain on American history, and is proof of how the gov't treats it's veterans after the hostilities are over.

When I first started investigating Clark, I found plenty of web sites with the airport story. Did you know they blame him for WACO too? Anyway, I asked a PHD in American history about the incident, and this is the answer (you might want to copy the debunking, because the airport buzz is all the Rovians have.)


The "Race" actually has more to do with the near failure of the Russian Government than anything else. Remember Yeltsin was President then, and had supported Serbia and Milosevic. Clark and the NATO foreign ministers had negotiated an agreement -- remember the Finnish President had done shuttle diplomacy between Moscow and Belgrade -- that integrated Russian Peace Keepers into the American, British and French Kosovo zones -- and gave the Russians part of the responsibility for operating the airport. The Airport had a very detailed plan -- British, Dutch and Russian troops all had pieces of it, but the UN was also to operate part of the facility for governance and relief organizations.

The Russian Defense Ministry disagreed with the Foreign Ministry because the Russians had not been granted their own Zone. They wanted what became the French Zone (because it had more Serbs) and they were planning to run it much like they ran E. Berlin. The Foreign Ministry and Yeltsin found they could not control the Defense Ministry -- it was the Defense Ministry that ordered the Russian Ground troops in Bosnia to go to Kosovo without any coordination with the rest of the Russian Government. This was a huge embarassment to Yeltsin and the Russian Foreign Ministry.

Clark actually solved the problem by going to the "Partners for Peace" members in E. Europe (Romania, Bulgaria, etc.) and asking them not to grant the Russians overflight rights so they could reinforce their peacekeepers at the Pristina airport. It worked. They were grounded in Russia, and the Russians didn't even have the means to provide food and water for their troops at the Airport. Then the British-Dutch-UN group that was to cooperate with the Russians in operating the airport stepped in, and negotiated the details of cooperation and that was the end of the game. About nine months later the Russians asked out of the Airport responsibility as it was a drain on resources to participate in operating a large airport. The Russians I believe still participate in Kosovo peacekeeping in three sectors -- the German, the American and the British.

This is a pretty good debunking of a fairly popular slam against Clark. Ive seen the Incident at Pristina come up here at DU from the left as a means of discredting Clark, so its not just the right thats using it...

The issue as described by someone who looks at the historical record rather than the sound bite, is also revealing as to how Clark works. He is a very savy diplomat and a person with a great amount of personal experience with "real" world politics. What I liked about the explaination is that it go beyond "no he didn't---yes, he did" and into the details.

Yes, I had seen the accusations first in this forum. I do not want to support a wacko and this election is too important. Discovering the truth now, could save us from a flame out we can't afford. That's what made me hunt out the facts, and what made me copy/paste the answer for future reference, is that I couldn't remember it all if I tried. I had to ask permission of the originator before I could post the writing. I hope this sets the record straight, but I have a feeling I may have to dig it out again.

http://www.bartcop.com/

She'd Do ANYTHING For A Democrat w/Balls

What a bunch of losers.

NT

They're going to be slammed and lied about. It's a "genetic" defect of Republicans.
Good job countering their lies on this forum.

"Kucinich is a keeper!!"