Wesley Clark Demonstrates Partisan Stupidity

[Guest]

To further his ambitions....HIS AMBITIONS....he swerves away from who he was supposed to be supporting (Obama) and puts both of his feet in his mouth.

Another demonstration where partisan politics is shown to be non productive with no value added. Name calling, dis crediting attempts, hey look what the other did...didn't do...and on and on and on.

Why is it politicians can not project THEIR value by projecting THEIR merits...THEIR accomplishments....easy answer....that requires credibility and it is much easier to sling mud than stand on one's own merits.

In this case his uncalled for snipping bit both him and the candidate he was supposed to be reporting. An arrogant military upper classman who thinks he is still in uniform and say what he wants.....and right or wrong doesn't matter.

One Nation under GOD....indivisible......these days.......just words.....no meaning....and certainly no commitment to a better America.

How long before society purges this mutant strain anti establishmentarianism????

BTK

[Guest]

Couldn't help but notice how quickly Obama distanced himself from Clark and disavowed his comments. Too bad he didn't act as quickly regarding the hateful comments of his pastor.

[Guest]

I remember that back in September, 2007 when the New York Times ran the moveon.org add saying, "General Betray Us" referring to General Petraeus. That was disgusting and detrimental to our troops.
Obama would not sign on with other Senators decrying that statement. So when he now distances himself yet again from one his surrogate's ridiculous comments, to me it's just rings false and shows his true character.

[Guest]

A great comparison is to listen to what Clark said about Kerry at the Democratic convention and how his being in the war made him such a great candidate and now saying just the opposite about McCain. Such a two faced SOB. Obama better distance himself a long long way from him.

[Guest]

And if Clark had said something wonderful about McCain, you'd all be praising him. Personally I think he had a point - how does flying a fighter plane make him more qualified to be president?

[Guest]

NO, I certainly would NOT Littledancer. The following by Col. Hackworth is the record on Wesley Clark:

DEFENDING AMERICA
David H. Hackworth
August 9, 1999

A PERFUMED PRINCE GETS THE AXE

NATO's General Wesley Clark is the first military leader in our country's recent history who won a war without receiving a Fifth Avenue parade.
Instead of being lionized, he got just what the rest of the U.S. Army has gotten in the last decade: downsized. The Pentagon's spin is, "This is a normal rotation, his tour was just shortened." It was shortened, all right. A review of past NATO skippers shows they had four to five years in the job as opposed to Clark's less than three.
So what went wrong?
Was it Clark's apocalyptic order to use NATO forces for blocking Russia's end run at the Kosovo air base, or his threats to have NATO sea power stop Russian ships from supplying the Serb army with oil? Either act of bad judgement could well have triggered a nuclear war with Russia.
Was it because Clark and his flacks kept crowing about how NATO was destroying the Serb army, when in truth NATO barely laid a glove on its opponent?
Was it because Clark's $120,000 U.S. Army Mercedes -- with a reported highly classified radio system aboard -- was car-jacked while his wife used it as a personal vehicle to drive to the golf course?
Certainly these sins, plus his hot temper, abrasive style and demand for much of America's air assets to fight the Serbs, didn't exactly win fans in Washington. Like a little boy stamping his feet, he wanted everything NOW and showed no concern for the Pentagon's need to maintain global forces to cover threats from other fronts such as Iraq and North Korea.
For sure, Clark is one of the smartest guys ever to wear four stars. He finished number one in his West Point class, graduated with honors from Oxford and the National War College, was a war hero in Vietnam and as a young captain was earmarked as general officer material.
But among mud soldiers, he's known as a guy who never paid his dues with the troops in the trenches and doesn't understand the nitty- gritty of war or what motivates warriors down at the bayonet level. He's like a doctor who's brilliant at theory but dangerous with a scalpel because he hasn't been there and done that long enough to learn the skills of the trade. In 33 years of service, Clark spent only seven and one- half years in command with troops from platoon to division level-- barely enough time to learn what makes a tank platoon tick. The rest of his service was as a staff weenie, an aide, a student, at the White House or at some fat cat headquarters.
The man is not a field soldier; he's more a CEO in uniform. Perhaps an efficient manager, but not a Patton-like leader. The troops call his sort "Perfumed Princes," brass known for their micromanagement bias and slavish focus on "show over go" and covering their tails with fancy footwork. Unfortunately, today's senior Army ranks are filled with such managers -- and these kind of dweebs are why the U.S. Army is in trouble. The troops and young leaders are great. But too often the senior brass are politically correct dilettantes, out of touch with their soldiers more interested in chin straps on the points of chin than in battle-drill being executed correctly. They don't understand that everything they need to learn about leadership and combat savvy doesn't come from management books or advanced degrees.
The CEO managers started taking over from the warrior leaders during the Korean War. Slowly, the Alexander Haigs and Bernard Rogers replaced the Hank Emersons and James Hollingsworths. The "slick and quick" replaced the warriors who knew how to win wars and inspire soldiers because they'd spent most of their careers down in the dirt learning their trade the hard, old- fashioned way. Instead, with the Perfumed Princes, connections and the right punches on the career ticket have become more important than troop leading skills and inspiring soldiers by example and tough love. Looks like somebody on high finally got Clark's number and sacked him. Let's hope -- for our country's security and for the welfare of our soldiers -- that the new Army leadership team that just took over gets rid of the "Perfumed Princes" and the culture that's created them. And returns warrior leaders to the top positions.
End
Highly-decorated US military officer and later popular commentator and author on military affairs, his high-profile questioning of US strategy and tactics in the Vietnam War led to his retirement from the Army

[Guest]

LilDancer, the issue was not whether what he said was favorable to McCain or not.

The issue raised was about the current disease our politicians all suffer from.....and of course it has obviously infected the constituency......totally blind partisan positioning/pandering.

I have used Nancy Pelosi's commentary to make my point....before she became Speaker....in an interview she was asked how her response might differ from the Republicans on a given issue.....she said it didn't matter.....what ever they were proposing she would be against it!!!!!! Partisan politics at it's finest!?!?!?!?

Until such time as the polarity of this disease is cured, routed out, exorcised or what ever.....this country will NEVER return to it's prior years of greatness.

One nation under GOD......indivisible......has been reduced to merely words on a page as a result.

All of course are entitled to their opinion(s)......these are mine......had nothing to do with McCain.

BTK

[Guest]

You are right, billethkid. Similar to the politicians, themselves, there are too many of the voters who will not look at the individual but to the party ONLY. Thus, the same ol' policies and dissention continue year after year because voters are interested more in the party than the policies.

[Guest]

I’m confused. What did Clark say that was wrong? Being a prisoner of war doesn’t qualify anyone to be president. I have to agree with that.


Steve

[Guest]

I’m confused. What did Clark say that was wrong? Being a prisoner of war doesn’t qualify anyone to be president. I have to agree with that.
Steve

It doesn't - but neither does many things associated with either candidate.

Gen. Clark's opinion is his, just as mine is mine and your's is your's. It carries as much weight (maybe less).

Gen. Clark has been highly inconsistent in his endorsements and the logic behind them. He's appeared to have tried positioning himself as a potential candidate, and fallen flat on his keister. Trying to keep himself in the public eye seems to have been his main goal, and the more flamboyant the remarks, the longer the period in the limelight.

As we get closer to the Vice Presidential selection (what's really the news for the conventions!), the more we shall hear from people like Gen. Clark, who would like nothing better than a shot at V.P., or if Sen. Obama wins and he (Gen. Clark) doesn't get the V.P. nod, a shot at SecDef, SecState, or SecDHS as a consolation prize.

[Guest]

I’m confused. What did Clark say that was wrong? Being a prisoner of war doesn’t qualify anyone to be president. I have to agree with that.


Steve


I agree Steve. Whether or not Clark as any political aspirations, the statement is still accurate.

[Guest]

I agree Steve. Whether or not Clark as any political aspirations, the statement is still accurate.


...and having been a prisoner of war should not be the reason for excluding one from elected office, either. At minimum, it does show commitment to service.

[Guest]

No one's trying to exclude it. In fact, that's really all McCain's running on. That's his cornerstone. Sorry, I'm not buying.

[Guest]

A lot of people aren't buying it. I feel sorry for him that he had to endure that, but in my opinion, it certainly has nothing to do with qualifications to lead the country.

[Guest]

Ah those all encompassing magical words "...qualifications to lead the country..."

on that basis both parties apparently have a problem.

But since qualifications have nothing to do with those elected to the other branches of the government.....why be so picky about the President....he is only the titular head of all the other dupes who are not qualified.

There is also another perspective many tend to down play and that is the concept of not being qualified, but fully capable. And in this case the other branches fail here also.

And we allow it to continue. If we were truly looking for a "qualified" candidate we would go back and start the nominating procedure all over again.....unfortunately, no such luck.

So we are stuck with the fallout of what ever either candidate may or may not bring, will or won't do....will or can't do....or like the other branches of government just don't have the time, qualifications or capability to do anything.

Fortunately there are term limits on the Presidents Office.

I still think one of my previous statements is becoming more true every day this incompetence continues...the statement was.....what if today is the best it will ever be in the foreseeable future??? And with the 545 doing nothing to make a difference how could it turn out other wise????

BTK