Gen'l Clark on Meet the Press

[Undertoad]

His explanation for why Kosovo was a great idea: "less legal than Iraq, but more humanitarian" ...is a loser in every single way. It's practically incomprehensible by the educated voters and TOTALLY incomprehensible by anyone else. Moreover, it's incredibly weak, and wrong, and is probably just weaseling.

He attacked W for not having a plan pre-9/11 to deal with bin Laden. This is inappropriate and I think the people would give him hell over it.

Given only about 30 seconds of questions about anything outside foreign affairs, he described the jobs problem in bizarre terms. "A lot of people have lost their job. Some of those people have a new job. But losing your job is terrible..."

Angry Democrats want to vote for this guy because they believe his resume will beat W. Yeah, he has a great resume. He just doesn't pass the interview. I would pick almost any of the other Ds over Clark.

[warch]

I agree. The debates, interviews I have seen show him to be a very weak candidate. His experience is narrow, yes military (we know, we know) and his statements reflect that. Hes running on being a good looking general and I hope the dems out there are smarter than that.

[tw]

Originally posted by warch
His experience is narrow, yes military (we know, we know) and his statements reflect that. Hes running on being a good looking general and I hope the dems out there are smarter than that.

His experience is far more than being a general. He was one of the primary negotiators that talked Milosevik into surrendering his agenda of ethic cleansing. Among many in the field, Gen Clark is has some of the widest experience. But he is more honest and therefore not very political.

Of course when it comes to accomplishment, no one in that Balkan situation was better than Richard Holbrook. I dig for the little people who really grasp situations without a political agenda. Richard Holbrook is probably the all-star of Kosovo. Gen Clark is still a neophyte to domestic politics where spin and implication can be more important than a grasp of reality and the facts.

Look at our current president as example. All politician and virtually no comprehension about the world. We certainly did not elect him because he was a good, knowledgeable, or honest leader. 'Appearance' in a political field (first impressions, sound bytes, spin doctoring) is not the same as grasping and solving problems. Need we cite Jimmy Carter?

[xoxoxoBruce]

He was one of the primary negotiators that talked Milosevik into surrendering his agenda of ethic cleansing.

Sure gives him a strong negotiating position being a General in the US military.

Among many in the field,

What percentage of the field is many? Or are you talking about deployed in the field?

Gen Clark is has some of the widest experience.

Experience in what besides the military and threatening dictators with same?

I dig for the little people who really grasp situations without a political agenda.

How does this help getting someone elected that will make a difference? Is Holbrook running? Is he electable? If not, then how does he enter into a thread on Clark or even this election?

We certainly did not elect him because he was a good, knowledgeable, or honest leader.

And he's not, so what's your point?

Need we cite Jimmy Carter?

Sure. Carter was a noble experiment. Give peace a chance. Didn't work. Won't happen again.

[greenian]

like I've said in other posts, I'll vote whichever dem gets on the ticket. Once we get Bush out then we can worry about whether we like or dislike the new guy. But I have to say I will feel odd about voting for a man known (in the perjorative sense) as the butcher of belgrade.

[Radar]

There is NOTHING less legal than America's attacks against Iraq.

[russotto]

Originally posted by Radar
There is NOTHING less legal than America's attacks against Iraq.

Oh, please. The treatment of Jose Padilla is WAY WAY WAY less legal.

[Radar]

Oh, please. The treatment of Jose Padilla is WAY WAY WAY less legal.

No. Illegal is illegal. The treatment of Jose Padilla is extremely illegal. In fact it's 100% illegal. So is the unconstitutional, unprovoked, and unwarranted war in Iraq.

[BrianR]

Jose who?

Sheesh, be away from a news source for a few weeks and look what happens...

[tw]

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Experience in what besides the military and threatening dictators with same?

The military has little interest in officers only trained in military strategy. An education necessary for a carrer military officer must be wide ranging from engineeering to history. Only the best of the best in this training get top jobs such as the Supreme Commander of Nato - a job more political than military.

In the meantime, I suggest you learn something about the Balkan. The Balkans is a classic example of how to end civil wars, massacres, and ethnic cleansing. Milosevik was not forced by single minded military confrontation to negotiate his capitaluation. The Balkans is a wonderful example of how minimal use of force properly played in concert with political negotiation can end the reign of terroristic dictators.

Your mocking demonstrates no knowledge of how the Balkans was settled. Many key players were involved. Gen Clark was one of the key players. A lifelong political master named Holbrook was probably the star here. Talking was used to replace military invasion. A classic example of effective diplomacy.

No wonder you have so much contempt for Clark. You have no idea what he has been doing all these decades, do you. Amazing how little knowledge is necessary for xoxoxoBruce to be so critical. Since his grasp of reality is so little and his emotional superiority so great, then he must belittle others?

[xoxoxoBruce]

No wonder you have so much contempt for Clark. You have no idea what he has been doing all these decades, do you. Amazing how little knowledge is necessary for xoxoxoBruce to be so critical. Since his grasp of reality is so little and his emotional superiority so great, then he must belittle others?

Sigh, wrong again TW. I have no contempt for Clark and believe it or not for you either.
You say the military gives it's officers a good, rounded education. So what? I didn't ask what his education was. I asked what the EXPERIENCE was that you were refering to. Stop changing the subject. Attacking me isn't going to cover the fact that you could not answer the question. Once more, you said "Among many in the field, Gen Clark is has some of the widest experience." I'm asking what experience? So stop sliming and answer the question. You had to been looking in the mirror when you wrote that last sentence.

[tw]

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Once more, you said "Among many in the field, Gen Clark is has some of the widest experience." I'm asking what experience? So stop sliming and answer the question.

xoxoxoBruce -
Your latest responses are nothing more than more mocking and personal attacks on me. Your use of the word 'sliming' only demonstrates a continued contempt for anyone who does not follow your dictatorial commandments. Can you post without personsal insults or mocking another? If you don't like what I say, then respond with logical facts - not personal attacks.

Suddenly you want a logical answer? Why the sudden change in mental attitude? Yes Bruce, one personal attack in response and suddenly you are offended. What a double standard. Your latest posts - virtually everyone - is a personal attack. It would help if you first did a little reading and learning so that you can respond logically rather than with subtle insults and mockery.

I currently don't have the long list of accomplishments by Clark. He was a major negotiator for the Clinton administration in many hotspots. Coinsidered one of the most powerful and accomplished Supreme Commander of Nato. A man from Arkansas and a Rhodes scholar whose intelligence among top military men was always considered highest. His carreer was considered remarkable. That does not mean he is a good politician. McAurthur and Patton also were remarkable men. I wouldn't want either as president.

If Clark is moving to the poltical field, then it will be interesting. He still is naive. So far, his ability to control a press interview has not been spectacular. But then J F Kennedy was also a lousy Senator. But then Clinton also did not look promising this early in the campaign. I make no premature judgements on any potential candidates. Clark may not be presidential material. He may be another able administrator such as Colin Powel. Only time will tell.

Holbrook is another spectaculor man. Would he make a good president (regardless of whether he is running)? I don't know. But again, Holbrook also is another of those backroom intelligencia who really make things work. Few really understand who these people are let alone what they have accomplished.

In the meantime, Howard Dean is doing a good job of alienating me. Like George Jr, he is against free trade. He is currently kowtowing too much to the tiny liberal left wing of the Democratic party. Do I immediately disparage Dean? No. Just watch him.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Well thank you for answering the question. Your answer being you can't back up your statement about Clarks experience.
Gee, I'm not surprised, you pompous ass.:p

[Radar]

I consider any vote for a Republican or a Democrat to be a wasted vote, but GWB is the single worst president in American history. If we threw a dart at a phone book and made that person president, they'd do a better job.

I will continue to vote only for Libertarians because my conscience won't allow me to do otherwise. I will never compromise my principles even when it's tempting to do so just to remove the greater of two evils.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I will never compromise my principles even when it's tempting to do so just to remove the greater of two evils.

But your the one that ends up getting screwed by not getting the bastard out.