Miramonti
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2000
- 28,651
- 100
- 91
In what he apparently said recently, it didn't contradict his letter to the times because he used the words "acting on behalf of the administration" and not the administration itself, which is what he apparently refuted to the times.
Either case, I guarantee we'll hear more about the issue directly from him (publicly) and I'll wait til then before I conclude anything.
the people defending clark is embarrassing (who the hell would sign up for a newsletter from michael moore?).
Clark is the same guy who said he would have run as a republican if only Karl Rove had returned his call.
We won't even get into the fact that he never called the White House as he claimed. The point is
what kind of nut would base his party affiliation on a phone call? he sounds rather wishy washy.
Clark is the same guy who said he would have run as a republican if only Karl Rove had returned his call.
We won't even get into the fact that he never called the White House as he claimed. The point is
what kind of nut would base his party affiliation on a phone call? he sounds rather wishy washy.
How has he told this story in different ways?? As spinsanity puts it, "Clark's story, while ambiguously phrased at first, has actually been quite consistent."
The first comment was certainly ambiguously phrased, but he has since clarified it.
*sigh* Well, I suppose that presenting an argument either way on this topic is just totally pointless............
If I'm not mistaken, former Heisman Trophy winner and Rhodes Scholar Pete Dawkins (Major General-Retired) ran as a Republican against Frank Lautenberg in 1994 for a U.S. Senate seat from NJ.
?Clark took a burst of AK fire, but didn?t stop fighting. He stayed on the field till his mission was accomplished and his boys were safe. He was awarded the Silver Star and Purple Heart. And he earned ?em.? - Lt. Gen. James Hollingsworth
IMO, Clark showed more personal integrity and honor in that single act than Bush has Shown in an entire lifetime. I would play the patriotism card in relation to these baseless attacks, but I think the conservatives have trademarked that method.
Considering the sheer ineptitude of the "smear Clark" campaign so far, I think he may have nothing to fear. Only the most blind-hearted liberal hater would take these accusations as truthful (or even damning if true for that matter) at face value.
As far as a General having a meeting with "bad person" - as long as he doesn't make any promises on our country's behalf that he isn't authorised to, I don't have any problem with that. "Know thy enemy" - Sun Tzu.
[edit: spelling]
IMO, Clark showed more personal integrity and honor in that single act than Bush has Shown in an entire lifetime. I would play the patriotism card in relation to these baseless attacks, but I think the conservatives have trademarked that method.
Considering the sheer ineptitude of the "smear Clark" campaign so far, I think he may have nothing to fear. Only the most blind-hearted liberal hater would take these accusations as truthful (or even damning if true for that matter) at face value.
As far as a General having a meeting with "bad person" - as long as he doesn't make any promises on our country's behalf that he isn't authorised to, I don't have any problem with that. "Know thy enemy" - Sun Tzu.
[edit: spelling]
Yeah, it's funny how one side does stuff and the other side doesn't.
Hackworth has a change of heart, eh?
Well 4 years ago he had this to say. There are some pretty harsh words in there. I guess that was before he knew Clark was a democrat. Of course he didn't know Clark was a democrat because no one knew he was a democrat until 3 weeks ago. Anyway, I find Hack's change of heart to be slightly suspicious.
DEFENDING AMERICA
David H. Hackworth
April 20, 1999
CLARK AND VIETNAM.
NATO's Wesley Clark is not the Iron Duke, nor is he Stormin' Norman. Unlike Wellington and Schwarzkopf, Clark's not a muddy boots soldier. He's a military politician, without the right stuff to produce victory over Serbia.
Known by those who've served with him as the "Ultimate Perfumed Prince," he's far more comfortable in a drawing room discussing political theories than hunkering down in the trenches where bullets fly and soldiers die. An intellectual in warrior's gear. A saying attributed to General George Patton was that it took 10 years with troops alone before an officer knew how to empty a bucket of spit As a serving soldier with 33 years of active duty under his pistol belt, Clark's commanded combat units -- rifle platoon to tank division - for only seven years. The rest of his career's been spent as an aide, an executive, a student and teacher and a staff weenie.
Very much like generals Maxwell Taylor and William Westmoreland, the architect and carpenter of the Vietnam disaster, Clark was earmarked and then groomed early in his career for big things. At West Point he graduated No. 1 in his class, and even though the Vietnam War was raging and chewing up lieutenants faster than a machine gun can spit death, he was seconded to Oxford for two years of contemplating instead of to the trenches to lead a platoon.
A year after graduating Oxford, he was sent to Vietnam, where, as a combat leader for several months, he was bloodied and muddied. Unlike most of his classmates, who did multiple combat tours in the killing fields of Southeast Asia, he spent the rest of the war sheltered in the ivy towers of West Point or learning power games first hand as a White House fellow.
The war with Serbia has been going full tilt for almost a month and Clark's NATO is like a giant standing on a concrete pad wielding a sledgehammer crushing Serbian ants. Yet, with all its awesome might, NATO hasn't won a round. Instead, Milosovic is still calling all the shots from his Belgrade bunker, and all that's left for Clark is to react. Milosevic plays the fiddle and Clark dances the jig. 'Stormin' Norman or any good infantry sergeant major would have told Clark that conventional air power alone could never win a war -- it must be accompanied by boots on the ground.
German air power didn't beat Britain. Allied air power didn't beat Germany. More air power than was used against the Japanese and Germans combined didn't win in Vietnam. Forty three days of pummeling in the open desert where there was no place to hide didn't KO Saddam. That fight ended only when Schwarzkopf unleashed the steel ground fist he'd carefully positioned before the first bomb fell.
Doing military things exactly backwards, the scholar general is now, according to a high ranking Pentagon source, in "total panic mode" as he tries to mass the air and ground forces he finally figured out he needs to win the initiative. Mass is a principle of war. Clark has violated this rule along with the other eight vital principles. Any mud soldier will tell you if you don't follow the principles of war you lose.
One of the salient reasons Wellington whipped Napoleon in 1815 at Waterloo is that the Corsican piecemealed his forces. Clark's done the same thing with his air power. He started with leisurely pinpricks and now is attempting to increase the pain against an opponent with an almost unlimited threshold. Similar gradualism was one of the reasons for defeat in Vietnam.
Another mistake Clark's made is not knowing his enemy. Taylor and Westmoreland made this same error in Vietnam. Like the Vietnamese, the Serbs are fanatic warriors who know better than to fight conventionally in open formations. They'll use the rugged terrain and bomber bad weather to conduct the guerrilla operations they've been preparing for over 50 years.
And they're damn good at partisan warfare. Just ask any German 70 years or older if a fight in Serbia will be another Desert Storm. It's the smart general who knows when to retreat. If Clark lets pride stand in the way of military judgment, expect a long and bloody war.
Clark bad, no wait, Clark good, can't make up my mind
Well 4 years ago he had this to say. There are some pretty harsh words in there. I guess that was before he knew Clark was a democrat. Of course he didn't know Clark was a democrat because no one knew he was a democrat until 3 weeks ago. Anyway, I find Hack's change of heart to be slightly suspicious.
DEFENDING AMERICA
David H. Hackworth
April 20, 1999
CLARK AND VIETNAM.
NATO's Wesley Clark is not the Iron Duke, nor is he Stormin' Norman. Unlike Wellington and Schwarzkopf, Clark's not a muddy boots soldier. He's a military politician, without the right stuff to produce victory over Serbia.
Known by those who've served with him as the "Ultimate Perfumed Prince," he's far more comfortable in a drawing room discussing political theories than hunkering down in the trenches where bullets fly and soldiers die. An intellectual in warrior's gear. A saying attributed to General George Patton was that it took 10 years with troops alone before an officer knew how to empty a bucket of spit As a serving soldier with 33 years of active duty under his pistol belt, Clark's commanded combat units -- rifle platoon to tank division - for only seven years. The rest of his career's been spent as an aide, an executive, a student and teacher and a staff weenie.
Very much like generals Maxwell Taylor and William Westmoreland, the architect and carpenter of the Vietnam disaster, Clark was earmarked and then groomed early in his career for big things. At West Point he graduated No. 1 in his class, and even though the Vietnam War was raging and chewing up lieutenants faster than a machine gun can spit death, he was seconded to Oxford for two years of contemplating instead of to the trenches to lead a platoon.
A year after graduating Oxford, he was sent to Vietnam, where, as a combat leader for several months, he was bloodied and muddied. Unlike most of his classmates, who did multiple combat tours in the killing fields of Southeast Asia, he spent the rest of the war sheltered in the ivy towers of West Point or learning power games first hand as a White House fellow.
The war with Serbia has been going full tilt for almost a month and Clark's NATO is like a giant standing on a concrete pad wielding a sledgehammer crushing Serbian ants. Yet, with all its awesome might, NATO hasn't won a round. Instead, Milosovic is still calling all the shots from his Belgrade bunker, and all that's left for Clark is to react. Milosevic plays the fiddle and Clark dances the jig. 'Stormin' Norman or any good infantry sergeant major would have told Clark that conventional air power alone could never win a war -- it must be accompanied by boots on the ground.
German air power didn't beat Britain. Allied air power didn't beat Germany. More air power than was used against the Japanese and Germans combined didn't win in Vietnam. Forty three days of pummeling in the open desert where there was no place to hide didn't KO Saddam. That fight ended only when Schwarzkopf unleashed the steel ground fist he'd carefully positioned before the first bomb fell.
Doing military things exactly backwards, the scholar general is now, according to a high ranking Pentagon source, in "total panic mode" as he tries to mass the air and ground forces he finally figured out he needs to win the initiative. Mass is a principle of war. Clark has violated this rule along with the other eight vital principles. Any mud soldier will tell you if you don't follow the principles of war you lose.
One of the salient reasons Wellington whipped Napoleon in 1815 at Waterloo is that the Corsican piecemealed his forces. Clark's done the same thing with his air power. He started with leisurely pinpricks and now is attempting to increase the pain against an opponent with an almost unlimited threshold. Similar gradualism was one of the reasons for defeat in Vietnam.
Another mistake Clark's made is not knowing his enemy. Taylor and Westmoreland made this same error in Vietnam. Like the Vietnamese, the Serbs are fanatic warriors who know better than to fight conventionally in open formations. They'll use the rugged terrain and bomber bad weather to conduct the guerrilla operations they've been preparing for over 50 years.
And they're damn good at partisan warfare. Just ask any German 70 years or older if a fight in Serbia will be another Desert Storm. It's the smart general who knows when to retreat. If Clark lets pride stand in the way of military judgment, expect a long and bloody war.
Clark bad, no wait, Clark good, can't make up my mind
What's so suspicious? Reading the article, Hackworth was assuming Clark was behind the unwillingness to use ground troops. The fact of the matter appears to be that Clark was pushing for ground troops and prohibited from using that option by William Cohen. Hackworth says himself that he has since corrected his misunderstanding by researching the matter.
"Another mistake Clark's made is not knowing his enemy." - Given the recent reports that Clark met at least one of "the enemy" face to face (oh, horror), I would say this was also an innacurate complaint.
"expect a long and bloody war." - I think that line is standard operating procedure for any Op-Ed piece before any major U.S. engagement.
Aside from "nation building" complaints, and the idiotic snafu of bombing the Chinese embassy (ultimately blamed on out-of-date maps), the Kosovo operation went fairly well from the perspective of the military achieving a clearly laid out objective. Not to mention the minor diplomatic difference of being able to keep our major NATO allies on our side throughout the conflict and afterwards.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
Facebook
Twitter