General Clark on Tim Russet's program meet the press

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Inquiring minds want to know.
-----------------------------
Isn't it interesting how people say that when they mean exactly the opposite.

WTF is wrong with asking who "people around the White House" are? If one makes allegations then why in the hell don't they conclusively and accurately back them up instead of employing generalities? If General Clark has a legitamate case, it should be heard.

No, no, wait, don't answer those questions. The trees standout much more than the forest in this particular instance.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: burnedout

OK, fine. However, who are "people around the White House", General Clark? Who are the supposed "they"? Inquiring minds want to know.[/quote]

I would guess Rumsfeld or Wolfowitz (for the people within the White House) and Richard Perle as the person outside the whitehouse.
I understand your skepticism, but when Rumsfeld was trying to link 9/11 with Iraq just hours after the attacks, Clark's story has plenty of credibility.

With the intelligence all pointing toward bin Laden, Rumsfeld ordered the military to begin working on strike plans. And at 2:40 p.m., the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H." ? meaning Saddam Hussein ? "at same time. Not only UBL" ? the initials used to identify Osama bin Laden.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: burnedout

OK, fine. However, who are "people around the White House", General Clark? Who are the supposed "they"? Inquiring minds want to know.

I would guess Rumsfeld or Wolfowitz (for the people within the White House) and Richard Perle as the person outside the whitehouse.
I understand your skepticism, but when Rumsfeld was trying to link 9/11 with Iraq just hours after the attacks, Clark's story has plenty of credibility.

With the intelligence all pointing toward bin Laden, Rumsfeld ordered the military to begin working on strike plans. And at 2:40 p.m., the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H." ? meaning Saddam Hussein ? "at same time. Not only UBL" ? the initials used to identify Osama bin Laden.

[/quote]


This article you link also relies in unnamed sources.

That's according to notes taken by aides who were with Rumsfeld in the National Military Command Center on Sept. 11 ? notes that show exactly where the road toward war with Iraq began, reports CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin.

But given what happened on 9/11, I would fully expect our military to start work on plans for countries that would be suspected of executing this act of terror.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: burnedout

OK, fine. However, who are "people around the White House", General Clark? Who are the supposed "they"? Inquiring minds want to know.

I would guess Rumsfeld or Wolfowitz (for the people within the White House) and Richard Perle as the person outside the whitehouse.
I understand your skepticism, but when Rumsfeld was trying to link 9/11 with Iraq just hours after the attacks, Clark's story has plenty of credibility.

With the intelligence all pointing toward bin Laden, Rumsfeld ordered the military to begin working on strike plans. And at 2:40 p.m., the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H." ? meaning Saddam Hussein ? "at same time. Not only UBL" ? the initials used to identify Osama bin Laden.

This article you link also relies in unnamed sources.

That's according to notes taken by aides who were with Rumsfeld in the National Military Command Center on Sept. 11 ? notes that show exactly where the road toward war with Iraq began, reports CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin.

But given what happened on 9/11, I would fully expect our military to start work on plans for countries that would be suspected of executing this act of terror.[/quote]

So you think both Clark and these unnamed sources are the same person, or they are both lying??
And why would they be drawing up plans for Iraq when "the intelligence (was) all pointing toward bin Laden"??

 

[Moonbeam]

But given what happened on 9/11, I would fully expect our military to start work on plans for countries that would be suspected of executing this act of terror.
---------------------------------------------
How easily your mind slides from that to please blame Iraq. They are by orders of magnitude different things.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Oh man, the guy's a flake:

Wesley Clark is one of the nation?s most distinguished retired military officers. During his thirty-four years of service in the United States Army, he held numerous staff and command positions, rising to the rank of 4-star general. From 1997 through 2000, General Clark was NATO Supreme Allied Commander and Commander in Chief of the United States European Command. In this role, General Clark commanded Operation Allied Force, NATO?s first major combat action, which saved 1.5 million Albanians from ethnic cleansing in Kosovo.

[d]Clark is a 1966 graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point where he ranked first in his class. He holds a Master?s Degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics from Oxford University where he was a Rhodes Scholar. Clark is a recipient of numerous U.S. and foreign military awards, including the Silver Star, two Bronze Stars, and a Purple Heart, dating back to his experience fighting in Vietnam. He has received honorary Knighthoods from the British and Dutch governments and was made a commander of the French Legion of Honor. In 2000, Clark was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation?s highest civilian honor.[/b]

Now in the private sector, Clark is chairman and CEO of Wesley K. Clark & Associates, a strategic advisory and consulting firm, serves on the boards of several private corporations and non-profit organizations, and comments regularly on politics, diplomacy and public affairs. An acclaimed public speaker and commentator for CNN, he is the author of the best-selling "Waging Modern War: Bosnia, Kosovo, and the Future of Combat." Clark is also the Chairman of the Board for "Leadership for America," a non-partisan, non-profit educational organization dedicated to fostering the national dialogue about America's future.

This is nothing compared to Shinerburke. He is the one that refills the slurpee machine at 7-11. Slurpee machine attendent > 4 star general.

Ummm hmmm...nice try buddy. I would be willing to wager that I have a better job and make a whole helluva lot more $ than you.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: burnedout
So General Clark is thinking about the presidency? Alrighty then, let's look at the "good" and "bad" for one moment.

"Good": Graduated with honors from two distinguished schools. Retired General with 35 years of active service. Has experience in Washington albeit in a military capacity. Because he retired at the pinnacle of his career, he probably earns a rather comfortable, six-figure salary from board of director positions coupled with military retirement pay. A very good speaker, IMO. I've personally spoken with him (at the position of attention - heh) and received the impression that he was indeed a good military leader.

"Bad": To begin with, he was party of that "conflict" no one likes to talk much about. Yes sir, "conflict" as in 58,000+ dead Americans and 2 million+ dead Vietnamese. The same "conflict" many posters here so conveniently and purposely avoid while ranting incessantly about the supposedly ate-up posture of the current regime. If you think the conpiracy theorists enjoy remotely linking Colin Powell to My Lai with thinly-veiled accusations, they are gonna love General Clark. One can envision the words "warmonger and "baby killer" emitting from the keyboard of some worthless fatass on a daily basis if this gentleman runs.

Then the Balken conflict emerges with its own various charges of bombing civilians. But wait! They were Serbians and not Iraqis, so there IS a difference, right? OK, cool.

We finally conclude on the subject of political experience. Outside of staff positions within the confrontational environment of the Army, how much does he really have?

CLARK: "Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But--I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence."

OK, fine. However, who are "people around the White House", General Clark? Who are the supposed "they"? Inquiring minds want to know.

Exactly what I was trying to say. You said it much better though. Seeing Clark during the war with Iraq just left a bad taste in my mouth. It seemed every opportunity he had he went after the people planning and carrying out the war instead of giving them his support. I can't tell you how many times I heard him question something that General Franks was doing and imply that he wasn't doing a good job. Especially during those couple of days when everyone got their panties in a wad and were saying we were "bogged down" and the troops were in the field without food or ammo. Clark was all over Franks and his staff at that time. Saying they had failed to plan properly, how the war was taking a turn for the worse, how we had jumped into this too quickly. Well guess what, he was wrong.

 

[LunarRay]

Ummm hmmm...nice try buddy. I would be willing to wager that I have a better job and make a whole helluva lot more $ than you

*************

Break out the rulers.... It's measuring time..... What happens if we all lie..?

 

[LunarRay]

Shinner,
Exactly what I was trying to say. You said it much better though. Seeing Clark during the war with Iraq just left a bad taste in my mouth. It seemed every opportunity he had he went after the people planning and carrying out the war instead of giving them his support. I can't tell you how many times I heard him question something that General Franks was doing and imply that he wasn't doing a good job. Especially during those couple of days when everyone got their panties in a wad and were saying we were "bogged down" and the troops were in the field without food or ammo. Clark was all over Franks and his staff at that time. Saying they had failed to plan properly, how the war was taking a turn for the worse, how we had jumped into this too quickly. Well guess what, he was wrong
***********************

He was acting in the role of expert ... calling it like he saw it... bit o honesty.... is all.

I would like to have more honest reporting from folks who understand what it is they are looking at... wouldn't everyone? Perhaps not...

 

[Moonbeam]

Especially during those couple of days when everyone got their panties in a wad and were saying we were "bogged down" and the troops were in the field without food or ammo. Clark was all over Franks and his staff at that time. Saying they had failed to plan properly, how the war was taking a turn for the worse, how we had jumped into this too quickly. Well guess what, he was wrong.
------------------------------------
Now shiner, are you sure you're not coloring this to your taste? He was all over Franks or he offered critical constructive advise? I'm not sure I trust your judgment since I've watched you here on fox news, I mean ATOT and ATP&N even though you earn much bucks. After all with all your money and Franks possible up for Democratic office and a tax boost to you, why I think you can understand why I don't believe a single thing you say. You are clearly biased and probably not first in your class. Also I heard the reporters talking about being low on rations and down to a meal a day. Obviously there were f'ups, it's just that they weren't fatal ones. The Iraqis really didn't fight. The immediate, nuclear reconstituted, threat of a country was walked over in three weeks.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: burnedout

OK, fine. However, who are "people around the White House", General Clark? Who are the supposed "they"? Inquiring minds want to know.

I would guess Rumsfeld or Wolfowitz (for the people within the White House) and Richard Perle as the person outside the whitehouse.
I understand your skepticism, but when Rumsfeld was trying to link 9/11 with Iraq just hours after the attacks, Clark's story has plenty of credibility.

With the intelligence all pointing toward bin Laden, Rumsfeld ordered the military to begin working on strike plans. And at 2:40 p.m., the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H." ? meaning Saddam Hussein ? "at same time. Not only UBL" ? the initials used to identify Osama bin Laden.

This article you link also relies in unnamed sources.

That's according to notes taken by aides who were with Rumsfeld in the National Military Command Center on Sept. 11 ? notes that show exactly where the road toward war with Iraq began, reports CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin.

But given what happened on 9/11, I would fully expect our military to start work on plans for countries that would be suspected of executing this act of terror.

So you think both Clark and these unnamed sources are the same person, or they are both lying??
And why would they be drawing up plans for Iraq when "the intelligence (was) all pointing toward bin Laden"??[/quote]


We do not know who these unnamed sources, so until names are named this only amounts to rumor. In the hours, days after following 9/11 I would expect the military to develop contigency plans for any and all nations that might have been involved in the attack. This is the job of the military, so dont act to surprised.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Especially during those couple of days when everyone got their panties in a wad and were saying we were "bogged down" and the troops were in the field without food or ammo. Clark was all over Franks and his staff at that time. Saying they had failed to plan properly, how the war was taking a turn for the worse, how we had jumped into this too quickly. Well guess what, he was wrong.
------------------------------------
Now shiner, are you sure you're not coloring this to your taste? He was all over Franks or he offered critical constructive advise? I'm not sure I trust your judgment since I've watched you here on fox news, I mean ATOT and ATP&N even though you earn much bucks. After all with all your money and Franks possible up for Democratic office and a tax boost to you, why I think you can understand why I don't believe a single thing you say. You are clearly biased and probably not first in your class. Also I heard the reporters talking about being low on rations and down to a meal a day. Obviously there were f'ups, it's just that they weren't fatal ones. The Iraqis really didn't fight. The immediate, nuclear reconstituted, threat of a country was walked over in three weeks.

Yeah...I don't like Clark because if he was President he would raise my taxes. Nice leap of logic there. Hell it's unknown if he would run as a Democrat or a Republican.

Yes there were some ration shortages for a day or two in the war but that was because it was going so well, not lack of planning. The troops were moving faster and farther than could have ever been anticipated, luckily it was not a major disruption. Still that was no reason for all the hand wringing that went on in the media about it. Was Clark offering constructive criticism? No, there were several times he flat out said he thought Franks had failed to plan properly and that the war plan was a bad one and would have been different had he been in charge. That's not constructive criticism, that's undercutting a general commanding a war.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Shinner,
Exactly what I was trying to say. You said it much better though. Seeing Clark during the war with Iraq just left a bad taste in my mouth. It seemed every opportunity he had he went after the people planning and carrying out the war instead of giving them his support. I can't tell you how many times I heard him question something that General Franks was doing and imply that he wasn't doing a good job. Especially during those couple of days when everyone got their panties in a wad and were saying we were "bogged down" and the troops were in the field without food or ammo. Clark was all over Franks and his staff at that time. Saying they had failed to plan properly, how the war was taking a turn for the worse, how we had jumped into this too quickly. Well guess what, he was wrong
***********************

He was acting in the role of expert ... calling it like he saw it... bit o honesty.... is all.

I would like to have more honest reporting from folks who understand what it is they are looking at... wouldn't everyone? Perhaps not...

I would like reporting from an expert without an agenda. Again, the general on Fox News who's name I can't think of was dead on with everything I can remember him saying. It was like he had a pipeline into the Pentagon. Which may have been the case. There was also an ex general on MSNBC who did a good job but I can't remember his name either.

 

[Moonbeam]

Nope shiner, I'm not buying it. Clearly your fear of taxes has biased your judghment and you can't be trusted to report objectively. And the way you bash Clark by calling him a general basher just tells me you see yourself in him. Sorry

 

[LunarRay]

Shinner,
I would like reporting from an expert without an agenda. Again, the general on Fox News who's name I can't think of was dead on with everything I can remember him saying. It was like he had a pipeline into the Pentagon. Which may have been the case. There was also an ex general on MSNBC who did a good job but I can't remember his name either


Did you know he had asperations other then retirement and expert analysis presenter as you viewed his dialog?
I'm wondering about bias..
I heard him too and heard him qualify alot.. he also said this or that would be the worst case but it could be this or that... I found him honest and informative.. given he was not there and did not know the battle plan... Like when he opined about the 250KM exposed flank that the speed of advance caused... He said it was and the slow down may be to catch up..

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: burnedout
Exactly what I was trying to say. You said it much better though. Seeing Clark during the war with Iraq just left a bad taste in my mouth. It seemed every opportunity he had he went after the people planning and carrying out the war instead of giving them his support. I can't tell you how many times I heard him question something that General Franks was doing and imply that he wasn't doing a good job. Especially during those couple of days when everyone got their panties in a wad and were saying we were "bogged down" and the troops were in the field without food or ammo. Clark was all over Franks and his staff at that time. Saying they had failed to plan properly, how the war was taking a turn for the worse, how we had jumped into this too quickly. Well guess what, he was wrong.

Here was what struck me most about General Clark's operational analysis of the conflict, in my semi-qualified opinion. He seemed both tactically and doctrinally removed from the conflict. If one examines his command positions held from a chronological standpoint, one can then deduce the reasoning behind his remarks. His commentary came off many times as extremely generalized even for the civilian audience, IMO. His synchronization with real-time just wasn't there. To me, his injection of incompetence on General Frank's behalf was totally uncalled for. Here was a retired General illustrating the shortcomings of a former peer/subordinate to stroke his own ego. The more I ponder the situation, the more I can now interpret ties to a form of political skullduggery.

My comments above indicate that General Clark was a 'good', not 'great' military leader. 'Great' defines someone such as General Schwarzkopf in the modern sense. Hard-charging, aggressive, rugged, charismatic, decisive, motivational and likely missing a couple of brain cells describes the truly great, American military leader. After meeting General Clark some years ago, I came away with the impression of a general officer who is neither motivational nor charismatic, but more politically inclined. So indeed, many actions on his behalf now make sense regarding the true character of the man. Therefore, in my opinon, his integrity can easily be called into question.

 

[Moonbeam]

Here was what struck me most about burnedout's operational analysis of General Clark, in my semi-qualified opinion. He seemed both tactically and doctrinally involved in the conflict. If one examines his post positions held from a chronological standpoint, one can then deduce the reasoning behind his remarks. His commentary came off many times as extremely right winged even for the ATOT audience, IMO. His synchronization with real-time just isn't there. To me, his injection of bias on General Clarks behalf was totally uncalled for. Here was a retired General illustrating the shortcomings of a former peer/subordinate to warn of dangers our troops might face. The more I ponder the situation, the more I can now interpret ties to a form of political skullduggery. We are dealing with another Republican ditto head with a sudden new conception on how to twist the facts.

My comments above indicate that General Clark was a 'good', if not 'great' military leader. 'Great' and let me assure you I know who is great since I am too, defines someone such as General Clark in the modern sense. Hard-charging, aggressive, rugged, charismatic, decisive, motivational and likely suffused with extra brain cells describes the truly great, American military leader. After meeting General Clark some years ago, as a representative and Plenipotentiary of the Zyborg Confederacy, I came away with the impression of a general officer who is both motivational nor charismatic, but and even politically responsibly inclined. So indeed, all of a sudden and out of nowhere, many actions on his behalf now make sense regarding the true character of the man. Therefore, in my opinion, his integrity can't possibly be called into question. But then of course I am the leading galactic specialist in the psyche of man.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Here was what struck me most about burnedout's operational analysis of General Clark, in my semi-qualified opinion. He seemed both tactically and doctrinally involved in the conflict. If one examines his post positions held from a chronological standpoint, one can then deduce the reasoning behind his remarks. His commentary came off many times as extremely right winged even for the ATOT audience, IMO. His synchronization with real-time just isn't there. To me, his injection of bias on General Clarks behalf was totally uncalled for. Here was a retired General illustrating the shortcomings of a former peer/subordinate to warn of dangers our troops might face. The more I ponder the situation, the more I can now interpret ties to a form of political skullduggery. We are dealing with another Republican ditto head with a sudden new conception on how to twist the facts.

My comments above indicate that General Clark was a 'good', if not 'great' military leader. 'Great' and let me assure you I know who is great since I am too, defines someone such as General Clark in the modern sense. Hard-charging, aggressive, rugged, charismatic, decisive, motivational and likely suffused with extra brain cells describes the truly great, American military leader. After meeting General Clark some years ago, as a representative and Plenipotentiary of the Zyborg Confederacy, I came away with the impression of a general officer who is both motivational nor charismatic, but and even politically responsibly inclined. So indeed, all of a sudden and out of nowhere, many actions on his behalf now make sense regarding the true character of the man. Therefore, in my opinion, his integrity can't possibly be called into question. But then of course I am the leading galactic specialist in the psyche of man.

As usual you have diarrhea of the mouth...

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Here was what struck me most about burnedout's operational analysis of General Clark, in my semi-qualified opinion. He seemed both tactically and doctrinally involved in the conflict. If one examines his post positions held from a chronological standpoint, one can then deduce the reasoning behind his remarks. His commentary came off many times as extremely right winged even for the ATOT audience, IMO. His synchronization with real-time just isn't there. To me, his injection of bias on General Clarks behalf was totally uncalled for. Here was a retired General illustrating the shortcomings of a former peer/subordinate to warn of dangers our troops might face. The more I ponder the situation, the more I can now interpret ties to a form of political skullduggery. We are dealing with another Republican ditto head with a sudden new conception on how to twist the facts.

My comments above indicate that General Clark was a 'good', if not 'great' military leader. 'Great' and let me assure you I know who is great since I am too, defines someone such as General Clark in the modern sense. Hard-charging, aggressive, rugged, charismatic, decisive, motivational and likely suffused with extra brain cells describes the truly great, American military leader. After meeting General Clark some years ago, as a representative and Plenipotentiary of the Zyborg Confederacy, I came away with the impression of a general officer who is both motivational nor charismatic, but and even politically responsibly inclined. So indeed, all of a sudden and out of nowhere, many actions on his behalf now make sense regarding the true character of the man. Therefore, in my opinion, his integrity can't possibly be called into question. But then of course I am the leading galactic specialist in the psyche of man.

As usual you have diarrhea of the mouth...

Moonbeam's thesis makes more sense then the defense of the Conservative Neo-Con Agenda... If we deal with the message only and not try to slam the messenger we may all be agape from the taste of reality.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Here was what struck me most about burnedout's operational analysis of General Clark, in my semi-qualified opinion. He seemed both tactically and doctrinally involved in the conflict. If one examines his post positions held from a chronological standpoint, one can then deduce the reasoning behind his remarks. His commentary came off many times as extremely right winged even for the ATOT audience, IMO. His synchronization with real-time just isn't there. To me, his injection of bias on General Clarks behalf was totally uncalled for. Here was a retired General illustrating the shortcomings of a former peer/subordinate to warn of dangers our troops might face. The more I ponder the situation, the more I can now interpret ties to a form of political skullduggery. We are dealing with another Republican ditto head with a sudden new conception on how to twist the facts.

My comments above indicate that General Clark was a 'good', if not 'great' military leader. 'Great' and let me assure you I know who is great since I am too, defines someone such as General Clark in the modern sense. Hard-charging, aggressive, rugged, charismatic, decisive, motivational and likely suffused with extra brain cells describes the truly great, American military leader. After meeting General Clark some years ago, as a representative and Plenipotentiary of the Zyborg Confederacy, I came away with the impression of a general officer who is both motivational nor charismatic, but and even politically responsibly inclined. So indeed, all of a sudden and out of nowhere, many actions on his behalf now make sense regarding the true character of the man. Therefore, in my opinion, his integrity can't possibly be called into question. But then of course I am the leading galactic specialist in the psyche of man.

As usual you have diarrhea of the mouth...

Yes, he does. However, at least he has a point.

 

[Corn]

Yes, he does. However, at least he has a point.

What point? Don't judge the message by virture of the messenger? Perhaps that point would be valid if it were the devil quoting scripture....... But what if the message is merely anecdotal with no corroborative evidence in support?

What do I see? Burnedout offering an opinion of the messenger based upon his own personal observations of the man and other prior life experiences, leading to his questioning the veracity of Mr. Clark's account of what happened shortly after 9/11.

To the thoughtful reader, Burnedout's opinion is of equal weight to Mr. Clark's "accounting" of the phone call he says he got from the whitehouse. What's the difference? Burnedout provided specific accounts that provided the basis for his skepticism, Mr. Clark did not. If Mr. Clark was so very offended by this supposed phone call, why not out with it? What would he have to lose? It's not like he didn't already burn bridges with the current administration 3 months ago--he's already out of the loop for sure (would that piss off a retired general?), what's he got to lose in naming a name?

The thoughtful reader ponders these questions. Moonbeam likes the message Mr. Clark preaches, therefore he has no need to ask these questions for they fit his narrowminded view of the Bush administration.

 

[Moonbeam]

The thoughtful reader ponders these questions. Moonbeam likes the message Mr. Clark preaches, therefore he has no need to ask these questions for they fit his narrowminded view of the Bush administration.
---------------------------------------------------
Where did you see me support the veracity of Clark's claims. Us thoughtful thinkers, unlike the ones who claim to be, were merely pointing out that a an attempt at a thoughtful consideration of Clark's claims was in the process of being assaulted and excluded from consideration by the biased claims of the shiner-out crowd. I posted a claim, the assassins came to do in the claimants veracity so I went after theirs. Fairs fair, right. It says nothing about whether I buy into Clark. What's your thoughtful reaction to what he had to say, slime the messenger too?

 

[Corn]

Where did you see me support the veracity of Clark's claims.

You expect me to believe that you hadn't already considered Clark's claims prior to posting them without comment?

Us thoughtful thinkers, unlike the ones who claim to be, were merely pointing out that a an attempt at a thoughtful consideration of Clark's claims was in the process of being assaulted and excluded from consideration by the biased claims of the shiner-out crowd.

The point still remains--when presenting unverifiable evidence, one must consider the source of that evidence. Shiner's argument is as strong as Clark's. You didn't attack Clark's argument or evidence, but you did Shiner's and Burnedout's simply because you didn't agree with their message.

Actions speak louder than words Moonie, you had your mind made up before this thread came to pass.....Likewise did Shiner and Burnedout later on, at least they were being honest about their bias....

 

[LunarRay]

Well what about the telephone calls... if they were made (lets just suppose that the General told the truth) and the content (lets just suppose the General is not senile) was as he recalled... what do you make of it?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Corn

Where did you see me support the veracity of Clark's claims.

You expect me to believe that you hadn't already considered Clark's claims prior to posting them without comment?
OH MAN, CORN, I EXPECTED YOU TO NOTICE I DREW NO PUBLIC CONCLUSION AND DIDN'T ATTACK CLARK BY PERSON. SOMEBODY ELSE DID SO I GAVE THEM THE SAME. IN A MOMENT YOU ARE GOING TO TELL ME THAT ACTIONS SPEAK LOUNDER THAN WORDS, BUT YOU SARE HERE SAYING THAT YOUR INTERPRETATION, YOUR ABILITY TO READ MY MIND SPEAKS LOUDER THAN MY ACTIONS. YOU ARE A DIFFICULT CUSTOMER TO PLEASE WHEN YOU SET STADNARDS, I MEET THEM AND THEY ARE THEN STILL NO GOOD. GOSH.

Us thoughtful thinkers, unlike the ones who claim to be, were merely pointing out that a an attempt at a thoughtful consideration of Clark's claims was in the process of being assaulted and excluded from consideration by the biased claims of the shiner-out crowd.

The point still remains--when presenting unverifiable evidence, one must consider the source of that evidence. SURE SURE CONSIDER ALL YOU WANT BUT CAN WE EVER GET TO WHAT IS SAID? Shiner's argument is as strong as Clark's. HORSE POO IF IT IS. I POSTED CLARK'S BIO. ALL WE KNOW ABOUT SHINEROUT IS THAT HE SAYS HE MAKES A LOT OF MONEY AND MET CLARK. WOW. You didn't attack Clark's argument or evidence, but you did Shiner's and Burnedout's simply because you didn't agree with their message. TO BORROW YOUR WORDS, DO YOU EXPECT ME TO BELIEVE YOU DON'T THINK HE GOT THOSE CALLS? THE POINT OF MY THREAD WAS TO BRING ATTENTION TO THIS TREMENDOUSLY UNDER-REPORTED INCIDENT BY THE 'LIBERAL' PRESS.

Actions speak louder than words Moonie, you had your mind made up before this thread came to pass.....Likewise did Shiner and Burnedout later on, at least they were being honest about their bias....HERE WE GO AGAIN WITH THE ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER BALONEY. MY ACTION WAS NO OPINION ON CLARK AND NO WORDS. MY ACTIONS MATCHED MY WORDS. AND HERE COMES MINDREADER CORN TELLING ME HOW MY MIND WAS MADE UP WHEN MY ACTIONS DENY WHAT YOU SAY.