General Clark on Tim Russet's program meet the press

[sandorski]

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?

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....

Us thoughtful thinkers, unlike the ones who claim to be Whaaa? Don't put yourself down man.

Shiner's arguement sucks! It's based upon the allegation that Clark was incorrect in his opinion how the war was going. Clark may have been "wrong", but so what? Bush has been wrong repeatedly within the last year+, yet I'd wager that you and Shiner still defend him. Moonie pointed out Clark's credentials, Bush's suck in comparison, but let us not confuse the issue with the facts.

 

[Moonbeam]

Are you saying that a guy 8000 miles from a battlefront could be wrong in some details of a war but could still tell if he got a telephone call or not?

 

[Corn]

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.

I find it telling that even though I *asked* a simple question, this was the reply I got instead of a simple yes or no. I do belive you protest too much Moonie. Of course I can't read minds, I don't need to........

SURE SURE CONSIDER ALL YOU WANT BUT CAN WE EVER GET TO WHAT IS SAID?

To you and Lunar: Why? To what purpose would I wish to entertain rumor in this fashion? Tell you what, Ramsey gives credible evidence these conversations took place, then we'll discuss the merits of these "conversations". Until then I'll pay as much attention to them as I would the weekly headline at the National Enquirer. While we're waiting for Ramsey to give some credible evidence these conversations actually took place you'll have to pardon my skepticism that the Bush administration would pressure a well known political opponent into something that could later be used against them.

ALL WE KNOW ABOUT SHINEROUT IS THAT HE SAYS HE MAKES A LOT OF MONEY AND MET CLARK.

Actually, Shiner never stated he met Clark........

TO BORROW YOUR WORDS, DO YOU EXPECT ME TO BELIEVE YOU DON'T THINK HE GOT THOSE CALLS?

Yes, actually I do expect you to believe that I 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.

Really? Maybe you should ask yourself why that is......maybe it has nothing to do with evil corporate baddies pulling the wool over the eyes of the ignorant masses. Perhaps they applied the Duck Test and the conclusions don't jive with your sensibilities--of course that must mean complicity with the Bush administration........

 

[LunarRay]

Well... we can't discuss the Clark (alleged) phone call(s) because we have no proof they occurred... We can't discuss the (Absent) WMD because we have no proof they do not exist... We can't discuss the president's (alleged) falsehood because we have no proof the absence of proof proves anything and if some proof should appear or continue to elude us we can't discuss it either because it does not exist and the credibility of the witnesses to the alleged proof is not acceptable.... do I have the game rule down..?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Well... we can't discuss the Clark (alleged) phone call(s) because we have no proof they occurred... We can't discuss the (Absent) WMD because we have no proof they do not exist... We can't discuss the president's (alleged) falsehood because we have no proof the absence of proof proves anything and if some proof should appear or continue to elude us we can't discuss it either because it does not exist and the credibility of the witnesses to the alleged proof is not acceptable.... do I have the game rule down..?

Sorry, we can't discuss the game rules!

 

[Corn]

Us thoughtful thinkers, unlike the ones who claim to be Whaaa? Don't put yourself down man.

You'll have to pardon me for saying this, but what the hell are you talking about? That's Moonie's attempt at putting me down, those were not my words......

Shiner's arguement sucks! It's based upon the allegation that Clark was incorrect in his opinion how the war was going.

Clearly you are having difficulty reading tonite. Shiner's argument is noted in his 2nd sentence in this thread: Clark is politically motivated. The fact that Clark took center stage during the war to promote his superior tactics and clairvoyance to the enemy's tactics in an attempt to shame the Bush administration's tactics in handling the Iraqi army is evidence enough of that. The fact that he was wrong is merely icing on the cake.

People can be wrong, it's OK, it happens to the best of us. Just last week *I* had failed to recall a 6 month old thread that Moonie claimed he had trumped the mighty Corn. Alas, the conversation I didn't recall did actually take place. Clearly I was wrong about that. The real shame is that Corn's point was correct all along, I had simply missed Moonie playing his hand until 6 months later. Moonie's wrong all the time, yet I still take the time to consider some of what he says. It's not the "wrong" that I have a problem with, it's the "why" someone is wrong I take issue with. Using Clark as an example, why was he wrong? Ignorance or was he simply *hoping* that the military operation would fail? My opinion of Clark is not too high because I doubt he was ignorant........

 

[Corn]

Well... we can't discuss the Clark (alleged) phone call(s) because we have no proof they occurred...

You can discuss it all you like, I already stated my opinion regarding these supposed phone calls.

Oh that's right, you want me to pretend that they took place and opine.......sorry, I'll pass.

 

[Moonbeam]

Ah, well there you have it, a provocative story any truth seeker would be onto like a blood hound but no, the blinders can't get past Clark. Hehe.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Corn

Us thoughtful thinkers, unlike the ones who claim to be Whaaa? Don't put yourself down man.

You'll have to pardon me for saying this, but what the hell are you talking about? That's Moonie's attempt at putting me down, those were not my words......

Shiner's arguement sucks! It's based upon the allegation that Clark was incorrect in his opinion how the war was going.

Clearly you are having difficulty reading tonite. Shiner's argument is noted in his 2nd sentence in this thread: Clark is politically motivated. The fact that Clark took center stage during the war to promote his superior tactics and clairvoyance to the enemy's tactics in an attempt to shame the Bush administration's tactics in handling the Iraqi army is evidence enough of that. The fact that he was wrong is merely icing on the cake.

People can be wrong, it's OK, it happens to the best of us. Just last week *I* had failed to recall a 6 month old thread that Moonie claimed he had trumped the mighty Corn. Alas, the conversation I didn't recall did actually take place. Clearly I was wrong about that. The real shame is that Corn's point was correct all along, I had simply missed Moonie playing his hand until 6 months later. Moonie's wrong all the time, yet I still take the time to consider some of what he says. It's not the "wrong" that I have a problem with, it's the "why" someone is wrong I take issue with. Using Clark as an example, why was he wrong? Ignorance or was he simply *hoping* that the military operation would fail? My opinion of Clark is not too high because I doubt he was ignorant........

Oops, yes, you are correct on the first point.

However, your second point is moot. Shiner's claim of "politically motivated" is not as legitimate as Clark's claim of having received a phone call. Clark was asked/hired to provide analysis of the situation, he did, perhaps some of his analysis was wrong, but that's besides the point. It does not negate his claim of a phone call, nor the content to which he claims it had. Shiner was merely smearing Clark with an unfounded accusation based on the fact that he(Clark) may have been wrong in an analysis of a current event.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Corn

Well... we can't discuss the Clark (alleged) phone call(s) because we have no proof they occurred...

You can discuss it all you like, I already stated my opinion regarding these supposed phone calls.

Oh that's right, you want me to pretend that they took place and opine.......sorry, I'll pass.

Then I have to accept in your statement that even if they did occur the content or context was misconstrued by the aging and senile General. But, you have some regard for him and choose rather, to see him the liar than the senile old General.. mighty nice of you..

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Corn

Us thoughtful thinkers, unlike the ones who claim to be Whaaa? Don't put yourself down man.

You'll have to pardon me for saying this, but what the hell are you talking about? That's Moonie's attempt at putting me down, those were not my words......

Shiner's arguement sucks! It's based upon the allegation that Clark was incorrect in his opinion how the war was going.

Clearly you are having difficulty reading tonite. Shiner's argument is noted in his 2nd sentence in this thread: Clark is politically motivated. The fact that Clark took center stage during the war to promote his superior tactics and clairvoyance to the enemy's tactics in an attempt to shame the Bush administration's tactics in handling the Iraqi army is evidence enough of that. The fact that he was wrong is merely icing on the cake.

People can be wrong, it's OK, it happens to the best of us. Just last week *I* had failed to recall a 6 month old thread that Moonie claimed he had trumped the mighty Corn. Alas, the conversation I didn't recall did actually take place. Clearly I was wrong about that. The real shame is that Corn's point was correct all along, I had simply missed Moonie playing his hand until 6 months later. Moonie's wrong all the time, yet I still take the time to consider some of what he says. It's not the "wrong" that I have a problem with, it's the "why" someone is wrong I take issue with. Using Clark as an example, why was he wrong? Ignorance or was he simply *hoping* that the military operation would fail? My opinion of Clark is not too high because I doubt he was ignorant........

Oops, yes, you are correct on the first point.

However, your second point is moot. Shiner's claim of "politically motivated" is not as legitimate as Clark's claim of having received a phone call. Clark was asked/hired to provide analysis of the situation, he did, perhaps some of his analysis was wrong, but that's besides the point. It does not negate his claim of a phone call, nor the content to which he claims it had. Shiner was merely smearing Clark with an unfounded accusation based on the fact that he(Clark) may have been wrong in an analysis of a current event.

Actually what I was saying is that Clark had a political motivation to paint the war in a negative light. He took every opportunity to seize on a perceived failure of General Franks to try and make himself look better. The funny thing is that over and over again in the next 24 to 48 hours he was proven to be wrong. It was really quite comical.

Maybe Clark received a phone call, maybe he didn't. I want to see proof and have him name names. Who are these mysterious people connected to the White House? I mean seriously....do you know how many people work in and around the White House? I could just as easily quote Pentagon sources and be correct when I did it. Why? Because I have a cousin in the USMC and he is currently assigned to the Pentagon.

Personally I think Clark is full of political ambitions and hot air. At the time he was yammering on about the war on CNN I had no idea he had political aspirations. I don't think it was until the heavy combat part of the war was over that I first heard that. I seem to remember the first time I heard it being on the McLaughlin Group one Sunday when they were talking about all the generals who had been on the various news shows during the war.

 

[LunarRay]

Gee whiz... To say if a person has political ambitions that fact alone puts anything they say in question... I think I agree with that... as long as it is consistent for all politicians saying anything... which brings us to ... well... I need not go there.... but, If he said he did get phone calls and did not then it paints a picture of four star generals that makes me a bit worried... considering there are a lot of them.. I used to think of them as honorable and above reproach... perhaps politics does make liars out of the best of people... guess we'll have to let this play out and see what the cat licks up...

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Corn

Us thoughtful thinkers, unlike the ones who claim to be Whaaa? Don't put yourself down man.

You'll have to pardon me for saying this, but what the hell are you talking about? That's Moonie's attempt at putting me down, those were not my words......

Shiner's arguement sucks! It's based upon the allegation that Clark was incorrect in his opinion how the war was going.

Clearly you are having difficulty reading tonite. Shiner's argument is noted in his 2nd sentence in this thread: Clark is politically motivated. The fact that Clark took center stage during the war to promote his superior tactics and clairvoyance to the enemy's tactics in an attempt to shame the Bush administration's tactics in handling the Iraqi army is evidence enough of that. The fact that he was wrong is merely icing on the cake.

People can be wrong, it's OK, it happens to the best of us. Just last week *I* had failed to recall a 6 month old thread that Moonie claimed he had trumped the mighty Corn. Alas, the conversation I didn't recall did actually take place. Clearly I was wrong about that. The real shame is that Corn's point was correct all along, I had simply missed Moonie playing his hand until 6 months later. Moonie's wrong all the time, yet I still take the time to consider some of what he says. It's not the "wrong" that I have a problem with, it's the "why" someone is wrong I take issue with. Using Clark as an example, why was he wrong? Ignorance or was he simply *hoping* that the military operation would fail? My opinion of Clark is not too high because I doubt he was ignorant........

Oops, yes, you are correct on the first point.

However, your second point is moot. Shiner's claim of "politically motivated" is not as legitimate as Clark's claim of having received a phone call. Clark was asked/hired to provide analysis of the situation, he did, perhaps some of his analysis was wrong, but that's besides the point. It does not negate his claim of a phone call, nor the content to which he claims it had. Shiner was merely smearing Clark with an unfounded accusation based on the fact that he(Clark) may have been wrong in an analysis of a current event.

Actually what I was saying is that Clark had a political motivation to paint the war in a negative light. He took every opportunity to seize on a perceived failure of General Franks to try and make himself look better. The funny thing is that over and over again in the next 24 to 48 hours he was proven to be wrong. It was really quite comical.

Maybe Clark received a phone call, maybe he didn't. I want to see proof and have him name names. Who are these mysterious people connected to the White House? I mean seriously....do you know how many people work in and around the White House? I could just as easily quote Pentagon sources and be correct when I did it. Why? Because I have a cousin in the USMC and he is currently assigned to the Pentagon.

Personally I think Clark is full of political ambitions and hot air. At the time he was yammering on about the war on CNN I had no idea he had political aspirations. I don't think it was until the heavy combat part of the war was over that I first heard that. I seem to remember the first time I heard it being on the McLaughlin Group one Sunday when they were talking about all the generals who had been on the various news shows during the war.

Do you hold Bush to these same standards?

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Corn

Us thoughtful thinkers, unlike the ones who claim to be Whaaa? Don't put yourself down man.

You'll have to pardon me for saying this, but what the hell are you talking about? That's Moonie's attempt at putting me down, those were not my words......

Shiner's arguement sucks! It's based upon the allegation that Clark was incorrect in his opinion how the war was going.

Clearly you are having difficulty reading tonite. Shiner's argument is noted in his 2nd sentence in this thread: Clark is politically motivated. The fact that Clark took center stage during the war to promote his superior tactics and clairvoyance to the enemy's tactics in an attempt to shame the Bush administration's tactics in handling the Iraqi army is evidence enough of that. The fact that he was wrong is merely icing on the cake.

People can be wrong, it's OK, it happens to the best of us. Just last week *I* had failed to recall a 6 month old thread that Moonie claimed he had trumped the mighty Corn. Alas, the conversation I didn't recall did actually take place. Clearly I was wrong about that. The real shame is that Corn's point was correct all along, I had simply missed Moonie playing his hand until 6 months later. Moonie's wrong all the time, yet I still take the time to consider some of what he says. It's not the "wrong" that I have a problem with, it's the "why" someone is wrong I take issue with. Using Clark as an example, why was he wrong? Ignorance or was he simply *hoping* that the military operation would fail? My opinion of Clark is not too high because I doubt he was ignorant........

Oops, yes, you are correct on the first point.

However, your second point is moot. Shiner's claim of "politically motivated" is not as legitimate as Clark's claim of having received a phone call. Clark was asked/hired to provide analysis of the situation, he did, perhaps some of his analysis was wrong, but that's besides the point. It does not negate his claim of a phone call, nor the content to which he claims it had. Shiner was merely smearing Clark with an unfounded accusation based on the fact that he(Clark) may have been wrong in an analysis of a current event.

Actually what I was saying is that Clark had a political motivation to paint the war in a negative light. He took every opportunity to seize on a perceived failure of General Franks to try and make himself look better. The funny thing is that over and over again in the next 24 to 48 hours he was proven to be wrong. It was really quite comical.

Maybe Clark received a phone call, maybe he didn't. I want to see proof and have him name names. Who are these mysterious people connected to the White House? I mean seriously....do you know how many people work in and around the White House? I could just as easily quote Pentagon sources and be correct when I did it. Why? Because I have a cousin in the USMC and he is currently assigned to the Pentagon.

Personally I think Clark is full of political ambitions and hot air. At the time he was yammering on about the war on CNN I had no idea he had political aspirations. I don't think it was until the heavy combat part of the war was over that I first heard that. I seem to remember the first time I heard it being on the McLaughlin Group one Sunday when they were talking about all the generals who had been on the various news shows during the war.

Do you hold Bush to these same standards?

That's an apples to oranges question.

 

[Moonbeam]

More like an accomplished General to Bozo question, if you ask me. Bush is a known liar, even Dari, his greatest proponent admits that.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Corn

Us thoughtful thinkers, unlike the ones who claim to be Whaaa? Don't put yourself down man.

You'll have to pardon me for saying this, but what the hell are you talking about? That's Moonie's attempt at putting me down, those were not my words......

Shiner's arguement sucks! It's based upon the allegation that Clark was incorrect in his opinion how the war was going.

Clearly you are having difficulty reading tonite. Shiner's argument is noted in his 2nd sentence in this thread: Clark is politically motivated. The fact that Clark took center stage during the war to promote his superior tactics and clairvoyance to the enemy's tactics in an attempt to shame the Bush administration's tactics in handling the Iraqi army is evidence enough of that. The fact that he was wrong is merely icing on the cake.

People can be wrong, it's OK, it happens to the best of us. Just last week *I* had failed to recall a 6 month old thread that Moonie claimed he had trumped the mighty Corn. Alas, the conversation I didn't recall did actually take place. Clearly I was wrong about that. The real shame is that Corn's point was correct all along, I had simply missed Moonie playing his hand until 6 months later. Moonie's wrong all the time, yet I still take the time to consider some of what he says. It's not the "wrong" that I have a problem with, it's the "why" someone is wrong I take issue with. Using Clark as an example, why was he wrong? Ignorance or was he simply *hoping* that the military operation would fail? My opinion of Clark is not too high because I doubt he was ignorant........

Oops, yes, you are correct on the first point.

However, your second point is moot. Shiner's claim of "politically motivated" is not as legitimate as Clark's claim of having received a phone call. Clark was asked/hired to provide analysis of the situation, he did, perhaps some of his analysis was wrong, but that's besides the point. It does not negate his claim of a phone call, nor the content to which he claims it had. Shiner was merely smearing Clark with an unfounded accusation based on the fact that he(Clark) may have been wrong in an analysis of a current event.

Actually what I was saying is that Clark had a political motivation to paint the war in a negative light. He took every opportunity to seize on a perceived failure of General Franks to try and make himself look better. The funny thing is that over and over again in the next 24 to 48 hours he was proven to be wrong. It was really quite comical.

Maybe Clark received a phone call, maybe he didn't. I want to see proof and have him name names. Who are these mysterious people connected to the White House? I mean seriously....do you know how many people work in and around the White House? I could just as easily quote Pentagon sources and be correct when I did it. Why? Because I have a cousin in the USMC and he is currently assigned to the Pentagon.

Personally I think Clark is full of political ambitions and hot air. At the time he was yammering on about the war on CNN I had no idea he had political aspirations. I don't think it was until the heavy combat part of the war was over that I first heard that. I seem to remember the first time I heard it being on the McLaughlin Group one Sunday when they were talking about all the generals who had been on the various news shows during the war.

Do you hold Bush to these same standards?

That's an apples to oranges question.

- sigh

 

[LunarRay]

Well pluck the apples and the oranges... put them in the same basket and apply the same standard... It's doable...
In bozo's case he was an AWOL type and In the General's case... He may just call it like he sees it... don't make it right nor wrong.. just an opinion based on experience... perhaps the ground force generals listened to him and decided they had better shape up and get on with the program... All thanks to General Clark.... thanks General... Glad you were here to help the troops out..

 

[Corn]

perhaps the ground force generals listened to him and decided they had better shape up and get on with the program... All thanks to General Clark.... thanks General... Glad you were here to help the troops out..

You'll have to pardon me for not taking you too seriously in the future if this is any indication to the overall quality of your posts.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Corn

perhaps the ground force generals listened to him and decided they had better shape up and get on with the program... All thanks to General Clark.... thanks General... Glad you were here to help the troops out..

You'll have to pardon me for not taking you too seriously in the future if this is any indication to the overall quality of your posts.

Folks are calling Clark a political wannabe and therefore his statement regarding telephone calls has no validity... I suggest they do.
But the least folks can do is apply similar logic to all political folks... the notion of the general being less than a general is repugnant to me... It shows how far someone will go to defend a position of person...

What benefit my posts provide is only found in the mind of the reader... you have provided your evaluation of my post... thank you..

 

[Corn]

Folks are calling Clark a political wannabe and therefore his statement regarding telephone calls has no validity... I suggest they do.

Of course you feel that way, he's saying what you so desperately want to hear. I dismiss Clark, not solely because he has political aspirations, but because he's too cowardly to give out the name(s) of those bad, bad Bush administration employees who told him to essentially lie on national tv.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Corn

Folks are calling Clark a political wannabe and therefore his statement regarding telephone calls has no validity... I suggest they do.

Of course you feel that way, he's saying what you so desperately want to hear. I dismiss Clark, not solely because he has political aspirations, but because he's too cowardly to give out the name(s) of those bad, bad Bush administration employees who told him to essentially lie on national tv.

The easy argument is : You dislike Clark because he is saying what you don't want to hear. I read what Clark said. I've not read a retraction of the comment. But, having made the comment in the public forum... You and I both know what this means... and the politico argument is just as inane as my bit about the field generals hearing his broadcasts... why... because no person with ambition is gonna create the very scenario that will defeat them... the game is played differently.. A person like Clark... a master strategist would make much better use of this info by contemporaneously making notes and time places etc of the who called... Then at a better time present this as corroboration of or the refuting of some bigger issue... and before congress... you don't spend all your money at the first opportunity to spend... nah.. I think he is on the legit and not much of a politico wannabe..

 

[jjones]

I'll join the fray on this one but probably only for this one post. I saw Clark's analysis during the war on CNN. I think CNN had a couple of other generals also, in any case, I didn't see any other American news broadcasts because I only have access to CNN.

A few things stuck out in his analysis during the time in question.

I know he's being paid to give his POV, but I couldn't fathom why he went to the extent that he did to second guess the military leadership the way he did. This guy's a general and he should know enough to be cognizant of the fact that he does not know from sitting in a news room what the battlefield conditions are. Additionally, he was very aware that the initial thrust exceded anticipated expectations and the front would have to slow down so supply could catch up and, he was very aware of the terrible weather conditions at the time which would naturally lead to a slow down. Finally, he showed no patience whatsoever in letting the battle plan develop; he acted just like the rest of the media short-attention-spanners. I think he got caught up in the hype.

At least one of the other generals that was on CNN expressed a more realistic analysis of what may be happening in the war, stating things similar to those I noted above.

As for the phone call for which this thread originated, it is interesting but in the light of his aspirations, I'll take it with a huge grain of salt. His statement is very conveniently, wonderfully ambiguous, almost the perfect political ambush. I'd be interested in seeing if he'll ever have opportunity to provide details.

edit: spelin

Edit #2: I don't care about Clark one way or another. He's just another pol, and one thing you can count on is that anything a pol might say is most likely tied directly to their politcal ambitions.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: jjones
I'll join the fray on this one but probably only for this one post. I saw Clark's analysis during the war on CNN. I think CNN had a couple of other generals also, in any case, I didn't see any other American news broadcasts because I only have access to CNN.

A few things stuck out in his analysis during the time in question.

I know he's being paid to give his POV, but I couldn't fathom why he went to the extent that he did to second guess the military leadership the way he did. This guy's a general and he should know enough to be cognizant of the fact that he does not know from sitting in a news room what the battlefield conditions are. Additionally, he was very aware that the initial thrust exceded anticipated expectations and the front would have to slow down so supply could catch up and, he was very aware of the terrible weather conditions at the time which would naturally lead to a slow down. Finally, he showed no patience whatsoever in letting the battle plan develop; he acted just like the rest of the media short-attention-spanners. I think he got caught up in the hype.

At least one of the other generals that was on CNN expressed a more realistic analysis of what may be happening in the war, stating things similar to those I noted above.

As for the phone call for which this thread originated, it is interesting but in the light of his aspirations, I'll take it with a huge grain of salt. His statement is very conveniently, wonderfully ambiguous, almost the perfect political ambush. I'd be interested in seeing if he'll ever have opportunity to provide details.

edit: spelin

Edit #2: I don't care about Clark one way or another. He's just another pol, and one thing you can count on is that anything a pol might say is most likely tied directly to their politcal ambitions.

Bingo....

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Well pluck the apples and the oranges... put them in the same basket and apply the same standard... It's doable...
In bozo's case he was an AWOL type and In the General's case... He may just call it like he sees it... don't make it right nor wrong.. just an opinion based on experience... perhaps the ground force generals listened to him and decided they had better shape up and get on with the program... All thanks to General Clark.... thanks General... Glad you were here to help the troops out..

Your attempt to be moonbeam jr is getting tiresome.....

 

[Corn]

Your attempt to be moonbeam jr is getting tiresome.....

And Moonbeam said; "I will name him Mini-Me".

Moonie has needed a buddy here for a while now, he's just decided to bring one of his, what I assume to be anyway, real (and I do use that term loosely) life friends here to the board to litter the place with more of the same (self-described by Lunar) inanity that he so very much does enjoy to partake in.

One thing I'll say for Moonie, at least he's the original..............