I doubt that is your intention. Yep, I was correct. I realize you may not care if the men running for President exhibit good character, but that is a terribly important quality to me. Let me guess, you were one the those folks who said of Bill Clinton- we elected a President, not a Pope! Tell the truth. Sam Fisher shoots the messenger. Man, I am 20 replies into this thread, and already bleeding profusely.
I never said that Clark didn't have an impressive resume. I never said Clark gave aid and comfort to the enemy with malice of forethought. I am saying that if Clark used the Moneyline show to further his Presidential ambitions, and his doom and gloom analysis was just spin, then he INDIRECTLY gave comfort to the enemy. That shows TERRIBLE judgement on his part, IF that is the case. Dobbs says yes, you say no- I think it is an interesting topic. Enjoy your lunch.
Please confront the simple point that Clark and all of the other napoleons spoke in the same guarded terms. I've already mentioned this... now you need to confront why Clark is suddenly different from the other generals. Are they all running for president? Or are you and Dobbs both nincompoops?
Thanks Say_john. Sorry I rained on your parade again w/ more of that 'logic' stuff. Until you avoid my list again. BYE BYE.
When Russian troops moved on the Pristina airport during the Kosovo conflict, Clark ordered Nato troops to move on the Russians. His British underling refused the order, and the UK Guardian labeled Clark as "the man who almost started WW3. I think Clark's common sense needs to be called into question before he contends for the most powerful job in the world- that is all.
When Russian troops moved on the Pristina airport during the Kosovo conflict, Clark ordered Nato troops to move on the Russians. His British underling refused the order, and the UK Guardian labeled Clark as "the man who almost started WW3. I think Clark's common sense needs to be called into question before he contends for the most powerful job in the world- that is all. So, to be clear, if one newspaper questions a General's actions, his common sense needs to be checked, but if 1000 newspapers question a President's actions, they should all just be labeled as part of the lunatic anti-war left?
No Major, you know that is not the point. Do you think that sending Nato troops to drive out Russian special forces at the Pristina airport was a good idea? Apparently, NATO commanders under Clark REFUSED to obey his orders. Was that a lapse of common sense in your opinion? Also, I am disappointed that you would use such an illogical straw man argument, insinuating that I label all who disagree with Bush as part of the lunatic fringe. Of all the Lefties around here, you usually are the most reasonable.
Says Sam, as he yaps about Lou Dobbs and Moneyline on a basketball BBS Stay in school kids. More proof it's better to be the boss than the staff...
and can I just say... Thank You Lou Dobbs! Name recognition is one of the major things Clark needs right now. And this can only help! Also, it sends a very cool message. The right is so afraid of him that they are already starting a smear campaign and he’s not even in the race! Oh my GOD!!!! Someone actually has a different opinion than the party line? It’s all good! RUN WESLEY RUN!!!!!!!
Don't get cute, rocker. Forbes is a Republican. You know the rules are different for Republicans. For example, when a Democrat's in office, it's patriotic to slam the war plan while there are troops in the field.
Clark was probably one of the few commentators who wasn't spanking his monkey over the war. Quite frankly, I think it's great that Wesley Clark was banned. It means that he was willing to say what the corporate network shills didn't want to hear. The culture of silence in this country is really scary. When Gore Vidal spoke before the war at an anti-war rally of 100,000 in LA, the LA Times didn't even mention the rally. Not a picture. Nothing. Meanwhile, Clear Channel Broadcasting, run by the guy who bought a major league baseball team from Dubya, organized pro-war rallies across the country, then sent reporters to cover the "stories" as "breaking news." A recent article in Esquire about Wesley Clark mentioned that Clark has the military credentials to actually say to George Bush's face what no one else has dared: What did you know about 9/11 before 9/11 became 9/11? (I refer you again to Gore Vidal and his "Dreaming Oil" booklet.) Why is it that the former soldiers are always more cautious with sending troops to battle yet we get the war decisions made by people like Condi Rice who said about the Kosovo operation, "Marines were made for war not for delivering powdered milk"? True enough; but it's the attitude behind the remark: I have no qualms about getting our young men killed for Chevron. Kudos to Wesley Clark.
Do you think that sending Nato troops to drive out Russian special forces at the Pristina airport was a good idea? Apparently, NATO commanders under Clark REFUSED to obey his orders. Was that a lapse of common sense in your opinion? You should consider reading his book - there's a 30 page chapter on the Pristina incident which really covers the whole story (including the refusal of orders). It's biased of course from Clark's perspective, but it doesn't blast Jackson for his comments or anything like that - in fact, it explains the rationale, the guy's concerns, etc. For what it's worth, Clark had approval and support for all of the proposed operations from Washington and London before London backed down in the end - and the operations did not involve attacking Russian troops in any way. Russia had flat-out lied to NATO and said they weren't moving troops to the region to take over a part of Kosovo. Control of the airport was the way they were going to get troops in. The initial operation was to get to the airport before the Russians and go ahead and claim it as NATO's. The second operation was basically to land helicopters on the runways and sit there, so that Russians couldn't fly in and out of the airport. Clark prepared the operation as a way to prevent Russia from essentially blowing up the NATO mission, and noted the political risks inherent in it in discussions with Washington. Ultimately, it was their call and they provided full political support before things changed later on. Nothing Clark did was on his own - everything went through NATO and Washington, and all parties kept pledging support until the last minute.
You know it has never been clear to me why MoneyLine even invited Clark on their show. Shouldn't they be talking to economists and investor types? Was Dobbs interviewing Clark to determine the outlook for the market, length of war, etc.? Or was Dobbs just trying to keep people from changing the channel during his timeslot? The times I saw Dobbs interview people re: the war, he went all over the place in his questions, so I assume it's the latter case. It's pretty inflammatory to me that a market show would try to benefit from the sensationalism of the war... guests and commentators combined. Then again, I have no idea what the point of Dobbs' show is... the other day he interviewed Ann Coulter.
