Another obligatory picture of Ann!
Posted on 01/15/2004 3:23:29 AM PST by kattracks
Democrats are so delirious about finding a general who is a pacifist scaredy-cat that no one seems to have bothered to investigate whether Wesley Clark is sane.
On "Meet the Press" back in November, Clark described intelligence as "a sort of gray goo as you look at it. You can't see through it, exactly, and if you try to touch it, it gets real sticky and you might actually interfere with the information that you're getting back. So you have to draw inferences from it." No, wait. I'm sorry. I think that was Clark talking about Monica Lewinsky's dress, not national security intelligence.
Meanwhile, Clark recently said that the "two greatest lies that have been told in the last three years" are: "You couldn't have prevented 9-11 and there's another one that's bound to happen." If he were president, Clark says, there would be no more terrorist attacks.
The adversarial watchdog press did not ask Clark to explain how he could guarantee an end to terrorist attacks, but recited Clark's prior statements calling for better intelligence. Apparently, if we could just refine the gray goo of intelligence to a magical terrorist-prediction machine, Clark could put an end to this terrorism nonsense once and for all.
Yes, I suppose if our intelligence agencies knew who the terrorists were and when they were going to strike, we could stop them. And if we knew who all the raving lunatics were, we could prevent these infernal Democratic presidential primary debates. Which reminds me, I think I know how we can win the lottery every week, too.
Liberals scoff at a system to shoot down incoming missiles, but believe that all random suicide bombers can be located and stopped before they strike. Hitting a bullet with a bullet just isn't feasible, so let's concentrate on something doable like predicting the future.
Democrats are utterly unfazed by the fact that Clark is crazier than a March hare. They are so happy to have a pacifist in uniform, they ignore his Norman Bates moments. When this peacenik criticizes the war in Iraq, he can puff up his puny chest and cite his own glorious experience with blood, sweat and tears in the Balkans.
Asked on "Meet the Press" what advice he would give Bush, Clark said: "I'd say, 'Mr. President, the first thing you've got to do is you've got to surrender' – stop right there and the Kucinich crowd is yours – 'exclusive U.S. control over this mission. ... Build an international organization like we did in the Balkans.'" Because, as everyone knows, Wesley Clark "built" NATO. This guy sounds more like Al Gore every day.
Asked what countries he proposed to bring into Iraq that weren't there already, Clark said, "I think you ask NATO ... just as I did in Kosovo, because this brings NATO into the problem." NATO is the logical choice for this job because of Iraq's extremely close proximity to the North Atlantic.
Evidently, Clark is sublimely confident that no one remembers anything about his misadventures in the Balkans.
Yugoslavia posed absolutely no threat to the United States – not imminent, not latent, not burgeoning, not now, not then, not ever. (Unless you count all the U.S. highway deaths caused by Yugos.) The president of Yugoslavia, Slobodan Milosevic, never tried to assassinate a U.S. president. He never shook his fist at the Great Satan. He didn't shelter and fund Muslim terrorists – though the people we were fighting for did.
In humanitarian terms, Milosevic didn't hold a candle to Saddam Hussein. Milosevic killed a few thousand Albanians in a ground war. Hussein killed well over a million Iranians, Kurds, Kuwaitis and Shias, among others. Milosevic had no rape rooms, no torture rooms, no Odai or Qusai. He didn't even use a wood chipper to dispose of his enemies, the piker.
And yet NATO, led by Gen. Wesley Clark, staged a pre-emptive attack on Yugoslavia.
Under Clark's command, the U.S. bombed the Chinese Embassy by mistake, killing three Chinese journalists. Other NATO air strikes under Clark mistakenly damaged the Swiss, Spanish, Swedish, Norwegian and Hungarian ambassadors' residences. Despite the absence of ground troops, Yugoslavia took three American POWs, whose release was eventually brokered by Jesse Jackson. America was standing tall.
Clark's forces bombed a civilian convoy by mistake, killing more than 70 ethnic Albanians, and then Clark openly lied about it to the press. First he denied NATO had done it, and when forced to retract that, Clark pinned the blame on an innocent U.S. pilot. As New York Newsday reported on April 18, 1999: "American officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the staff of Army Gen. Wesley Clark, the NATO commander, pointed to an innocent F-16 Falcon pilot who was castigated by the media for blasting a refugee convoy." Eventually, even a model of probity like Bill Clinton was shocked by Clark's mendacity and fired him.
At the end of major combat operations led by NATO Supreme Allied Commander Gen. Wesley Clark, arch-villain Slobodan Milosevic was still in power. (At least Clark won't have to worry about any embarrassing "mission accomplished" photo-ops coming back to haunt him.) Today, almost a decade and $15 billion later, U.S. troops are still bogged down in the Balkans. No quagmire there!
That's the Democrats' idea of a general.
Ann Coulter is a bestselling author and syndicated columnist. Her most recent book is Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism.
From http://www.snopes.com/science/cannon.htm
Legend: The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration offers the British an obvious piece of advice after being asked to investigate a train-testing mishap....
[A]dding to the confusion over the validity of this tale, army Lt. Gen. Wes Clark has claimed the story is real on a number of occasions and is fond of using the anecdote in speeches.
Much as we hate to disagree with anyone with an army behind him, we just have to.
You've nailed a point even Ann overlooked!
This should be shouted from the rooftops... AFTER the nomination!
No, I think she means the one that was going to be home by Christmas quite a few years ago.
How quickly we forget -
THE story that THE Clinton administration and THE purely objective media threw out was that Archduke Ferdinand of Austria was assassinated in Sarajevo which led directly to World War I and WE certainly didn't want to run the risk of something like that happening again.
You got it; and the right address as well.
D = do-nothing democrat, C = concerned citizen
C: What do we do about the terrorists?
D: Do nothing.
C: Shouldn't we be trying to fight them?
D: Certainly not. If we kill them, they'll hate us.
C: Don't they already hate us?
D: That's beside the point. They don't like us, and we can't give them a valid reason for their hatred of us by killing their cohorts.
C: What about the fact that they've been killing us for years?
D: Soldiers volunteered for that when they volunteered for the military, so their deaths don't count unless it furthers our agenda. Conservative black diplomats serving in Africa don't matter. Dead evangelical missionaries get what they asked for - martyrdom. We shouldn't do anything about those idiots who got themselves killed.
C: What should we do if they continue to attack us at home?
D: Nothing! We can't strike back. That would risk enraging the Arab Street.
C: I thought they already hated us.
D: Yes, but striking out at them would breed more terrorists.
C: Aren't they already breeding terrorists?
D: Yes. But the Muslim minority in this nation is very vocal and very active in increasing their numbers by both local production and foreign imports. We can't risk them being angry with us. They're very conservative, but they can be lulled to the Democratic side. Acting against their friends in the Middle East risks them becoming violent in our own streets.
C: Haven't some of those locally born or naturalized citizens sought to act against the US?
D: We can't assume they did anything. We don't have adequate proof yet.
C: Those men from Lackawanna pled guilty.
D: They haven't run out of appeals, so we can't assume that they're guilty.
C: What can we do to defend ourselves from attack?
D: Converting to Islam is a possibility.
C: If we do nothing, we might not be allowed to make that choice willingly.
D: Nonsense! Islam is a religion of peace!
C: The Sunni and Shiite attacks on each other in Iraq and Pakistan are proof that that's not a safe option. They're throwing suicide bombers at other sects of Islam even as they send them at our allies and us.
D: That's a trivial detail. They hate us because we're oppressing them.
C: How are we oppressing them?
D: We're buying their oil!
C: How is that oppressing them?
D: We're bringing capitalism to their socialist dictatorships. Democracy could only be around the corner if that continued.
C: Then how do we stop oppressing them?
D: We should stop buying their oil.
C: Then how will we keep our economy going?
D: We won't. That's part of the beauty of it. We would just do nothing. No oil imports. No problems.
C: Our economy would stall -
D: More Democratic votes.
C: We'd see the transportation network grind to a stop -
D: More people doing nothing, and that would save the environment, too.
C: Shouldn't we build more power plants here, then, to reduce dependence on their oil?
D: Oh, no.
C: Why not?
D: That costs too much.
C: Per your arguments, it would reduce the terrorist motivations.
D: Yes, but it would provide jobs and power. We can't do that.
C: So you vote to turn off the oil imports and to not bother with a replacement fuel source?
D: Of course! Doing nothing about the supply or the demand issues would bring the whole nation to a stop! Imagine it! Everyone doing nothing ... except being motivated to vote for us because we can solve the crisis!
BUMP FOR REFERENCE
Think maybe I do; remembered of course, the bogus nature of Clinton's war effort; but had forgotten the smaller print.
Same for the ill-reputed-now-acclaimed General-who-would-be-president, if enough dimrats would vote for him.
We need to be armed and dangerous to take on those Liberal friends - even if only one - they need special attention.
Anyway, good post w/info; and of course, kudos to Anne; as always.
Yes, but Ann got a good joke out of it. Besides, it contradicts Wesley's promise that if he were president, there would be no terrorist attacks on US soil, since how could he be 100% sure he could prevent it if intelligence is so murky.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.