[ConfusedAndLovingIt]

Insisting on the accuracy of his military analysis of the Iraq War ... "I was anything but biased. I was 100 percent objective. I called it right and I stand by the results," he said.

Does anybody remember if his analysis was right or not? Somehow I doubt it was, but I don't remember anything he said.

[Norman Conquest]

He was the most consistently pessimistic -- AND WRONG -- of any military commentator on any network. Mainly, I suppose, because his experiences under Clinton blinded to him to the possibility that an American president might give the American armed forces the opportunity, means and motive to get the job done.

[okie01]

"Does anybody remember if his analysis was right or not? Somehow I doubt it was, but I don't remember anything he said."

Clark's accuracy compared favorably to Robert Fisk's and Comical Ali's, to give you a frame of reference...

[jwfiv]

The week before we took Baghdad, he predicted that, because of the 'strung out supply lines, poor planning and unanticipated Fedayeen resistance' that the U.S. would take 3,000 casualties when we stormed that city.

Clark was wrong on every 'prediction'., not just the one I cite..and, of course, in claiming that he 'called it right', he's lying.

He's a natural for the Democratic Party.

[ought-six]

His analysis was that it would take many, many months, or as long as a year, to defeat Iraq, and then only if we committed far more troops.