Replies

Clark may wear the uniform and title, but this "arm-chair" general only got to be Supreme Allied Commander because of his soft stand on wearing the title but allowing the UN to control the troops in Bosnia. I would guess he is very bright but morally bankrupt and lacking the leadership and resolve to actually represent our great nation. I suggest he's morally bankrupt for accepting aid from the Clintons. I acknowledge he's bright enough to realize the Clinton's are our country's worse nightmare yet he doesnt have the moral courage to resist the end justifying the means.

Clark has no political substance; will the Dems be able to distinguish him from any other CNN armchair General? The man already is back peddling on comments he made to the effect that the “White House” told him to link 9/11 attack to Iraq/Hussein. To me, this trips him up before he even makes it to the starting gate…guess he thought he could just say some slander and not get called on it.

Many wonder why the President hasn't responded to the excessive demeaning criticism from the media and Dwarfs. I see him being a true role model in this respect, he realizes he needs to attend to his job as leader of the world's greatest country under attack from overseas and from within by "first amendment patriots".

The President is focusing his efforts/concentration on standing up to terrorism and that, yes; it risks drawing his attention away from domestic policies. There needs to be some support/forgiveness from his constituent base so the endless attacks don't divert him from the task he has given himself: confronting terrorism. Terrorism is like a large-scale version of a sniper. During war, snipers are invaluable yet despised as cowards since they are incapable of confronting an army yet create an atmosphere of impending fear that immobilizes the actions of an army till the snipers are routed out. Terrorists, like snipers, must be routed out from their safe havens. They are inspired by perceptions of weakness, our President has the necessary resolve but his political attackers undermine the perception of his resolve.
The Bully Pulpit is useful when a debate can be enjoined, if it is seen or reputed as reducing yourself to your adversary's level then you fall into justifying their claim no matter how detailed your rebuff. GWB is no moron regardless of how much the other side wishes it's mantra would stick. This monumental task of confronting terrorism is a 24/7 concentration, he surrounded himself with good people and he's relying on their sound strategies to allow him to devote his concerns where they need focused. These assaults by his political opponents are a dangerous distraction, of that I have little doubt.

u couldn't be more wrong if you purposely set out to be so. Gen. Clark is a brilliant and independent thinker who managed the operation in Bosnia as Supreme Commander of NATO. He is a strong proponent of a national defense structure that would have avoided the morass that has evolved in Iraq. Irrespective of whether we obtain any assistance from any allied power or there is a satisfactory UN resolution, Gen Clark's broad experience in force management, an understanding of logistics and effective resupply that thus far has escaped the sycophants and know-nothing civilians surrounding Rumsfeld and the president, and his grasp of foreign policies realities that is orders of magnitude beyond the present National Command structure are benefits that he brings to the table.

Support him or don't, that's a function of individual study, analysis and even predisposition. But pejorative attributions to him as knee-jerk reaction to his possible opposition to the sitting president is neither intelligent, persuasive nor idicative of commentary by a person worthy of others' attention.