Replies

As usual, Hackworth is mostly wrong. Clark did his time with troop units and won a Silver Star. Give him his due.

From everything I've read Clinton decided there would be no troop option for Kosovo, not Clark.

Hackworth is right about one thing, Clark was a political general, not a soldier's general.

What scared me about Clark's tour at NATO was his tendency to make bad decisions, like ordering the Brits to attack the Russians, or wanting to send unsupported attack helicopters into the Yugo mountains. I'm also concerned about the tendency to megalomania he displayed.

The Presidency is no place to give Waco Wesley a trial run at elective office.

Clark says he had orders from the Pentagon and NATO, and that British General Michael Jack disobeyed a direct order. Clark says he was not retired early for this, it was because he kept stepping on toes (real hard) at the Pentagon.

If the truth is otherwise, I'm sure it will come out.

Disclosure: I'm a liberal who was wondering what you folks thought about Clark. It's strange to see the world on it's head like this. Conservatives agreeing with communist essays, Democrats interested in a general ... we live in interesting times, folks.

"What scared me about Clark's tour at NATO was his tendency to make bad decisions, like ordering the Brits to attack the Russians, or wanting to send unsupported attack helicopters into the Yugo mountains. I'm also concerned about the tendency to megalomania he displayed."

People need to start emailing Fox news about this. I'm sick to death of hearing about his "impeccable record". The last 2 days in a row. I'm tired of the sham that passes for news these days being allowed to continually mislead us into accepting the unacceptable.

"Clark did his time with troop units and won a Silver Star. Give him his due."

Perhaps, but that doesn't make him any less of a a$$hole, IMHO.

"Hackworth is right about one thing, Clark was a political general, not a soldier's general."

And a soldier's general is what the U.S. military needs, not a political one. Lord knows that our military has suffered a lot over the years thanks to those "Perfumed Princes" (God, I love that term).

"What scared me about Clark's tour at NATO was his tendency to make bad decisions, like ordering the Brits to attack the Russians, or wanting to send unsupported attack helicopters into the Yugo mountains. I'm also concerned about the tendency to megalomania he displayed."

In other words, he's a dangerous a$$hole or at least a potentially dangerous one. I don't like the thought of him making big decisions, especially when it comes to foreign policy or the military.

I never served with Clark period. I served as a Hornet Force company commander with Omega/CCS in 68- early 69 before going to the launch site.I was blessed with NCO's with more combat experience then most officer's I ever met.My higest ranking NCO had been with the 101st with Hackworth. He had been hit in the head/eye, and; he covered my fanny always on his tour with SOG.

Both this fine SFC and myself look at a heroic 20 year old 1LT who came to the company in late 68. The man went into COSVN HQ on 24 April of 1969, was hit in the chest, and; this fine young man lay face down on the LZ, called in air support until his dying breath. I cannot bring this man back, nor SFC Jerry Shriver, nor any of those men. They had guts that only few men have today, as too many a man uses his medals for politics. Any officer with a medal of any kind for valor, can look at himself and know he has an NCO or EM to thank.

Sadly, I saw a few award hungry officers in our unit. They numbered all of two. Officers do not make a combat unit period. It is the NCO's. Far too many people look at Clark and Kerry as heroes. It is the NCO's in SF, and the riflemen and other enlisted men in all ground units who are the heroes period.

Clark was wounded and medevaced. He was written up for a Bronze Star V that day. Had he not been a West Pointer do you believe he would have had his orders rescinded then given a silver star? Let's be real and honest. We all knew some fine West Pointers.

Now, Kerry's record is quite a mystery. How many of us that served in real combat in Vietnam know of anyone with three purple hearts in three to four months of service?

I suggest that Kerry is a fake. I want to see his medical records. He darn sure did not take care of his troops period. I will show my medical records, which clearly state exactly where two bullets entered, what bone was shattered, where they exited, the exact muscles hit, and whether there was any artery or nerve damage.

Do you need ten years with troops to be a leader? I don't believe that, unless you are a full Colonel or General. Do I believe Hack? Most of the time. Would I go into combat for him? Yes, based on what my NCO's from the 101st that came to SF said, I would.

Do we really want another Kerry or Kerrey? Sadly, the Navy officers, except pilots, have a reputation for treating EM very lowly. I am sorry, but; I feel that way. I believe the Navy officers treat enlisted worse then any service. Dressed in whites, they refuse to get dirty.