Gen. Clark Weighs Presidential Bid; Accuses Bush of inaction before 9/11

AP ^ | September 13, 2003 | nwrep

[nwrep]

Perfume Prince Ping.

[dinok]

Proof positive...the higher the rank...the lower the IQ.

[nwrep]

Perfume Prince Ping.

[dinok]

Proof positive...the higher the rank...the lower the IQ.

[Tarl]

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.

[KC_Conspirator]

"What happened on 9-11, Mr. President? Why is it that eight months into your administration, why is it that there was no plan to deal with the number one threat that Bill Clinton's national security team warned you about when you took office?"

That is a lie. The more and more I hear about Wesley Clark the more I don't like him.

[Abcdefg]

Now matter how much perfume, he is still a sinking POS.

[Poohbah]

"What happened on 9-11, Mr. President? Why is it that eight months into your administration, why is it that there was no plan to deal with the number one threat that Bill Clinton's national security team warned you about when you took office?"

If it was the number one threat, why didn't your drinking buddy Billy Clinton do anything about, Wesley?

[Windcatcher]

Amazing. Bush was president for a whole eight months and this rocket scientist accuses him of INACTION?

What about a certain WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON? Now, mister Lib, do we REALLY want to open up this particular Pandora's Box? Shall we now start talking about INACTION?

I say we print 18x24" pictures of ol' WJC, write INACTION on them in large red letters, and send them by the hundreds to this opportunistic moron.

Sheesh. Hypocrisy isn't nearly strong enough a term here.

[oceanview]

none of this is going to fly, but republicans are going to have to say so when faced with this accusation: Clinton's stewardship of this nation led directly to 9/11 occuring less then 8 months after he left office. let's take off the gloves.

[Poohbah]

I know.

And then we can inquire about how the Brits told him to sod off when he ordered them to beat the Russians to Pristina.

[dead]

Why is it that eight months into your administration, why is it that there was no plan to deal with the number one threat that Bill Clinton's national security team warned you about when you took office?"

If Bill Clinton recognized Osama Bin Laden as the "number one threat" to our nation, why did he turn down multiple chances to kill him or take him into custody, general?

Oh, and why are you such an asshole?

[tsmith130]

"What happened on 9-11, Mr. President? Why is it that eight months into your administration, why is it that there was no plan to deal with the number one threat that Bill Clinton's national security team warned you about when you took office?"

He really said that? Un-f-ing-believable!!! I'm...I'm....speechless. (If you knew me, you'd realize how truly incredible that is!)

[Samurai_Jack]

Call him "Gen. Chutzpah."

General Clarkes war record is something less than stellar...

General Wesley Clark is riding high on what is universally considered his prescience about the current Iraq war. Going unremarked is his utter lack of prescience about his own war, in Kosovo in 1999.

Back then, Clark thought he had Slobodan Milosevic figured out, and that the mere threat of NATO bombing — and perhaps a day or two of the real thing — would bring him to the negotiating table and force him to be reasonable. When this turned out not to be the case, Clark had no Plan B, because President Clinton had ruled out ground troops from the outset.

Read More Here

Wesley Clark: The Guy Who Almost Started World War III

"I'm not going to start the third world war for you," General Sir Mike Jackson, commander of the international KFOR peacekeeping force, is reported to have told Gen. Clark when he refused to accept an order to send assault troops to prevent Russian troops from taking over the airfield of Kosovo's provincial capital.

Read More Here

This guy is going to try to ride his stars up the ladder, but his opponents are the same anti-war people who oppose Bush. My guess is that you had better dig up all your dirt quick on this guy, because they are going to be cleaning out their websites soon!

[pierrem15]

Why is it that eight months into your administration...

I'm left speechless by this one, and it just begs to be turned into the eight years the Dims used to bamboozle us with multilateral BS while nothing real was done to protect the security of the US.

[gov_bean_ counter]

I don't think he really wants to go there, but hey, what do I know?

[olliemb]

Am I the only one who remembers all the attacks during the Clinton terms by the terrorists and we did nothing? 8 months into his presidency and Clark chastizes the president for inaction. Gosh--he needs to look @ Clinton not Bush with those itty bitty eyes.

[KC_Conspirator]

Yes, it is effing unbelievable. He was the military leader for an adminstration that did nothing about terrorism and lied to the public about our safety for 8 years. He ought to be call on the carpet for this. I actually heard that many of Clark's former collegues in the army are going to come out against him.

[SwinneySwitch]

"What is the intent, what is the plan, Mr. President?"

I belive the plan is to kick A$$, until there is no more A$$ to kick, Gen. Clark!