Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • You should note that General Wesley "The Weasel" Clark (nickname attributed by me) has since backtracked on his story about being coerced into making a terrorist connection to the point where I think he made it up.

    You should also note that I was in the military from late 1996-2000 and, while I didn't serve under Clark, I met a few folks who had gone over to Kosovo. Not one of them had a good thing to say about him.

    I've also since read that he was incompetent leader, who "won" his last star in a battlef

    • I don't have much of an opinion about Clark one way or the other, but the phone call seems to be one of those cases where the press has made something out of nothing [spinsanity.org].

      My uncle can't stand Clark because, he says, the man is not very bright and didn't get where he is on merit. My uncle is a Bush supporter.
      • by djberg96 (2603) on 2003.09.18 11:37 (#24311) Journal
        I just read the SpinSanity link you provided. I can't say I'm very sympathetic to their "analysis". I think Clark pretty clearly meant to implicate the White House in terms of who pressured him. I mean, the first words out of Clark's mouth when asked, "Who did that?" by Tim Russert were, "Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over.".

        Yes, some conservative pundits omitted parts of the quote to serve their own needs, and that was irresponsible of them. However, to suggest that he didn't implicate the White House is utterly disingenuous in my opinion.

        You can just as well argue (as many conservatives have) that *upon careful analysis* (to quote the SpinSanity article) the Bush administration never claimed Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks. If the Bush administration doesn't deserve a break, why does Clark? I say what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

        • Read it again. "Who did that?" wasn't asking who called him. He hadn't even mentioned the call at that point. It was asking about the campaign to convince the American people that there was a link between Saddam Hussein and September 11. Of course he says that the White House was doing that. Most people who were awake during the period in question would have noticed it.

          I don't understand where you think the contradiction is in Clark's statements. It seems to me that he has never said the White House c
          • Ok, I misread - my bad. The confusion stems from the proximity of his answer to the beginning of his comments regarding an outside call of some sort.

            Still, I think the whole "I was pressured" argument is lame. Exactly how was he "pressured"? Either way, I think he's full of crap.

            • That's fine, but my point is that saying his argument is lame is different from saying he's changing his story or being a weasel, and the latter accusation seems to be unfair, at least in this case.