← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Ed Toner
Thread ID: 10073 | Posts: 13 | Started: 2003-09-27
2003-09-27 15:57 | User Profile
No mention of being a Rabbi's son, but the profile fits.
[url]http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0903/jkelly092203.asp[/url] Jewish World Review Sept. 22, 2003 / 25 Elul, 5763 Jack Kelly
Tracing Clark's military map
[url]http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com[/url] | Retired General Wesley Clark has thrown his helmet into the ring. He has improved the Democratic presidential field by entering it, just as he improved the Army by leaving it.
Clark is a brilliant man, and a brave one. A Rhodes scholar, he was decorated three times for heroism as commander of an armor company in Vietnam.
"Those of us who knew him as a captain thought the country would be short-changed if he didn't rise to very high rank," said a retired Army colonel who was a student of Clark's when Clark taught at West Point. But Clark's kindergarten teacher probably noted that he doesn't play well with others.
Clark "is able, though not nearly as able as he thinks, and has tended to put his career ahead of his men to the point of excess," said a defense consultant well acquainted with the Army's senior officers. "He is opportunistic and lacks integrity. He will be an absolute menace if he gets into a position where he can exert influence on the Army because he lacks true vision and is prone to be vindictive."
Clark "regards each and every one of his subordinates as a potential threat to his career," said an officer who served under him when Clark commanded a brigade of the 4th Infantry Division in the 1980s. An officer who served under Clark when he commanded the First Cavalry Division said he was "the poster child for everything that is wrong with the general officer corps."
Clark doesn't get along terribly well with superiors or with allies either, .......................
2003-09-27 20:34 | User Profile
Ed Toner: I've read the unflattering things you posted here about Wesley Clark elsewhere.
My response: So What? Jealousy exists in the military as it does everywhere else. Do you think that his subordinates liked Douglas McArthur? Pres. Truman had to fire the guy because he wanted to get us involved with China by crossing the Yalu River.
And how about George Patton? He was a very difficult general and he certainly had his foes within the military.
Dwight Eisenhower (I Like Ike) wasn't above playing military politics, either.
The fact that this administration has suddenly begun heaping scorn on Wesley Clark tells me something is up: Rove & Company are afraid of this guy...after all, he is the genuine article, not a would-be Top-Gun actor...Bush managed to 'escape' doing his duty because Daddy saw to it that he did...all the paperwork is gone...no records remain of that 'missing' period in the Air Nat'l Guard.
The Bush poll numbers are disastrous and the Bush watercarriers are running scared...they should be.
2003-09-27 22:42 | User Profile
Clark is the proverbial "Perfumed Prince", with a career owing its success to sucking up, connections, being politically correct, and being a 'career politician'. Being a crypto jew is his ace in the hole. That's why the article kicks off on his being called a 'brave man', a hero. As someone else mentioned, it appears he got the "West Point pass" when it comes to nabbing multiple Purple Hearts.
Jealousy is one thing. Trying to pass off legitimate complaints on Clark's career as petty jealousy is not an effective way of hiding an agenda.
Ed, the descriptions of Clark feeling threatened by his subordinates (HELP! I'M SURROUNDED BY GENTILES!), lack of vision (imagination) and vindictiveness are all hallmarks (genectically based) of the tribe. Thanks for the post. Good read.
2003-09-28 21:49 | User Profile
Baty: I don't much cotton to Jew Haters. Therefore, you are personna non grata.
2003-09-29 00:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=arjurg]Baty: I don't much cotton to Jew Haters. Therefore, you are personna non grata.[/QUOTE]
Why?
2003-09-29 02:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=arjurg]Baty: I don't much cotton to Jew Haters. Therefore, you are personna non grata.[/QUOTE]
Finally we have a zhidolating character on OD, who doesn't seem an obvious troll so far.
2003-09-30 03:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=arjurg]Baty: I don't much cotton to Jew Haters. Therefore, you are personna non grata.[/QUOTE]
Oh, I'm sure you're so busy sucking up to your masters, eating the (kosher) peanuts out of their :dung: as you grovel for their approval, their acceptance, that it no doubt galls you when confronted with someone who sees the jews for what they really are. And you for what you really are; a useful idiot for your masters. You've struck your awesome blow for your masters, now run along. Don't forget to set your VCR for any appearances by "Clark" on the news. :jester:
2003-09-30 19:24 | User Profile
madrussian: Sorry, I don't know what 'zhidolating' means...not in my dictionary.
Thanks.
2003-09-30 23:11 | User Profile
A speculator
I've said W. Clark is a tool used by insider group to weaken Howard Dean. He was pro-Bush's administration two years ago. Now, purposed to take over Dean's position, he steals Dean's idea to attack President Bush.
Quote, "Clark fired back, saying that when it came time to pick a political party, ``I was going to be either a very, very lonely Republican or I was going to be a very happy Democrat. ... I'm a new Democrat, and you know what, I'm going to bring a lot of other new Democrats into the party.''"
Read this you will understand the tactic insider group used to exclude their dislike:
Quote, "Majette, who raised more money than the incumbent largely from out-of-state pro-Israel donors, won 58 percent of the vote to McKinney's 42 percent.
McKinney, a vocal advocate of Arab causes who has been sharply critical of the Bush administration's war on terror, had strong backing from pro-Arab and Muslim organizations.
She blamed her loss on an influx of Republicans voters in the primary.
"We saw massive Republican crossover into the Democratic primary and it looks like the Republicans wanted to beat me more than the Democrats wanted to keep me," McKinney told her supporters after conceding defeat.
Reps. McKinney And Barr Defeated In Georgia
By Paul Simao 8-21-2"
2003-10-01 16:28 | User Profile
kathaksung: does this 'insider group' have a name?
Are you a Dean Supporter?
2003-10-10 21:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=arjurg]kathaksung: does this 'insider group' have a name?
Are you a Dean Supporter?[/QUOTE]
No, there is no name to be known publicly. Because they worked in covert. If you know it, then probably you'll find the man whom sent the anthrax letter. For reference, notice the comment of biologist Babara Rusenberg:
On Sept. 18, taking advantage of 911 WTC bombing, perpetrator mailed letters to NBC news. The anthrax inside was brown granular which might mean perpetrator intending at first not to kill but to intimidate. Perhaps disappointed with little reaction, they did it again(on Oct. 8), this time with a military grade anthrax. The letter to Senator Daschle and Leahy contained fine, white powder which mixed with a material designed to kill. And a man, Bob Stevens, died of anthrax on Oct. 5. His death caused fear of bio-chem attack nation wide. Anthrax crisis reached its peak on about Oct. 20, then faded away. During the period, it created a situation of bio-attack horror, put a pressure on legislation to pass through "patriot Act" to let Justice Department having more police power, push media and public to support government's war policy and also gave an excuse for government to extend war to Iraq. (The "Patriot Act" was proposed on Sept. 24 and passed in legislature on Oct.24. US started war in Afghan on Oct. 7)
Rosenberg, a biologist, has testified on biological weapons before Congress, has recently published a paper contending that a government insider; or someone in contact with an insider, is behind the lethal attacks." (Excerpt from: San Jose Mercury News, page 9A,Dec. 2,2001. Topic:'Inside job probed in anthrax attack') One official (law enforcement agency) called Rosenberg theory " the most likely hypothesis".
I believe the anthrax attack was done by Federal law enforcement agency. They have motives and resources. They are the one to be benefitted by the attack. They expanded their power by creating public's fear. They intimidated the media and legislation which are the check and balance to their power. They have the authority to access the secret lab under the name of 'security'. (like the case of Wen Ho Lee.)
And 1. The first victim is an editor of tabloid, a dislike of powerful US celebrities. His wife was the manager of apartments which had been rented to some 911 terrorists. He was possibly under FBI's surveillance. (consider thousand of aliens who even had no relationship to terrorist were detained by FBI)
Government released information that Atta visited crop duster aircraft. Hinted Al-quada relating to bio warfare. Matching perpetrators' intention to owe it to 911 terrorists.
Government released conflict information. Such like at first they said the material mixed in anthrax was bentonite, purposely to target at Iraq. Then admitted the material was silica, not used by Iraq, but US. It may proved that the perpetrators are not expert, only know little about the anthrax they were using and gave a wrong information when they making use of it.
At the same time, government released information that Atta made contact to Iraq diplomat. It matched the theory of bentonite, made Iraq a big suspect.
Most of these information can be only released by intelligence.
. Though government said first that there were 30 to 40 places had access to the anthrax and much more people could produce it by cheap equipment, it's only an excuse that they are unwill to find real criminal. The anthrax in Senator's letter is military grade. A fruit of years' research and experiment. And even in US there maybe only one secret lab carrying it. And access to it must be very strict.
US rejected a UN resolution condemning the anthrax attack. For what reason they did so if it's done by OBL, Al-quada, or domestic pertetrators? Unless it's done by they themselves.
My personal experience told it was a practice of Federal law enforcement agency. From their swift response to my comments. And I think they originally only planned one death(Bob Stevens) to raise the public attention and fear. The later four deaths were cover up to the comment " Least casualties to raise public's scare".
This elected government administration tries to hide something from people. They started a war but failed to give evidence, said that was for safety of informant. Then they want a military tribunal, what secret do they want to keep even they win a war? On Dec. 10, newspaper reported that Russian scientists had helped OBL to produce anthrax. Workshop was bombed away in war, but unknown quantity of anthrax might have been in abroad already. There was no detail, obviously let out by military or intelligence. An attemption to owe anthrax attack to terrorist when they failed to find a scapegoat of lone wolf? Perhaps that's why they limited media's report in Afghan war, and want a secret court. When US is the strongest power in the world, why there are so many things to be hided? If we have reason believe those who being sent to court are guilty, a military court only covers up corrupt government and criminal activities of it's official.
excerpted from my thread
[url]http://hometown.aol.com/kathaksung/myhomepage/profile.html[/url] [url]http://hometown.aol.com/sunkat563/myhomepage/profile.html[/url]
If there is harassment (blank page, slow entering, server busy....) try
[url]http://forums.delphiforums.com/police915/messages/?msg=25.1[/url]
I generally view the election from another angle and think it is only a show conducted by insider group. I'm anti-war.
I don't sort people to parties like you do. But if you like to do so, maybe you support Bush? Or just work for that insider group?
2003-10-10 21:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=arjurg]kathaksung: does this 'insider group' have a name?
[/QUOTE]
How disingenuous. We all know you're a member.
2003-10-21 00:39 | User Profile
I was asked by the same question(name of insider group) several times elsewhere. I view it as a tactic to discredit my message. Because insiders work covertly. And seldom people can know it. The recent ID leakage of CIA agent caused a storm in Washington. Even that agent, is not insider, she works for insider group. But the trick of discredit only enable me to reveal more.