195 replies to this topic

[Will]

Westley Clark, oh how the mighty have fallen...

Somewhere, everyone that served under him is laughing their ass off.

[Rory Abel]

That's... um... interesting?

[Will]

It's pretty pathetic for all around but particularly for Clark.

[Arjan Dirkse]

He was in charge of most of the operations in former Yugoslavia right?

Do you think he was bad at that job Will?

[Will]

I think he was/is an incredibly egotistic asshole who only cared about himself. He was despised by his peers and subordinates alike.

I've read and heard things about him that he was propped up by a series of ever suffering staffs and bungled Kosovo (google Sir Michael Jackson's response when ordered to prevent the Russians from taking the airport).

[garjones]

He returned to the Balkans with the ARRC during the Kosovo War, during which he famously refused to obey an order from American General Wesley Clark, his immediate superior in the NATO chain of command, to block the runways of Pristina Airport and isolate the Russian contingent that was positioned there. He reportedly told Clark, "I'm not going to start the Third World War for you". The incident attracted controversy, particularly in the United States, and earned Jackson the nickname "Macho Jacko" in the British tabloid press. Jackson established a working relationship with the Russian general commanding the detachment at Pristina, giving him a bottle of whisky, of which Jackson is known to be fond, and providing the Russians with the protection of a squad of British soldiers, commanded by his son, Mark.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Jackson

Sir Mike Jackson is very well regarded in the UK (hence the knighthood and he was promoted to be head of the army after that incident).

[Will]

He's well regarded in the US army, too. At least from what I've seen.

[garjones]

It's a long standing relationship, Americans were commanded by Monty in the second world war and British troops by Eisenhower and vice versa and both commanded huge respect based on what they did, not where they came from.

This is why a certain someone gets my goat with his 'nobody but the US does anything' rhetoric. I don't hear that from you or Jake or Nathan or Donnie or anyone who's actually put their balls on the line.

[Arjan Dirkse]

I think he was/is an incredibly egotistic asshole who only cared about himself. He was despised by his peers and subordinates alike.

I've read and heard things about him that he was propped up by a series of ever suffering staffs and bungled Kosovo (google Sir Michael Jackson's response when ordered to prevent the Russians from taking the airport).

Thanks, I never knew that.

There's a big controversy here in the Netherlands over the competence of Karremans, the Dutch general who was in charge of the peacekeepers who were meant to protect the safe haven of Srebrenica, and who stood idly by while Mladic rode into town.

[Will]

It's a long standing relationship, Americans were commanded by Monty in the second world war and British troops by Eisenhower and vice versa and both commanded huge respect based on what they did, not where they came from.

This is why a certain someone gets my goat with his 'nobody but the US does anything' rhetoric. I don't hear that from you or Jake or Nathan or Donnie or anyone who's actually put their balls on the line.

On my deployments, particularly in Albania when Clark tried to start WWIII, I had a good standing relationship with our Allies. Particularly the Dutch and British.

Thanks, I never knew that.

There's a big controversy here in the Netherlands over the competence of Karremans, the Dutch general who was in charge of the peacekeepers who were meant to protect the safe haven of Srebrenica, and who stood idly by while Mladic rode into town.

No worries; what Jackson did took balls and thankfully the JCS Chairman at the time, GEN Shelton, backed him up instead of Clark.

When I was in and out of the Balkans I read a book on Srebrenica (I think it was actually called "Srebrenica") and the Dutch don't come off particularly well, but that's more of the circumstances they were put in rather than their own competence. At least from what I've read the UN bears the brunt of blame, or should.

[The Lorcan Nagle]

Have at it!

[Chewy Sun]

It's pretty pathetic for all around but particularly for Clark.

On the face it is pathetic.



Chewy.................................................. it will be sad when this somehow makes him a viable political candidate. Just look at the power Trump holds over his stupid followers.

[Will]

This story has really, really pissed me off.

It blows my mind that he was given such a light sentence. The Army leadership completely failed on this one.

[Chewy Sun]

Just like in civilian life,


If you're a CEO(high ranking officer) and you steal, you get a slap on the wrist.
If you're nobody-mcpoor-shlub, you steal and get 10 years in prison.





Chewy................................................ so at least we have consistency there..

[Todd Gross]

Meghan McCain Interviews Michele Bachmann on Obama, Romney & More

What would you do if he asked you to be his running mate?

Well, obviously if he asks me, I would pray long and hard about that, but I would do everything I could to help the country succeed. But clearly that won’t be my decision. That will be Gov. Romney’s decision, and one thing we know from Romney is that he has a lifetime of good decisions. Whomever he chooses, I think we know he will make a very wise judgment.


Not a bad interview or substantial, but...

Oh please, Mitt, pick her! PICK HER!!! Bring some crazy back into the race!

[Adam Wednesdays]

This story has really, really pissed me off.

It blows my mind that he was given such a light sentence. The Army leadership completely failed on this one.

That's... an interesting choice of sentencing.

[Ogul]

Mendacious Mitt: Romney's bid to become liar-in-chief

Granted, presidential candidates are no strangers to disingenuous or overstated claims; it's pretty much endemic to the business. But Romney is doing something very different and far more pernicious. Quite simply, the United States has never been witness to a presidential candidate, in modern American history, who lies as frequently, as flagrantly and as brazenly as Mitt Romney.
. . .
But foreign policy is a relatively light area of mistruth for the GOP standard-bearer. The economy is really where the truth takes its greatest vacation in Romney world. First, there is Romney's claim that the 2009 stimulus passed by Congress and signed by President Obama "didn't work". According to Romney, "that stimulus didn't put more private-sector people to work." While one can quibble over whether the stimulus went far enough, the idea that it didn't create private-sector jobs has no relationship to reality. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the stimulus bill created more than 3m jobs – a view shared by 80% of economists polled by the Chicago Booth School of Business (only 4% disagree).
. . .

This is perhaps the most interesting and disturbing element of Romney's tireless obfuscation: that even when corrected, it has little impact on the presumptive GOP nominee's behavior. This is happening at a time when fact-checking operations in major media outlets have increased significantly, yet that appears to have no effect on the Romney campaign.
. . .

Romney is charting new and untraveled waters in American politics. In the process, he is cynically eroding the fragile sense of trust that exists between voters and politicians. It's almost enough to make one pine for the days when Sarah Palin lied about "the Bridge to Nowhere".

I seriously can't believe that he gets away with this stuff. If anyone deserves a hearty "You lie!" every time he opens his mouth, it's Mitt Romney.

[Jim Ohara]

What Sheldon Adelson Wants


No American is dedicating as much of his money to defeat President Obama as Sheldon Adelson, the casino magnate who also happens to have made more money in the last three years than any other American. He is the perfect illustration of the squalid state of political money, spending sums greater than any political donation in history to advance his personal, ideological and financial agenda, which is wildly at odds with the nation’s needs.


Mr. Adelson spent $20 million to prop up Newt Gingrich’s failed candidacy for the Republican nomination. Now, he has given $10 million to a Mitt Romney super PAC, and has pledged at least $10 million to Crossroads GPS, the advocacy group founded by Karl Rove that is running attack ads against Mr. Obama and other Democrats. Another $10 million will probably go to a similar group founded by the Koch brothers, and $10 million more to Republican Congressional super PACs.

That’s $60 million we know of (other huge donations may be secret), and it may be only a down payment. Mr. Adelson has made it clear he will fully exploit the anything-goes world created by the federal courts to donate a “limitless” portion of his $25 billion fortune to defeat the president and as many Democrats as he can take down.

One man cannot spend enough to ensure the election of an unpopular candidate, as Mr. Gingrich’s collapse showed, but he can buy enough ads to help push a candidate over the top in a close race like this year’s. Given that Mr. Romney was not his first choice, why is Mr. Adelson writing these huge checks?

The first answer is clearly his disgust for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, supported by President Obama and most Israelis. He considers a Palestinian state “a steppingstone for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people,” and has called the Palestinian prime minister a terrorist. He is even further to the right than the main pro-Israeli lobbying group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which he broke with in 2007 when it supported economic aid to the Palestinians.

Mr. Romney is only slightly better, saying the Israelis want a two-state solution but the Palestinians do not, accusing them of wanting to eliminate Israel. The eight-figure checks are not paying for a more enlightened answer.

Mr. Adelson’s other overriding interest is his own wallet. He rails against the president’s “socialist-style economy” and redistribution of wealth, but what he really fears is Mr. Obama’s proposal to raise taxes on companies like his that make a huge amount of money overseas. Ninety percent of the earnings of his company, the Las Vegas Sands Corporation, come from hotel and casino properties in Singapore and Macau. (The latter is located, by the way, in China, a socialist country the last time we checked.)

Because of the lower tax rate in those countries (currently zero in Macau), the company now has a United States corporate tax rate of 9.8 percent, compared with the statutory rate of 35 percent. President Obama has repeatedly proposed ending the deductions and credits that allow corporations like Las Vegas Sands to shelter billions in income overseas, but has been blocked by Republicans.

Mr. Obama’s Justice Department is also investigating whether Mr. Adelson’s Macau operations violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, an inquiry that Mr. Adelson undoubtedly hopes will go away in a Romney administration. For such a man, at a time when there are no legal or moral limits to the purchase of influence, spending tens of millions is a pittance to elect Republicans who promise to keep his billions intact.

Rich people buy politicians to keep taxes low so they can growth their wealth at a faster rate. I'm sure $60 million is a drop compared to how much he'll save in taxes if he continues to shelter his income. The funny thing is how many idiots call guys like this job creators.

[Will]

Those PACs, casinos, and hotels don't run themselves.

[Ogul]

Rich people buy politicians to keep taxes low so they can growth their wealth at a faster rate. I'm sure $60 million is a drop compared to how much he'll save in taxes if he continues to shelter his income. The funny thing is how many idiots call guys like this job creators.

But he does create jobs! In Singapore and Macao. It's been noted that for someone who owns $25 billion, a $60m donation represents only 0.24% of his total fortune. Compared to someone who has, say, $100K to their name, that would be the equivalent to him of spending $240, something even I could afford if I felt like it. But if you were Mitt Romney, who's opinion would you listen to more, the guy who donates $240 to your campaign, or the guy who donates $60 million?

I like the counter-position that's been on the rise lately, that rich people are NOT "job creators," normal people are. Rich people have plenty of money to create jobs if they like, yet they aren't, because they'd rather hold on to it. What does create jobs is when normal people go into a Walmart and buy stuff, driving up demand, which encourages companies to make more stuff, which often requires more employees. That's job creation. If you want more jobs, don't just hand money to rich people, or reduce the amount of money you take from them. If you want to create jobs, put more money into the pockets of people who actually spend money and let them spend it on stuff.