Does anyone know if Wesley Clark was ever a pilot?

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 00:23:36 -0500 "John Gaquin" wrote:


"R.Hubbell" wrote in message
Does not apply to Wesley Clark.

He's got the talent and the qualifications.


From Wesley Clark:

"You can't build a strong Army just with great generals;
you have to have great people at every rank. You have to
give everyone a chance to be all you can be.' It's true for
the United States Army, and it's true for the United States."

It is easy to put fine words to paper. But the fact remains that Wes Clark
spent 30+ years in the Army, and there probably aren't half a dozen men who
served with him who would give him a drink from a water hose. That fact
alone speaks louder than any position paper.



Is it a fact? What fact book did you get that from? Is that from the CIA
fact book? Didn't know they kept track of innuendo as well.


R. Hubbell

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 09:33:00 GMT Richard Riley wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 18:43:46 -0800, "R.Hubbell"
wrote:

:On 17 Jan 2004 01:26:09 GMT ackatyu (Wdtabor) wrote:
:
:
: I'd say his military record serves to discount your theory.
:
:
:
: What, like the part about him being removed from command for reasons having to
: do with personal integrity?
:
:You're still expecting us to take your word for it? His exemplary service
:in the military speaks for itself.
:
:Just more vacuous vitriol.

"I've known Wes for a long time. I will tell you the reason he came
out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues,
things that are very near and dear to my heart. I'm not going to say
whether I'm a Republican or a Democrat. I'll just say Wes won't get my
vote."

Gen. Hugh Shelton, Former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
and Clark's former boss


Shelton's upset because Clark went over his head to Clinton and the State
Dept. and the news media. And of course he probably thinks he should
be running for President. But he's not. You have to wonder why Shelton
is afraid to take a stance on whether or not he's a Republican or
Democrat. Sounds like he can't take a stance.

Just more innuendo from Shelton.


R. Hubbell


BTW, John Kerry is a pilot, and flies himself around Iowa when the
weather isn't too bad. And GW Bush is a pilot, though he hasn't flown
since the ANG.

he prefers to walk

Kerry supporter: Why does Kerry terrify you?

Bush supporter: Because he might win.

Kerry supporter: Thanks for your honesty.

Bush supporter: No problem. Anyone who is endorsed by the drunken,
murdering Senator from Kerry's homestate, can't be good for the
country.

Kerry supporter: And what makes you think you have the right to
determine what is good for the country?

Bush supporter: no response.

Another Bush supporter came to the rescue and offered this response:

"I sir, am a member in good standing of this much beloved country's
citizenry. 'Tis better that we the people make the decisions than fat
old farts like Senator Kennedy."

This hostile, anti-Kennedy rhetoric is not an isolated incident, and
it is safe to conclude that the fanatics who fear the candidacy of
John Kerry are responsible for creating the perception that Dean's
political candidacy is unstoppable.

http://www.geocities.com/bobeshope/howard.htm

Just in case you are wondering why Aaron Brown is scratching his head,
now that John Kerry is leading Iowa.





BTW, John Kerry is a pilot, and flies himself around Iowa when the
weather isn't too bad. And GW Bush is a pilot, though he hasn't flown
since the ANG.

snip
"I've known Wes for a long time. I will tell you the reason he came
out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues,
things that are very near and dear to my heart. I'm not going to say
whether I'm a Republican or a Democrat. I'll just say Wes won't get my
vote."

Gen. Hugh Shelton, Former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
and Clark's former boss

Not getting involved in the actual discussion here, but, a point of order.
The CJCS is not the "boss" of the CINCs of the Unified Commands, one of whom
was Wesley Clark as CINCEUR. The CJCS is not in their chain of command.
The chain of command for the Unified Commanders runs from the President to
the SECDEF to them. The CJCS is the military adviser to the President and
commands nobody but his staff. Any Unified CINC can and often does speak
directly to the President and/or SECDEF without anything more than a ""CC"
to the CJCS. That's the law (Goldwater-Nichols DoD Reorganization Act of
1986). In practice, it may be less cut and dried, but that is the letter of
the law.

JB

"R.Hubbell" wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 23:33:48 -0500 Lisa Hughes wrote:



"R.Hubbell" wrote:

On 17 Jan 2004 01:26:09 GMT ackatyu (Wdtabor) wrote:


I'd say his military record serves to discount your theory.



What, like the part about him being removed from command for reasons having to
do with personal integrity?

You're still expecting us to take your word for it? His exemplary service
in the military speaks for itself.

History has shown clearly that generals don't make good Presidents. Why would
somebody whose occupation is a soldier be better/worse than anybody else for
President?


Not sure what you're talking about, did you post to the wrong message?

In regards to Wesley Clark's integrity his exemplary service in the military
speaks for itself.

No I posted to the right message. Read what I said again.

With regards to Wesley Clark's integrity and his "exemplary service in the military,"
could you please expain exactly why Clark was relieved as NATO commander months before
his tour was finished? Why did he suddenly retire? Why didn't he serve out his
tour???

How many civilian casualties were there in Serbia? Why were trains full of civilians
decimated and then Clark claimed that the "train was moving to fast" to avoid
targeting? Gosh I had no idea that Serbia had invented such fast trains.

Finally, why did Clark change his positions so radically? I hope we would make a
better President and I hope he wouldn't mysteriously disappear from the White House
three (3) years into the job, like his disappearing act before his tour was finished,
if he were to be elected.

"R.Hubbell" wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 23:31:52 -0500 Lisa Hughes wrote:



"R.Hubbell" wrote:

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 01:25:56 GMT Jonathan Goodish wrote:

In article ,
"R.Hubbell" wrote:
But the country will never be secure and so they will do those
things that are most visible to the masses.

BTW Clark seems like a very solid guy. Military guy with compassion
and sensibility and intelligence.


He's a guy who solidly can't decide what he believes. Iraq has WMD's in
front of Congress and a regime change is a must, but on the campaign
trail he appears to be contradicting himself. That type of thing seems

Iraq had WMDs, we sold them to Iraq. Did you miss that part out
of convenience or just not paying attention?

Why not read the transcripts your self:

http://armedservices.house.gov/schedules/2002.html

to be going around, though, since Howard Dean becomes a big Christian
when he's south of the Mason-Dixon line but isn't so much of a Christian
when he comes back north.

Well Dubya didn't bother with all that during his campaign, he knew his
Dad and his brother would pull out the win for him.

Yeah right. I'll bet it was the black helicopters too, right?

That's a funny response. If there were any helicopters the wouldn't have
been black, that's too obvious. Yeah it's just a coincidence that his
brother was the governor of the state in question.

And where is your evidence that it was not a coinidence? Citation? Heck, Gore
couldn't even carry his own home state, I'll bet that was the fault of a Bush brother
too, right? Even such rags as the NY Times and the Washington post counted the same
ballots and came to the same conclusion. But you're still stuck in 2000.

Bottom line is that the integrity of both men is questionable.

The bottom line is that Wesley Clark has more integrity in his little
toe than Dubya could ever hope to have.

Keep dreaming. Dubya says what he does and does what he says. Wesley Clark swings

Dubya does what his handlers tell him to say. Heck the only thing he wants out
the office is to make sure he gets even for his Dad.

Citation? Proof? Evidence? Common sense? If you think Dubya is dumb, with a
degree from Yale, and a MBA from Harvard, what do you think of his opponent, with his
failing out of Law Schoold and DIVINITY school after earning a lower undergrad GPA than
Dubya. You really have to work hard to fail out of divinity school.....

I hope it wasn't anyone
you loved that he sent over to do his dirty work.

Yes the dirty work of defending the United States of America. And yes, we are very proud
of our son for doing so in the United States Air Force. What have you done lately? And
yeah, the Democratic party memo suggesting strategies for disqualifying military votes in
Florida in 2000 was very nice.

By the way, what did you consider Clinton's attacks on Haiti, Serbia, Kosovo, Baghdad,
Somalia, and aspirin factories? Everytime he found himself in a jam....

his positions around like a human weathervane in a storm. One minute he's for
disarming Saddam with force and knows that Iraq had weapons capable of causing
mass destructive, the next he says he never was. Unfortunately for him, his quotes
are in the congressional record, and even the audio/video exists.

Yeah read it for yourself http://armedservices.house.gov/schedules/2002.html

Of course he knows that he had WMDs the U.S. sold them to him. I guess you missed
that too. Lots of people seem to forget things. Little details that happened
long ago.

And please provide a citation for a respected unbiased source that tell us that Clark was
referring to anything the "US had sold."




On taxes: "Mr. Clark's "reform" is essentially an updated version of the tax
jujitsu that Candidate Clinton offered back in 1992. Promise to raise taxes only on
the upper middle class and wealthy, while offering to cut taxes on a slew of
"middle-class families." Once Mr. Clinton took office, you may painfully recall,
the middle-class tax cut vanished and everyone got socked with some kind of tax
hike.

So you don't like to have to pay taxes? So Dubya's plan is to sign every single
spending bill since in office and not raise taxes. A 5 year old can figure that
won't work.

Not if that 5 year old understood macroeconomics and realized that lower taxes has
increased federal tax revenue every single time it's been tried, starting with JFK's tax
cuts in 1961. Lower taxes, more revenue.

But I guess, like global warming, we'll let future generations
sort it all out. We're too busy settling scores and acting as the global
sociopath.

Oh, please tell me more about global warming. I really enjoyed those -35 degree F wind
chills this week. But I guess global "warming" caused that too! What a nice
religion. Yes the USA is the global sociopath, that's why we have so many mass graves of
tortured citizens. And rape rooms. And piles of lobbed of ears because their owners
failed to give allegiance to the Baathists.




"We've been waiting a long time for another Democrat to grab the mantle of tax
reform the way Bill Bradley and Dick Gephardt did back in the 1980s, so we studied
Wesley Clark's proposal on Monday with interest. The kindest thing we can say about
it is that we sure hope the retired general knows more about war than he does about
taxes.
...
The major difference today is that Mr. Clark is proposing to raise marginal
income-tax rates even higher than Mr. Clinton did. He'd not only repeal the Bush
tax cuts, thus restoring the top Clinton marginal rate of 39.6%, but he'd pile on
another five-point rate surcharge on incomes of more than $1 million.

Good! The country needs better security and cleaner air and water. We need to
increase education spending too.

Huh? You made a non-sequitur leap that doesn't even make any sense. You went from the
marginal tax rate to "cleaner air and water." So tell me, what is the precise marginal
tax rate that will give us "clearn air and water????" Clark's plan is economic suicide
for the macro economy. The old "tax the rich" class war stuff, except the "rich" turns
out to be any guy with an alarm clock.... The tax base today continues to shrink and
shrink as the top 50% of wage earners are paying over 96% of the tax bill, but I guess
that's not enough for you.




Yes, friends, the old "millionaire surtax" ploy. The last time we roasted this
chestnut was also in 1992, except that once Mr. Clinton took office the definition
of millionaire became anyone making more than $250,000. Mr. Clark is proposing to
raise the top marginal rate on income to 44.6%--or about 46.6% counting the current
exemption and deduction phase-outs--higher than anytime since the pre-1986 rate of
50% when there were many more tax loopholes. And Mr. Clark keeps hinting that
Howard Dean is unelectable in November."
WSJ 1/7/2004

There's no shortage of loopholes. And it's time to lessen the current tax inequality
that exists here.

Then Clark's plan is the last one we would want.




""President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so
much doubt." -Wesley Clark op-ed London Times 10 April 2003

That's a nice thing to say. They should be proud of their resolve. But the will
have to see the truth come out about the whole thing. Then we will really see
how their resolve holds up.

Quite well. Quite well indeed, as even Clark says it is something they should be proud
of.

But keep up that fight man. Keep getting angry. Fight on!

(and keep those non-sequiturs coming too....they show you have a real good command of
things.)

"Lisa Hughes" wrote in message
...
History has shown clearly that generals don't make good Presidents. Why
would
somebody whose occupation is a soldier be better/worse than anybody else
for
President?

Had to do a little research when I could only come up with a few Generals
who were President. See
http://www.journaltimes.com/articles...iq_2641489.txt which
includes reference to their rankings in SRI Survey of U.S. Presidents,
http://www.siena.edu/sri/results/200...entsSurvey.htm.

BTW, 12 presidents out of 42 were generals.

R

1. I wouldn't vote for him in the Iowa vote today if I were back there
in my home town.

2. If perchance he were to win the Democratic primaries and be the
democrat running against Bush (heaven forbid), I would not vote for
him.

3. He supposedly learned about "Duty, Honor & Country" at the Academy
but his actions eschew those standards on his part.

4. Read what the Generals who fired his ass in Europe say now that
they are retired and can talk.

If you persist, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn that I'd like to sell
you. As Barnum (?) said, there's a sucker born every minute.

Big John
Cullen 15086

I too have long and honorable service and received many decorations
for bravery while under enemy fire, etc.


On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 18:43:46 -0800, "R.Hubbell"
wrote:

On 17 Jan 2004 01:26:09 GMT ackatyu (Wdtabor) wrote:


I'd say his military record serves to discount your theory.



What, like the part about him being removed from command for reasons having to
do with personal integrity?

You're still expecting us to take your word for it? His exemplary service
in the military speaks for itself.

Just more vacuous vitriol.



R. Hubbell


Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 10:15:31 -0600 Big John wrote:

R

1. I wouldn't vote for him in the Iowa vote today if I were back there
in my home town.



I guess I don't care if you'd vote for him or not. Thanks for sharing
anyway.



2. If perchance he were to win the Democratic primaries and be the
democrat running against Bush (heaven forbid), I would not vote for
him.

Of course, follows from above.


3. He supposedly learned about "Duty, Honor & Country" at the Academy
but his actions eschew those standards on his part.


Well did all those medals just fly out of nowhere to him?



4. Read what the Generals who fired his ass in Europe say now that
they are retired and can talk.

Fired his ass? They were upset because he went over their heads
to the whitehouse and the press and state dept.


If you persist, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn that I'd like to sell
you. As Barnum (?) said, there's a sucker born every minute.

This is called a non-sequitar of if you'd like nonsense. You're
calling into question the career of a General who served his country
bravely and resolutely.


Big John
Cullen 15086

I too have long and honorable service and received many decorations
for bravery while under enemy fire, etc.

If you can dismiss the career of a General so easily why would I
believe that your accomplishments are untarnished?

Or are you saying that if you can do it then Wesley Clark's
military career is no big deal?

Stick with what you know. Relying on innuendo is not a good habit.


R. Hubbell




On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 18:43:46 -0800, "R.Hubbell"
wrote:

On 17 Jan 2004 01:26:09 GMT ackatyu (Wdtabor) wrote:


I'd say his military record serves to discount your theory.



What, like the part about him being removed from command for reasons having to
do with personal integrity?

You're still expecting us to take your word for it? His exemplary service
in the military speaks for itself.

Just more vacuous vitriol.



R. Hubbell


Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 01:02:36 -0500 Lisa Hughes wrote:



"R.Hubbell" wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 23:33:48 -0500 Lisa Hughes wrote:



"R.Hubbell" wrote:

On 17 Jan 2004 01:26:09 GMT ackatyu (Wdtabor) wrote:


I'd say his military record serves to discount your theory.



What, like the part about him being removed from command for reasons having to
do with personal integrity?

You're still expecting us to take your word for it? His exemplary service
in the military speaks for itself.

History has shown clearly that generals don't make good Presidents. Why would
somebody whose occupation is a soldier be better/worse than anybody else for
President?


Not sure what you're talking about, did you post to the wrong message?

In regards to Wesley Clark's integrity his exemplary service in the military
speaks for itself.

No I posted to the right message. Read what I said again.

I disagree, you think that I made a judgement that a general is a better
candidate for the presidency. But I never said that. You reached that conclusion
in your own mind. Feel free to discuss with yourself.


R. Hubbell


With regards to Wesley Clark's integrity and his "exemplary service in the military,"
could you please expain exactly why Clark was relieved as NATO commander months before
his tour was finished? Why did he suddenly retire? Why didn't he serve out his
tour???

How many civilian casualties were there in Serbia? Why were trains full of civilians
decimated and then Clark claimed that the "train was moving to fast" to avoid
targeting? Gosh I had no idea that Serbia had invented such fast trains.

Finally, why did Clark change his positions so radically? I hope we would make a
better President and I hope he wouldn't mysteriously disappear from the White House
three (3) years into the job, like his disappearing act before his tour was finished,
if he were to be elected.