President Wesley Clark?

[SuperScout]

In your recitation of former officers aka President, you omitted Truman, who IMHO, failed to distinguish himself either in combat or as CinC.

Not so sure that I agree with your assertion that we started WW III; that's almost analagous to saying that since we fired back in WW II, we started it. The most important thing to remember about this WW III is that:
1. it is totally different than WW II, and thus requires a different set of tactics, techniques, mindsets, and equipment.
2. there probably exists a high level of inertia, opposition, and ignorance of what constitutes a valid counter-terrorism paradigm at the Pentagon, DIA, and other institutions.

Clark's lack of integrity in first opposing the actions in the Balkans, and later executing the orders of his CinC are no less malfeasant than the weaslings of GEN Earle Wheeler, GEN, Harold K. Johnson, and other senior military leadership who kowtowed to LBJ.

Job descriptions for the ultimate occupier of the White House are partially written by those wascally political primaries! Until you become Emperor, BLUE, that's a fact of life. As my good friend, Fr. Anthony deMello, wrote, "Happiness cannot be defined. What can be defined is misery." I do agree that military experience usually makes a candidate more qualified, but that experience doesn't automatically covey the mantle of leadership, wisdom, tactical or strategic prowess, or how to spit shine boots. And finally, part of the sad legacy of the Vietnam war is that its onus has driven well qualified veterans from seeking public office in the same percentages as our WW II counterparts. We are stuck with clueless dunderheads.

[BLUEHAWK]

Scout -
Quite so, I forgot about Truman, his service was WW I artillery, right?

I did not mean to say that we STARTED WW III Scout, not at all, but it does seem clear that America (via the "War Powers Act") DECLARED it... I know your meaning. Very little difference between the words "World War" and "Global War", is what I was getting at in my serflike manner.

Know what you mean, about the ole favorite spit shine... kinda a meditative experience ain't it, very satisfying when done well too, sorta proximate with a sound foreign policy. It's either shiny or it ain't, and the inspector won't hesitate to bring the latter fact to one's attention.

On the serious side though, I'd feel a lot more comfortable knowing that a commander-in-chief had battle command experience, especially if it were to be regarded, nit-picking aside, as competent by other battle commanders.

It makes little ole me nervous when war is on and the boss has not experienced it.

Do you think that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional?

[Keith_Hixson]

I didn't like his military analysis during the war. Too critical and too arrogant.

A military man the liberals can rally around.

Don't care for what I've seen.

Keith

[the humper]

was a Lieutenant when I first heard of him!!!!!! Haig, that is. And he was on the staff of the same emperor I wrote of above. And anyone can draw their own conclusion of him from his past political soirees. "As of now, I'm in charge here", I think were his words. Didn't set to well with the other pols.
SF
NC

[SuperScout]

WASHINGTON ? The White House pressured CNN to fire former military analyst Gen. Wesley Clark (search), the retired Army chief told a Phoenix radio station on Monday.

"The White House actually back in February apparently tried to get me knocked off CNN and they wanted to do this because they were afraid that I would raise issues with their conduct of the war," Clark told Newsradio 620 KTAR. "Apparently they called CNN. I don't have all the proof on this because they didn't call me. I've only heard rumors about it."

CNN had no immediate comment on the general's allegations. Fox News was inquiring with the White House.

[This may be ranked very high in the annals of improbable actions department. I hardly think that anybody in the White House has any such clout, pull, influence or charisma to convince CNN to do anything it doesn't want to do. Secondly, it speaks very poorly of Clark, making some statement with absolutely zero supporting documents to back it up. Maybe, just maybe, he was fired because (1) his military assessements were faulty (2) he was boring to watch and listen to (3) CNN was in a cash-crunch, and since fewer people than ever before were watching they could fire their overpriced 'experts'.]

[blues clues]

talk about charisma, a house plant has more than dubby.

razz

[SuperScout]

Charisma? If the President is so lacking in this quality, as you falsely claim, why are his popularity poll numbers as high as they are? Why do you think the military ranks admire him so much, for his lack of charisma? Go back and watch some news footage of how the military responds to his visits, then try, desparately try to claim he has no charisma. And BTW: during his term, your hero Der Schlickmeister, the troops had to be ORDERED to attend his photo op sessions. Some charisma there - NOT!

And getting back to the subject, Clark's charisma is such that it generally attracts those wishing to suck up to him for their own career enhancement.

[Boats]

Giving someone ultimate power can corrupt them to the bone in most cases. I won't say Patton was corrupt but he was slightly off TDC at times but this guy got things done and didn't care about the cost getting it done.

Leaders such as these and others the world needs in order to motivate the masses. I won't pretend to say I knew any of them personnally but like all things there are good ones and bad ones.

Order's must be made and order's taken and carried out regardless of the situations and most of us have had to either give them or carry them out one way or the other.

It's a tough job to order someone into battle or situation and know that some may not come back. They have to carry that burden all their remaining days.

Sargents on up to those big decisions makers sometimes end up costing their men & women's lives in one way or another. Command decisions require someone who (if only in their mind) can get something done when asked.

I have respect for those people only because someone has to make those decisions and others have to follow them.

[the humper]

In the fire-fights I've been in, the highest rank I've seen was ONE (l) Buck sergeant. Nothing else, nada. When it came to an encounter, it was the sergeant ON DOWN who did ALL the work. And the decision makers were on the reverse side of the hill, ALL night long!!!! Doesn't take rank to make you responsible or give you sense of responsibility except, maybe, in the service.
SF
NC

[Boats]

That's exactly what I meant - someone has to take the initiative and its usually the boys in the front. Motivation is still the key to any battle - someone has to say this is what has to be done and how you do it is up to those in the field telling other's what they have to do.