Posted on 05/25/2004 12:05:33 AM PDT by Veracious Poet
In fact, I stopped reading Clancy after "The Dragon and The Bear", because I found the plot was too weak, and because subplots were announced and never pursued.
AFAIK, in the SUm of all Fears, the bad guys are terrorists, a combination of PLO/Baader Gang, who want to crash down the new world order. They detonate a nuclear warhead in a US stadium and orchestrate incidents in Germany to make the USA and Russia attack each other. As a a second cover story, they plan on accusing Iran of being the masterming behind the attack, to entice a US strike against it and ruin every prospect of peace in the Middle-East - and that's why Ryan oppose it.
The pinpoint attack on a Mullah is in another novel - I guess it's Executive Orders, where Iran really is the villain this time.
Your talking about "executive orders". Clark and Chavez use a guide in a smart bomb on the head mullah of Iran. But this is after the portions of the US Army has crushed the combined army of Iraq and Iran.
"Clancy and Zinni were on Hannity & Colmes last night. Colmes asked Clancy something, Clancy shot him down and sat back with his arms crossed. I can't remember what it was about, it was weird. Zinni spoke for the next 7-8 mins alone, arguing with both Sean and Alan. Finally Sean got Tom involved again, and got him to say he was "probably" going to vote for Bush this year."
I saw the show too, and it was a weird deal going on with Clancy. He appeared to be almost drunk or something. I commented to my husband that for a guy who can write like the wind, he can barely string two sentences together.
Zinni is a liberal who was against taking any action to bomb terrorists camps in afganistan in the Clinton Era, please he's more of an idiot than Wesley Clark.
And Sean Hannity said that Clancy called him something obscene,as Clancy left the T.V. studio last night.
If anyone can send me his contact info, I'll gladly send him this: Saddam's Fingerprints on the NY Bombings, 1993, with all the evidence through the 1990's included.
Seriously? Geeze. He really doesn't like being wrong, does he?
You wrote: "Zinni is a liberal who was against taking any action to bomb terrorists camps in afganistan in the Clinton Era, please he's more of an idiot than Wesley Clark."
Article: "Zinni, a registered Republican who voted for Bush in 2000..."
I think FR should offer remedial reading comprehension courses, seems many here need them.
Where did you study dis-information tactics?
You spread lies as fast as the writers of Pravda...
Defaming and slandering Zinni with false info only shows your inability to counter his argument.
That is all that is going on here and nothing more. Clancy is just a screenwriter/novelist and does not have any greater insight into the War on Terror or the War in Iraq then your average Freeper. The fact that he has friends in high places and researches his books does not give him any special insight into the historical battle that we are engaged in. It could but it doesn't. His pocketbook speaks so loudly that it drowns out any message he should be getting from a simple review of history and current and recent (i.e. 9/11) events.
Seriously! Clancy is an arrogant,nasty,foul mouthed jerk.I won't EVER buy another book he's written,or see a movie based on one of his books.
But hey, what's being anti-war if you can't make a profit off our dead troops.
You are behind in your reading, Sean Hannity sliced and diced Zinni on his radio show Tuesday. Wesley Clark is the source for the objection to taking action along with ex Defense Secty Cohen. Zinni is a RINO.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.