Posted on 11/17/2003 3:49:57 PM PST by hobson
He's about to show Clark getting angry this morning with Asman.
What kind of a weak argument is that? Those are legal qualifications, not moral or ethical ones. The founders of our constitution expected the people of the Republic to be able to govern the latter. You sir are a pitiful reminder of how far our Republic has truly gone down the path of moral relativism.
I went to Fox to see if they had a transcript or article about this and there was the video. I was going to add it to the thread myself, but figured I better check the whole thing before I duped it up.
Oh, so by your logic, it couldn't hurt the Republic to elect one more unqualified president... so VOTE for Clark.
You're only embarrassing yourself with the posts.
I was told by my ROTC Master Seargent Instructor that Generals are the easiest officers to talk to in the Army (more willing to listen, etc.). Clark must have been one really INSECURE general to invoke so much disrepect and outright hostility from his many subordinates and colleagues.
Yeah thats him. Have they institutionalized him yet. I have not seen him since maybe right before the beginning of the war? Did he do a book, or some type of publication?
"About half way down, on the left. You have to sit through a short promo for Fox News once you set it loaded."
He can't...He's holding Hitlery's place in line so she can step in and be drafted at the convention, at which time "Yes Man" Clark becomes her running mate.
Clark sure knew how to turn this world upside-down when he ordered an attack on the Russians. Luckily the Brits told Clark to go get bent. It's no coincidence that the Generals Shelton and Franks have spoken out against him and his inability to be an effective commander in chief.
From hero, to whistle-blower, to celebrity
Other vets are claiming military "feminists" cooked up the entire story. "Trust me, the troops — past and present — are unhappy," the outspoken war critic Col. David Hackworth wrote last week. "Jessica was used right from the first to sell the war to the American people and to encourage their daughters to join up and be heroes."
I don't believe that Rhodes Scholars are selected by state. They are selected by "districts", each of which includes several states. I believe that there are eight districts. For 2002, there were 32 winners.
From the Rhodes Scholarship web site, the requirements include:
Intellectual distinction is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for election to a Rhodes Scholarship. Selection committees are charged to seek excellence in qualities of mind and in qualities of person which, in combination, offer the promise of effective service to the world in the decades ahead. The Rhodes Scholarships, in short, are investments in individuals rather than in project proposals. Accordingly, applications are sought from talented students without restriction as to their field of academic specialization or career plans although the proposed course of study must be available at Oxford, and the applicant's undergraduate program must provide a sufficient basis for further study in the proposed field. Through the years, Rhodes Scholars have pursued studies in all of the varied fields available at the University of Oxford.
Basically, in my opinion, recipients are those who we had in our high school class who were known as brown-nosers.
Past winners include Clinton, Robert Reich, Wes Clark, Paul Sarbanes, Russ Feingold, Walter Isaacson (former chairman and CEO of CNN News Group), Strobe Talbott, Bill Bradley and at least 25 "American Rhodes Scholars Against the War". Are you seeing a trend here?
I was stunned and infuriated when self-described military hero Colonel David Hackworth attacked me in the press. He accused me not only of "ersatz" heroism but of having spilled my guts to the enemy while in captivity--without any substantiating information to back up his claim. I didn't mind people speaking their piece, but Hackworth had sent letters to the editors of my hometown newspapers in both Clarkville, Tennessee, and Berlin, New Hampshire.I had no idea what had spurred this very personal attack, but I was infuriated. At the time, had I run into him, I would have choked him. I responded to his rantings with my own letter to the editor, wondering why a man who considered himself a fine example of military leadership would chastise a fellow soldier in public, and challenged him to debate the issue. Shortly afterward, I received a postcard from Hackworth, claiming that he "didn't have the time" to discuss it with me. I was furious. He clearly had the time to rip me apart in public, but not to face me man-to-man.
Yet when things like this happened, I could only assume that some men could only bolster their self-worth by diminishing the deeds of others. I did not consider myself a hero, just a soldier who had done his best under difficult circumstances. Most of the true heroes I had ever known were dead. The rest of us were just survivors with medals.
IMO, Hackworth is a disgrace.
Why don't you go read the article and then we can discuss how much you know.
Plus, cut the condescending BS.
Yet you defend Clark.
Hmmm...most people would be labeled a liar at this point. But I think in some cases, it's just ignorance. What do you think?
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.