18 Sep 2003 @ 9:15 PM 

It amazes me that the writer of this article, which lambasts Wes Clark for (as far as I can tell) having an ill-fitting suit, actually served in the United States Congress. It’s astounding to me that someone actually elected this guy. Maybe he only became completely unhinged and part of the lunatic fringe after he lost reelection…
Full text of article follows.

Gen. ‘Weasley’ Clark – The 10th Little Indian

Dan Frisa
Wednesday, Sept. 17, 2003

Surprise, surprise!

Weasley Clark is going to become the “10th little Indian” in the Democrat presidential primary and will announce his intention to run after announcing just last week that he, too, is a tax-and-spend neo-lib.

Gee, he certainly had everyone on the edges of their seats and spending sleepless nights wondering if he’d run … NOT!

His opportunist desires were plain as day when he chose to undermine the commander in chief and undercut American forces throughout the conduct of war in Iraq while acting as paid commentator for MSNBC and CNN this spring.
If his grandstanding wasn’t traitorous, he certainly at least gave aid and comfort to our enemies and France at a time when our troops were prosecuting a war to depose the tyrannical Saddam Hussein.

Kind of reminds you of his fellow anti-American Arkansan Bill Clinton, who also protested U.S. military action while on foreign soil during wartime.

It’s no surprise, then, that this self-promoting egotist has decided to heed Slick Willie’s advice to enter the race, after having instigated his own “Draft Clark” campaign.

But the real reason likely has more to do with the presidential ambitions of Sen. Hilarious Clinton, D-N.Y., who has been trumpeted by her “spouse” along with Clark as the only two Democrats able to succeed in 2004.

Despite being a first-in-his-class West Pointer, Clark is more like a leader of a Pinko Parade than a “duty, honor, country” upholder of the Long Gray Line.

Take a close, hard look at this wacko when he makes his announcement.

Notice his unsettling beady eyes and the ill-fitting collar of his suit: not exactly the embodiment of presidential stature.

What’s also painfully obvious is Clark’s lack of perception of the transparent orchestration by the Clintons of his candidacy, which will serve only to further divide Democrat support among each of the 10 little Indians, thus preventing any of them from securing sufficient delegates to win the nomination.

Now, what could that bring about?

A stalemate, of course!

And who will come to the aid of her party in that event?
Correct, again: Sen. Hilarious Clinton, to head a Clinton-Clark ticket next year, if the Clinton calculus is that President Bush is, in fact, beatable.

All of which would indicate – given the donkey as the symbol of the Democrat party – that Gen. Weasley Clark is really nothing more than a four-star jackass, and merely the latest victim of the perpetual Clinton whirlwind.

Posted By: Gary
Last Edit: 18 Sep 2003 @ 09:15 PM

Categories: Military, Political


Responses to this post » (7 Total)

  1. Anonymous says:

    Once again its amazing how “Andy” seems to like to complain just to complain – either that or he skipped right down to the bottom of the article and did not bother to read the part where they “lambasted” him not ONLY for his ill fitting suit but for practically if not technically being a traitor to the country due to his comments on CNN during the war – comments that proved to be WAY off.

  2. Gary says:

    If the author had given some details of this supposed treason, then we may have something to discuss. Since he only seemed to find one tangible thing to attack (the ill-fitting suit), he must not have noticed anything else that he could point people to. Besides which, the entire article is just so filled with vitriol. It’s like watching Michael Moore at the Oscars – I just can’t help but say, “If you have a point, make it.”

    If being opposed to a war is treason, there are many other traitors holding elected office right now. If being a CNN commentator is treasonous, half the city of Atlanta are traitors. Since that is absurd on its very face, the author would have been wise to find other actual facts to use instead of merely venting that GEN(R) Clark is a tool of the Clintons. That would also be something interesting to discuss, if there are any items of interest to point to besides the publicly known acquaintance of Bill and Wesley.

    To call Clark a leader of the Pinko Parade without adding any details makes one wonder if there are any details to be found. Just saying something doesn’t make it so.

    The simplistic namecalling of extremists of any ilk turns me off anyhow. “Hilarious Clinton” and “Weasley Clark” don’t strike me as debating points that would be allowed very far by normal sane people.

    BTW, I never said that I agreed or disagreed with Wesley Clark’s politics. I’ve not researched them enough to say. The article I just read did absolutely nothing to enlighten me one way or the other.

  3. I lust Antonio Banderas says:

    Ok, Anony Mouse, I absolutely don’t get it…

    A few things, actually.

    His fucking name is GARY. GARY. GARY. GARY. It’s not hard. A-N-D-Y: 4 letters. G-A-R-Y: 4 letters. Where’s the problem, compadre?

    Practically being a traitor means expressing your opinions publicly. Hrm. Democracy in action?

    Soooo, you’re saying that in order to be a “GOOD AMERICAN”, it’s not good to dissent. Hm. Wow, I feel so enlightened.

    Who’s the traitor again, Mr. Mouse?

  4. Anonymous says:

    Yes I know his real name is Gary – thats the reason I put “Andy” in quotes. And Gary is the one that decided to choose a pseudonym of AndySocial, I find it curious that someone else would find fault in using it, even if in a shorter form.

    No expressing opinions – particularly along the lines of whether a war is the right thing or not – is not treason. However, second guessing strategic and tactical decisions by someone who should be in the know as far as our military capabilities go and revealing that those decisions are inadequate for the job DOES go a long way toward offering comfort and morale boosts to the enemy.

    And to “Andy”, yes the article doesnt go into length about exactly what it was he was saying on CNN – but it does point it out.

  5. Gary says:

    No, Mr. Comcast user, the article didn’t point anything out. The fact that GEN(R) Clark was employed by CNN is true. The fact that he publicly said that the war would not be as easy as Bush et al believed is true. How are either of those items treasonous in any way? Is disagreeing with the current administration akin to treason? If so, did you ever disagree with the previous administration? Does that make you a traitor?

  6. lysa says:

    Once again, it’s amazing how anonymous people seem to like to target Gary, and are too cowardly to make their identity known. }:-{

  7. Gary says:

    I don’t really care about masking one’s identity online. I do wonder why someone would bother making a hostile-sounding statement without trying to add any actual information. Low signal-to-noise ratio there.

Comment Meta:
RSS Feed for comments

 Last 50 Posts
Change Theme...
  • Users » 2
  • Posts/Pages » 5,656
  • Comments » 897
Change Theme...
  • VoidVoid « Default
  • LifeLife
  • EarthEarth
  • WindWind
  • WaterWater
  • FireFire
  • LightLight


    No Child Pages.

Who is Bunk?

    No Child Pages.


    No Child Pages.