NY Times' Frankel not at all happy with Clark's "partisan" book!

[wyldwolf]

THIS guy really hates Clark... and he really HATES to admit Clark was right about the consequences of Iraq.

Notice how "throughtout" the piece, he "uses" quotation marks the "same" way rightwing radio uses that shrill voice to ridicule people's words - without ever trying to refute the words.

One thing is for sure. Frankel LOOOOOOVES his Dubyah!

... the general cannot camouflage the partisan thrust of his polemic. His deft review of the battlefield tactics that won Baghdad in less than a month is merely the preface to a bitter, global indictment of George W. Bush. The president and his administration are condemned for recklessly squandering a brilliant military performance on the wrong war at the worst possible time, diverting resources and talent from the pursuit of Al Qaeda, neglecting urgent domestic needs and dissipating the post-9/11 sympathy and support of most of the world.

No credit even for the one thing that Clark admires about the American performance in Iraq. He recounts with relish the ''synchronization of high-tech airpower with agile ground maneuvers'' -- how the rapid advance of armor forced Iraqi units to move and expose themselves to air and rocket attacks, which in turn facilitated more ground advances. But ''the irony is that the vision of . . . a high-tech battlefield, viewed through an array of sensors, with battles fought and won by precision strikes and a slimmer ground component -- which the Bush administration, and especially Donald Rumsfeld, have trumpeted, is largely a reality that they inherited when they took office in 2001.''

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/26/books/review/26FRANKET.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5062&en=bc7ddecc212e4e39&ex=1067745600&partner=GOOGLE

[DeepModem Mom]

1. I saw the review also, and started a thread....

asking if the NYT was once again editorializing in the Book Review section.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=588871

[charlie]

2. Ah, so it's bitterness that drives Clark

He uses that characterization 3 times in the short article. Clark just has blackened rancor gnawing at his heart. We can safely toss his assessments overboard, then.

I haven't read the new book, but I haven't read or heard war criticism from Clark that wasn't workmanlike and stick-to-the-facts straight. If anyone's inexplicably bitter, it's Frankel. Whatta tool.