Run, Sir Clark, Run...

by teejay 95 Replies latest social current

teejay

Here also I have to disagree. Jobs were being lost before Bush ever took office, maybe due to such things as NAFTA, the Kyoto Accord and other policies instituted, or maybe just a normal fluctuation in the economy.
I give up. You're right, Dakota. The 2.7 million people who've lost their jobs on Bush's watch, including the 93,000 who did so in August alone? Let's blame that on Clinton. Whatever.
As for the respect other nations had for us, that too was actually being pissed away during the fiasco we now call the Kosovo campaign, under the watchful command of one, General Wesley Clark.
Got proof of that statement? And are you now saying that U.S. involvement in Kosovo was a mistake? Whatever your answer, was it Clark's decision as a commander to make the political call? Or was it his charge to simply win the campaign?
Since you say you have no aversion to a critical look at Clark and being as he has no political resume' to examine, we can look back at his military career and see how well he did there. Here are a few links for you to read, if you dare. Oh, some are as equally critical of Bush too;
I'm serious about this election and so I'm unafraid to read credible reporting about General Clark, emphasis on "credible." Are you so supportive of Bush that you can't stand to face realities about him?
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/09/1646046.php
"The campaign in Iraq illustrates the continuing progress of military technology and tactics, but if there is a single overriding lesson it must be this: American military power, especially when buttressed by Britain's, is virtually unchallengeable today. Take us on? Don't try! And that's not hubris, it's just plain fact." -- General Clark quoted in the London Times, 4/11/03
Did the general misspeak?
http://www.tcgreens.org/gl/articles/20030917063108912.html
Months before the invasion, Clark's opinion piece in Time magazine (10/14/02) was aptly headlined "Let's Wait to Attack,"
Clark explained on CNN (1/21/03) that if he had been in charge, "I probably wouldn't have made the moves that got us to this point. But just assuming that we're here at this point, then I think that the president is going to have to move ahead, despite the fact that the allies have reservations."
Clark told CNN's Miles O'Brien that Saddam Hussein "does have weapons of mass destruction." When O'Brien asked, "And you could say that categorically?" Clark was resolute: "Absolutely" (1/18/03). When CNN's Zahn (4/2/03) asked if he had any doubts about finding the weapons, Clark responded: "I think they will be found. There's so much intelligence on this."
Little did General Clark (or the rest of us) know that the Bush Administration had been lying to the public for over a year.
To CNN's Paula Zahn (7/16/03): "From the beginning, I have had my doubts about this mission, Paula," he said. "And I have shared them previously on CNN."
Clark made bold predictions about the effect the war would have on the region: "Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western standards of human rights."
He miscalculated the reaction he expected from other Gulf states, but in his defense I think it's likely that he expected a better post-war plan from the Administration, too. Some plan ... ANY plan would've been better than Bush's.
Dakota, I had the intention of looking at every one of the links you gave me but since i early on saw no damning evidence against Clark (but plenty against war in general and Bush in particular) I quickly got the impression that you hadn't looked at them yourself. What did you do? ... type "General Wesley Clark" into a search engine?
Do me a favor. Direct me to the quotes in each of the links (above the level of the National Enquirer / People Magazine) that cast a serious shadow over the character and history of General Clark. As the man isn't Jesus Christ I'm thinking you should be able to find something. When you do, I'd like to see it. Sorry, but it will have to be more than the words of some nameless and singular disgruntled colonel who Clark once commanded.
Nikita

Just for teejay:
Nikita
Gozz

lol@ Nikita.
Grind them, General, grind them.
teejay

Thanks, Nikita. I just luuurve that cartoon!!
------------
GOP insiders worry that president is vulnerable
WASHINGTON — Some Republicans are saying aloud something that seemed unthinkable just a few months ago: President Bush could lose next year's election.
Bush and his advisers have always said publicly that they expect a close election. Privately, however, many supporters were confident Bush would coast to a second term. Now that confidence is giving way to anxiety among some of them.
Few would discuss their concerns on the record, but in interviews with 20 Republican officials and strategists across the country, most said off the record that they are beginning to worry.
Fallout from Iraq is triggering many Republicans' concerns. The continuing deaths of U.S. troops are raising qualms about the wisdom of the war. The pace of reconstruction is prompting questions about the administration's competence. That no chemical or biological weapons have been found is causing doubts about the president's credibility. Many Bush supporters wish he could put the whole issue behind him.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-23-bush-cover_x.htm
Clark Tied With President Bush in Poll
Democrat Wesley Clark, in the presidential race for less than a week, is tied with President Bush in a head-to-head matchup, according to a poll that shows several Democratic candidates strongly challenging the Republican incumbent.
Clark, a retired Army general, garnered 49 percent support to Bush's 46 percent, which is essentially a tie given the poll's margin of error. The CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll was conducted Sept. 19-21, beginning two days after Clark announced he would become the 10th Democratic candidate for the party's nomination.
Several other Democrats who have been in the race for months also were close to Bush in direct matchups. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut also were tied with the president, while Bush held a slight lead over former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean and Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri.
Separately, Clark led all Democratic candidates in the survey released Monday that showed Bush far more vulnerable.
The president's job approval was 50 percent, with 47 percent disapproving. The public gave Bush high marks for having the personality and leadership qualities of a chief executive. But just over half, 51 percent, said they disagreed with the president on issues that matter most to them
http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-democrats-bush-poll,0,3727943.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines
DakotaRed

So much for wanting to see a critical look at Clark, huh, TeeJay? The claim about the Europeans loosing respect for America during the Kosovo campaign are in the articles, the ones you seem to think I don't read.
As for looking at Bush, haven't we been hearing any and every negative thing about him for three years now?
And, just what was the neccessity of Kosovo? Milosovic wasn't threatening the US with WMDs, he wasn't supporting international terrorism, so why did the US need to get into the middle of a European mess again? What was Clark's exit strategy there and why are we still there, six years later? Isn't that the same questions we are demanding answers for from Bush?
But still, my original question remains unanswered. If Bush and Rumsfeld and all are warmongers and bloodthirsty because of Iraq and the war on terrorism, why isn't Clark also a warmonger due to his involvement in wars? There appears to be a bit of a double standard there.
You asked before, elsewhere, what if Clark were a Republican? My answer is the same, I fail to see where he is qualified for much of anything, other than looking pretty. Your vote is your business, my vote is mine.
crownboy

Well, Howard Dean is still my number one candidate, and I hope he gets the nomination, but I certainly wouldn't mind Gen. Clark getting it either, given what I already know of some of his political views. I saw him on an interview on Politically Incorrect on HBO, and he certainly seems like a guy who is electable.
I definitely would like to see him give some more detailed policy statements and the like of course, but so far so good.
teejay

>>>> So much for wanting to see a critical look at Clark, huh, TeeJay? The claim about the Europeans loosing respect for America during the Kosovo campaign are in the articles, the ones you seem to think I don't read.

Dakota,

I told you... when I began to look at the links you gave, it appeared to me that they were either hearsay or more negative toward the war in Kosovo, not Clark. That's why I asked you to provide quotes not just links, which I noticed you failed to do. If the tables were turned and I had been the one to provide links, you can rest assured that I would have made a stronger case than you seem willing (or able) to do.

>>>> And, just what was the neccessity of Kosovo? Milosovic wasn't threatening the US with WMDs, he wasn't supporting international terrorism, so why did the US need to get into the middle of a European mess again? What was Clark's exit strategy there and why are we still there, six years later? Isn't that the same questions we are demanding answers for from Bush?

What is it with you trying to nail Kosovo on Clark? Be honest: Clark was a military commander charged with carrying out political mandates, not the politician. Do we credit Schwartzkopf with the victory in Gulf War I or Bush I? Same with this GW II and every other armed conflict. The president is where the buck stops. Stop trying to pin Kosovo on Clark. He did his job. As a vet, you oughta give him more credit than that.

>>>> If Bush and Rumsfeld and all are warmongers and bloodthirsty because of Iraq and the war on terrorism, why isn't Clark also a warmonger due to his involvement in wars? There appears to be a bit of a double standard there.

You're not being serious, are you?

>>>> You asked before, elsewhere, what if Clark were a Republican? My answer is the same, I fail to see where he is qualified for much of anything, other than looking pretty.

So Clark is a pretty-boy now, huh? Dakota? You somethin' else!
DakotaRed

What is it with you trying to nail Kosovo on Clark? Be honest: Clark was a [THE] military commander charged with carrying out political mandates, not the politician.

As the Supreme Commander over Kosovo, he carried the burden of it all. If you have read the links I porvided (links and not quotes, due to the length of them), you will have noticed that he excused and justified the bombings of the Chinese Embassy, a Civilian TV station, that reportedly killed some 20 or so innocent civilian reporters, and many other bombings that others questioned. His tactics bespoke of not having much a grasp of the situation that ultimately led to his premature retirement form the Military.
If he became President, would he carry the same misguidings into that role as well? I see nothing of any substance indicating otherwise.
Stop trying to pin Kosovo on Clark. He did his job.
If he "did his job," why are US Troops still there, six years later? Why hasn't that region been granted it's sovereignty, as is demanded of Bush in Iraq already today?
If Bush and Rumsfeld and all are warmongers and bloodthirsty because of Iraq and the war on terrorism, why isn't Clark also a warmonger due to his involvement in wars? There appears to be a bit of a double standard there. You're not being serious, are you?
Still can't answer?
So Clark is a pretty-boy now, huh?
Gen. Shelton shocks Celebrity Forum, says he won't support Clark for president
By Joan Garvin / Town Crier Correspondent
Retired General H. Hugh Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on 9/11, shared his recollection of that day and his views of the war against terrorism with the Foothill College Celebrity Forum audience at Flint Center, Sept. 11 and 12.
His review of that historic event and his 38 years in the military kept the audience's rapt attention throughout. But it was his answer to a question from the audience at the end that shocked his listeners.
"What do you think of General Wesley Clark and would you support him as a presidential candidate," was the question put to him by moderator Dick Henning, assuming that all military men stood in support of each other. General Shelton took a drink of water and Henning said, "I noticed you took a drink on that one!"
"That question makes me wish it were vodka," said Shelton. "I've known Wes for a long time. I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. I'm not going to say whether I'm a Republican or a Democrat. I'll just say Wes won't get my vote."
Shelton was on a 757 en route to Budapest for a conference when he learned that a plane had crashed into the World Trade Center. Knowing that New York had perfect weather and there were no computer problems, he determined that it was a terrorist attack and immediately turned the plane around.
Shelton's 38 years in the military included two years in Vietnam and service in the 173rd Airborne Brigade and Green Berets. In addition to having been an adviser to the president and a member of the National Security Council, he has been awarded the Congressional Gold Medal, the Purple Heart and six Distinguished Service Medals. He has been decorated by 15 foreign governments and knighted by Queen Elizabeth.
His 6-foot-6-inch military bearing and commanding presence at the Celebrity Forum belied his recent personal battle. Only months after his retirement, following 400 parachute jumps from 30,000 feet, the former special ops soldier fell from a ladder outside his home, landed with his head caught in a chain-link fence and was partially paralyzed from the neck down.
The doctor told Shelton he would never walk or use his hands again. Shelton said he checked the doctor's name tag for "God"; he didn't see it. Eighty-four days later he walked out on his own, and he is now close to 100 percent recovered. The unfortunate experience taught him an invaluable lesson -- "the importance of faith, family and friends when the chips are down."
Three days after Shelton took office as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, his commitment to the integrity of the military was tested. When U.S. planes in the Iraq no-fly zone were attacked, a member of Congress suggested that perhaps "we" could fly a U-2 spy plane so low over Iraq that it could easily get hit. Then we'd have a reason "to kick Saddam out of Iraq." After Shelton responded that he would order that "just as soon as you are qualified to fly (it)," he was not asked again to compromise his office.
"Sometimes people in a position of power lose perspective on right and wrong," Shelton said.
The events of 9/11 were not a surprise to Shelton. He had been concerned because the United States offers a vulnerable target-rich environment. Two areas continue to worry him. First, a cyber-attack on air control, water, 911, financial or other nationwide systems could "bring us to our knees." Second, the use of weapons of mass destruction, even small amounts of sarin gas, anthrax germs, bio-attacks, continues to be a dangerous threat. Their deployment had been planned for the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, but al-Qaeda ordered the attack before they were in place.
In order to deal with the ongoing danger, the United States must "continue to go after terrorists," he said. "Bush has maintained the pressure and earned kudos in spite of the criticism."
http://www.losaltosonline.com/articles/2003/09/23/news/community/news01.txt
If retired General Shelton can't bring himself to support him, why should I? Maybe there's a reason Clark is often referred to as "The Perfumed Prince."
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/nato/
If you truly wish to unseat Bush, I suggest you choose someone else that will give him a formidable run. Wait until the other Democrats start blasting him before the convention. Your vote, your business, though.
teejay

Dakota,

I'm sorry that the 6-foot-6-inch Gen. Shelton whose spent 38 years in the military fell off a ladder and got his head stuck in a chain link fence, but struggle as I might I can't see what that has to do with this discussion or with Clark's run for the presidency.

The only hint of relevance to this discussion to be found in that website is where Shelton says he won't vote for Clark because of "integrity and character issues." What's he talking about? Shelton didn't elaborate and the link you provided didn't, either. Neither did any of the other links.

>>>>> If retired General Shelton can't bring himself to support him, why should I? Maybe there's a reason Clark is often referred to as "The Perfumed Prince."

I don't have a problem with you following along behind General Shelton when he makes this or that decision. That's surely your choice. If I were you, though, I'd get to know Shelton a whole lot better since his opinion seems to matter a great deal to you. Tell me... is he a Ford man or does he prefer Chevys? You better find out. Crest or Colgate? CNN or Fox? Too bad that Shelton's not running because it sounds like he already has *your* vote.

Personally, based on no more than the anecdotes provided in the website you quoted, I think Shelton is jealous, that's all. Clark is a genius; a mental Goliath. Throughout his academic and military career he has consistently outscored his peers, based on what I've read. That kind of performance creates jealousy and envy among less qualified and less able peers. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that Clark bettered General Shelton more than once over the years, even attaining the position of supreme commander over NATO. Did Clark's accomplishments and appointments evoke feelings of resentment, bitterness and envy in Shelton? It's more than a possibility to me.

Sorry, but I'm still waiting for CREDIBLE evidence of malfeasance of any kind against General Clark. The piddling comments in the links you gave yesterday came up way short, Dakota.
SixofNine

Maybe there's a reason Clark is often referred to as "The Perfumed Prince."

btw, Dakota, the man who labled him that, David Hackworth, has apologized, as he based it on bad information and misinformation. He now has some very positive things to say about Clarke.
But to answer the question, "the reason Clarke is often referred to as "The Perfumed Prince" " (is that a bad thing, btw?) is because Hackworth said it once, and it was catchy. But even when he said it, it (the phrase) wasn't really a good reason not to elect the man president, was it?

Run, Sir Clark, Run...

Share this