General Wesley Clark

[michaello]

What is your point of view on General Wesley Clark? Can he do it?

Read this for some background:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0209.clark.html

[Sayhey]

Excellant article. I particularly liked the quote from Truman stating:

In the twilight of World War II we recognized the need for allies. We understood the need to prevent conflict, not just fight it, and we affirmed the idea that we must banish from the world what President Harry Truman, addressing the founding of the United Nations, called "the fundamental philosophy of our enemies, namely, that 'might makes right.'" Truman went on to say that we must "prove by our acts that right makes might."

Harry, where are you when we need you?

[michaello]

Exactly.

I found this part pretty interesting, too, considering this article was written in September of 2002:

"The longer the war goes on, the more we are going to need cooperation and support from other nations--not just troops and ships and airplanes, but whole-hearted governmental collaboration. Instead, we seem to be getting less as time goes on. After September 11, the United States gave the United Nations a list of groups and individuals suspected of funding terrorists. European governments responded by freezing their assets. In the spring, the U.S. government provided an updated list with new names. This time, most European governments ignored the list, according to The Wall Street Journal, citing concern that the United States was providing insufficient recourse for those who claim they are innocent. "

[Sayhey]

I find it interesting that such a high-ranking former military man is such a supporter of international institutions, international law, and restraint of military action. Not what I would have thought to hear from General Clark. Not saying I would vote for him as my first choice, but the article makes me want to hear more.

[zimv20]

nice piece. this is the sort of thing i'd expect a leader to say. i can't imagine bush writing anything like this.

(come to think of it -- have i ever read anything he's written?)

[michaello]

Come to think of it, I don't believe I've ever read anything George W. Bush has written either.

[IJ Reilly]

Some Americans seem to take a certain delight in Europe's outrage. But the fact is that this outrage is undermining our ability to carry out the next stages of the war, including, perhaps, toppling Saddam Hussein. We don't necessarily need Europe's full military support for a war against Saddam. But we need its diplomatic support now and its assistance in the aftermath. Without this support, others will have an excuse for not cooperating.

Clark wasn't the only person saying this a year ago, but now it should be painfully apparent to everyone who was right and who was wrong.

[michaello]

Yeah, he sort of bypasses the argument among the Democrats about who was "for the war" and who was "against the war" with that paragraph.

As I read up,I see there's a whole lot of negative press about him, too. Some heavy allegations about Waco and Kosovo. Anyone have a bead on which pool that's coming from?

[jefhatfield]

at first, i thought, "how unusual for a general to be a democrat" since the high profile soldiers i can think of who were generals are republicans...colin powell who is current secretary of state, former secretary of state alexander haig, and former presidnet dwight eisenhower

but in my experiences living near several military installations, all but one of the officers and men i have known over the years were democrats...so maybe clark is not all that unusual

[Marc2B]

:cool: One can only hope that he can do it. Leadership is an inherent trait. You either are born with it, or not. I believe what Patton said; "Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way". We have too many pols who don't have enough balls to call it as it is

[zimv20]

Originally posted by zimv20

(come to think of it -- have i ever read anything he's written?)

and now i have. ladies and gentlemen, i present to you, a poem from bush to his wife:

Roses are red/Violets are blue/Oh my, lump in the bed/How I've missed you.

Roses are redder/Bluer am I/Seeing you kissed by that charming French guy.

The dogs and the cat, they missed you too/Barney's still mad you dropped him, he ate your shoe/The distance, my dear, has been such a barrier/Next time you want an adventure, just land on a carrier.


link (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/03/bush.poem.ap/index.html)

[toontra]

Originally posted by zimv20
and now i have. ladies and gentlemen, i present to you, a poem from bush to his wife:


link (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/03/bush.poem.ap/index.html)

OK - where are those people who say that Bush is not as stupid as he is portrayed in the press!!

To have "written" such crap in the first place is embarrassing but excusable, but to watch while your wife reads it to the press beggars belief.

[Sayhey]

It may be the cynic in me but I want to know if Rove came up with this idea to read this drivel in order to remind us what a "folksy" guy we have as President. No wonder he got "C"s in Yale.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Marc2B
:cool: One can only hope that he can do it. Leadership is an inherent trait. You either are born with it, or not. I believe what Patton said; "Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way". We have too many pols who don't have enough balls to call it as it is

i believe while leaders are usually born, they can also be made

but the world's militaries cannot rely on the very few who have an innate talent to lead

west point and the other military academies exist for that hope

a friend of mine, a navy captain, best put it this way, "college trains you to think, to create and that is good enough for most of us who will never fight in battle...the academies train you to lead"...so i believe that because we are dealing with war here, there are distinct differences between teaching someone how to be an engineer, landscaper, or professor vs. leading people into battle

thinking is not the best road to survival in a war where coordinated movements have to be done secretly yet as a unit and people have to follow orders to ensure the success of the mission...free thinkers need not apply...so the military academies teach you to lead, but in the context of following orders from your superiors, for the insurance that doing such will lead to the least amount of casualties in the given situation...in a war, there is only one leader paid to think and that is the president...history tells us that errant military subordinates to the president either get fired, get killed, or are a danger to soliders and civilians alike

[jefhatfield]

i have the utmost respect for the military academies and they have played their part in why we still have a democracy

before someone misinterprets what i say in my previous post, i am not saying that the leaders in the military cannot think or are stupid...but they have to have the smarts to do their job, the courage to do so, but most importantly, the discipline to do things which may not seem to "make sense" on the micro level they may be at in the big picture

in peacetime, or in army ads trying to get new recuits, it may sound cool to appear to have a more touchy feely army of creative individuals...but after having spoken with military authors, historians, and war veterans, this all goes out the window when you are at war and soldiers and civilians are getting killed

...following orders will save your butt and sticking to the plan is key

vietnam was an example of not following a strict plan and officers were given more leeway in determining what was best without consulting their superiors... the chaos of this war is well documented

having learned from the mistakes of vietnam, the military has tightened up more to its original form and the chain of command is taken far more seriously and sacrifice for the common good is more instilled than in vietnam...follow orders, lead in that context, achieve the mission, and don't question

we win wars efficiently that way and i am sure general clark is of that mindset and few question his credentials as a warrior and loyal soldier

but somewhere in the back of my head, i do have a nagging doubt about such a disciplined person taking on something as changing and unpredictable as politics...past four star generals like u.s. grant and eisenhower do not have the best records as politicians

[IJ Reilly]

Leadership qualities can be situational. Look at Rudy Giuliani -- he was seen as a divisive figure in New York before 9-11, and was growing increasingly unpopular. It looked for all the world like his political career was finished. But after the attacks, he found something buried deep in his soul, and was transformed. He became, not just for New Yorkers, but for the country, a symbol of resilience in the face of adversity. A lot of people found his calm, articulate determination in the face of great tragedy to be inspired and inspiring.

How a person behaves under stress and in the midst of crisis is my measure of leadership. The ability and desire to brush others aside in a rush to get where you want to go, is not.

[jefhatfield]

the mayor of new york rose to the occassion

i remember how bad he looked being a conservative trying to lead the largest multicultural city in america and one known for its liberal ideas...before 9-11, i thought rudolph was going to get tossed into the east river by his fellow new yorkers:p

9-11 definitely saved his reputation as did the reputation of the president who stood tall in those dark days...guiliani rode off into the sunset with the girl while W stayed behind to lead america in the white house...unfortunately, W's indecisiveness as a president after a strong president like clinton makes americans uneasy

as the time goes by, W's popularity falls as he reverts back to his pre 9-11 form:rolleyes:

i do look forward to a debate between clark and the president, if it ever comes to that...W's biggest positive accomplishment in his term could be tied into the military...but he won't be able to use that in a debate against clark who will have the advantage on topics of that issue...it will force the domestic issues (and the topic of the bad economy) and this is something the president has ignored for too long

[IJ Reilly]

I'm one who doesn't think GW stood particularly tall in the 9-11 aftermath. A day or more passed before he spoke to the nation, and the first appearance I recall him making after that attacks was hours later, at the impromptu press conference where he referred to the terrorists as "folks," accompanied by that deer-in-the-headlights expression. Hey, that's how we all felt -- but like I say, great leaders rise to an occasion.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by toontra
OK - where are those people who say that Bush is not as stupid as he is portrayed in the press!!


ha!

i'm a writer, and believe me when i say i've seen a LOT of absolute crap writing (in classes, in writing groups, on stage). bush's "poem" takes the cake.

it's unoriginal ("roses are red"), clunky ("ate your shoe") and the prosity is all messed up. there's bad grammar and the through line plays second to the forced rhymes.

the sentiment is weak. i know a ton of great actors who can turn the worst writing (including some of mine :-) into gold on stage.

this would play only as a comedic or ironic piece. bush displays an incredible lack of nuance and expression. i'd also say he's not written anything creative in a long time, despite what laura says. if he is a regular "writer" of poems, i would absolutely ****ing LOVE to see what crap he's spewed forth before.

dare i say they're probably ALL "roses are red" derivatives?

for something that's supposed to be from the heart, it smacks of a 5th grader trying to sound clever. and i'm being kind on the grade estimate. i wrote smarter things when i was 8.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by zimv20
dare i say they're probably ALL "roses are red" derivatives?

No, surely some of them are of the "There once was a man from Kent..." variety.

Must... try... to... resist...

[Desertrat]

"There was a young lady from Leith..."

Oops!

jef, I'm one of many who'd have some disagreement with your comment, "vietnam was an example of not following a strict plan and officers were given more leeway in determining what was best without consulting their superiors... the chaos of this war is well documented."

Oh, chaotic, no doubt. However, the micro-management from the White House and the lack of an overall strategy looks to me to be what turned it into the giant cluster-foop it turned out to be. Once the Grand CYA began, "wasted" truly deserved its entry into the lexicon of death.

****

Somebody from the Democrat Party commented after Ike won the election of 1952, "I almost feel sorry for the poor bastard. He's gonna give orders, and nothing will happen, and he'll never know why."

Oddity: Street interviews show that when the ignoranti are told Clark's a general, his favorable rating declines. Go figure.

'Rat

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Desertrat
"There was a young lady from Leith..."

Oops!

jef, I'm one of many who'd have some disagreement with your comment, "vietnam was an example of not following a strict plan and officers were given more leeway in determining what was best without consulting their superiors... the chaos of this war is well documented."

Oh, chaotic, no doubt. However, the micro-management from the White House and the lack of an overall strategy looks to me to be what turned it into the giant cluster-foop it turned out to be. Once the Grand CYA began, "wasted" truly deserved its entry into the lexicon of death.

****

Somebody from the Democrat Party commented after Ike won the election of 1952, "I almost feel sorry for the poor bastard. He's gonna give orders, and nothing will happen, and he'll never know why."

Oddity: Street interviews show that when the ignoranti are told Clark's a general, his favorable rating declines. Go figure.

'Rat

i wasn't in vietnam so i admit what i get, i get from what colin powell says in his book and it does seem to mirror, mostly but not all of what i read, about the military and its strategy in the vietnam war

the powell doctrine...well i don't have to get into that as i am sure you know all about it...have a plan, stick to it, and have an exit to the campaign...vietnam did not have those...especially the latter

i come from a liberal side and you have a lot of your arguments based from the conservative point of view, and that will lead us to different ideas for what is best militarily, and many times on the domestic front issues

i am not going to try and blame nixon's role in the war because i think he inherited a military that didn't have a plan, and was under a president, democrat lyndon johnson, who didn't have a plan...i will freely admit that the war was a huge mistake in the way president johnson handled it...and i am sure we can find middle ground and agree on at least that

in his book, powell criticizes how the us army, just prior to its enterance in vietnam put little emphasis on combat readiness

today i went to an air show which was also a ground breaking for a world war II memorial and at one of the display booths, a sgt who was a veteran of kosovo had a pretty good talk about vietnam with a two tour veteran from the marine corps...they went on and on about how "bad" the military was in screwing the whole thing up...interestingly, there was not one word blaming either president or the politicians...since the topic of the show was world war II, the current sgt. was fairly critical about the right time to use force or not...and if you go in, you do so to win, and then get the heck out

since this is an apple inc site, i think apple needed leadership, which was lacking, in the mid-90s, and they neeeded someone with a plan who was the "boss" and a willing group of employees who would back him and be fiercely loyal

steve jobs came in during 1997 and took control of the company, which had been floating around in different dissenting camps, and pointed in the right direction

[Durandal7]

Clark is a train wreck. It's a shame that the Democrat party can't rally behind a strong candidate.

Clark was seen as a loose cannon within the military and almost sparked an armed conflict with Russia during the Kosovo conflict, if it weren't for the intervention of a British general he would have attacked. During his stay in Yugoslavia the American embassy instituted the "Clark Rule" that stated Clark could not talk to foreigners without a US diplomat present. This was sparked by an improptu visit he payed to a suspected Serbian war criminal after he was told by US diplomats not to. He was then stricken from the promotion list for full general (he was a Lt. General at the time) but he managed to pull strings within the Clinton administration to get a promotion.

More recently he has changed his position on Iraq several times, going from "I probably would have voted in favor of the Iraq resolution" to "I would never have voted in favor of the Iraq resolution", both statements were about a week apart. In 2001 he gave a rather gushing speech at a Republican party fundraiser in Little Rock that praised nearly every member of the Bush Administration by name. He also proceeded to gush about Reagan and other assorted conservatives.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Durandal7
Clark is a train wreck. It's a shame that the Democrat party can't rally behind a strong candidate.

Clark was seen as a loose cannon within the military and almost sparked an armed conflict with Russia during the Kosovo conflict, if it weren't for the intervention of a British general he would have attacked. During his stay in Yugoslavia the American embassy instituted the "Clark Rule" that stated Clark could not talk to foreigners without a US diplomat present. This was sparked by an improptu visit he payed to a suspected Serbian war criminal after he was told by US diplomats not to. He was then stricken from the promotion list for full general (he was a Lt. General at the time) but he managed to pull strings within the Clinton administration to get a promotion.

More recently he has changed his position on Iraq several times, going from "I probably would have voted in favor of the Iraq resolution" to "I would never have voted in favor of the Iraq resolution", both statements were about a week apart. In 2001 he gave a rather gushing speech at a Republican party fundraiser in Little Rock that praised nearly every member of the Bush Administration by name. He also proceeded to gush about Reagan and other assorted conservatives.

Clark is not my ideal candidate, but he is hardly a "train wreck." He had problems with Hugh Shelton and Sec. of Defense Cohen in the struggle to have Apache helicopters available for the Kosovo Campaign but he may well have been right on the question. The arguments around the Russian occupation of the Pristina Airport is something that has to looked at from both sides, but I don't think it is correct to characterize him as a "loose cannon." He was operating under the authority of the NATO Secretary-General and the understanding of most of the governments of NATO. The British forces on the ground refused to follow the agreed on policy. It's one thing to agree with the British; it's quite another to jump to the conclusion that Clark was operating out there on his own with crazy ideas. The guy did lead a very successful campaign.

Before you buy the Republican spin, I would recommend reading some of his and others accounts on the questions. Seems to me he gets into trouble because he doesn't yet know how to answer in "sound bites" that can be easily digested by the press.

Check out these sites:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/671495.stm

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/conversation/jan-june01/clark_06-15.html

Clark's Presidential campaign has this site which is good for another view of his ideas:

http://www.americansforclark.com/

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Desertrat
Somebody from the Democrat Party commented after Ike won the election of 1952

In 1952, it was still known as the "Democratic Party," but of course that was before Newt Gingrich changed the party's name.

[Durandal7]

Originally posted by Sayhey
Before you buy the Republican spin, I would recommend reading some of his and others accounts on the questions.


I am not buying into "Republican spin", I simply dislike Clark for his inconsistency on positions and his military record.

I would much rather see someone else run on the Democrat ticket (Libermann or Dean) then Clark.

Perhaps Clark could make a Chief of State or even a Vice-President but I don't think he would make a good President.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Durandal7
I am not buying into "Republican spin", I simply dislike Clark for his inconsistency on positions and his military record.

I would much rather see someone else run on the Democrat ticket (Libermann or Dean) then Clark.

Perhaps Clark could make a Chief of State or even a Vice-President but I don't think he would make a good President.

My own questions about Clark center around his commitment to the Democratic Party and whether this is just the convenient choice to run under the circumstances. My reaction has something to do with my own stereotypes of four-star generals. I will leave the question open to further information.

I did not mean to insult you, but the topics you choose to criticize Clark on come straight from Republican talking points. I think they are, IMHO, distortions of his record. If you have read both sides and have reached a conclusion based on some evidence, I'd love to hear it.

I don't think one should be a Vice-President unless you are qualified to be President. People like Dan Quayle make me very nervous. So if Clark shouldn't be the President, I'd decline to accept him as second on the ticket. I don't know what "Chief of State" is so I will pass on that subject. Do you mean Secretary of State? "Head of State" under our system is the same as President.

[Durandal7]

Originally posted by Sayhey
My own questions about Clark center around his commitment to the Democratic Party and whether this is just the convenient choice to run under the circumstances. My reaction has something to do with my own stereotypes of four-star generals. I will leave the question open to further information.

I did not mean to insult you, but the topics you choose to criticize Clark on come straight from Republican talking points. I think they are, IMHO, distortions of his record. If you have read both sides and have reached a conclusion based on some evidence, I'd love to hear it.

I don't think one should be a Vice-President unless you are qualified to be President. People like Dan Quayle make me very nervous. So if Clark shouldn't be the President, I'd decline to accept him as second on the ticket. I don't know what "Chief of State" is so I will pass on that subject. Do you mean Secretary of State? "Head of State" under our system is the same as President.

No offense taken. Yes, I did mean Secretary of State, just a bit of a mind slip on my part. Whoops ;)

While I do criticize Clark's record, I also pointed out in the last part of my post that he was very recently gushing over Bush and the Republican party. You are right, this is a spur of the moment party choice.

Some of Clark's more recent comments suggest that he is merely running because the Bush administration did not bring him in as an advisor prior to 9/11. It sounded like a campaign that was due to spite and malice more then a desire to help the country. Not the sort of person I would want running the country.

I have looked at both sides of Clark's military service and the general consensus seems to be that he was disliked by those above and below him in the chain of command. Though his diplomatic misconduct was most likely unintentional it did throw a kink into negotiations with Serbia later on.

It is in my opinion that Clark would have run as a Republican if Gore had won in 2000. His military record and conduct is questionable and his loyalty to the Democrat Party is even more questionable. He is a political oppurtunist and little more.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Durandal7
No offense taken. Yes, I did mean Secretary of State, just a bit of a mind slip on my part. Whoops ;)

While I do criticize Clark's record, I also pointed out in the last part of my post that he was very recently gushing over Bush and the Republican party. You are right, this is a spur of the moment party choice.

Some of Clark's more recent comments suggest that he is merely running because the Bush administration did not bring him in as an advisor prior to 9/11. It sounded like a campaign that was due to spite and malice more then a desire to help the country. Not the sort of person I would want running the country.

I have looked at both sides of Clark's military service and the general consensus seems to be that he was disliked by those above and below him in the chain of command. Though his diplomatic misconduct was most likely unintentional it did throw a kink into negotiations with Serbia later on.

It is in my opinion that Clark would have run as a Republican if Gore had won in 2000. His military record and conduct is questionable and his loyalty to the Democrat Party is even more questionable. He is a political oppurtunist and little more.

You maybe right, but I'm not prepared to make that judgement just yet. I don't have a problem with his fights with Shelton and Cohen over the war in Kosovo. As the General in command he was fighting for resources to make sure that the mission was a success. I would expect no less and as the history shows he was very good at getting his task done. Fighting with other Generals and Civilian heads of the military has been going on for an awful long time and I don't see much to report on that score.

I can read his conversion to the Democratic party in several ways and most of them are not as self-serving as the one you have chosen. As a military man he is supposed to be non-partisan in his remarks toward political leaders. I would not expect him to make critical remarks of politicans until he has declared himself. Of course your reading maybe right, but I will give him more slack to find out his real beliefs.

[IJ Reilly]

Speaking of generals and parties, remember that nobody knew Colin Powell's political affiliation until he was selected to address the Republican national convention.

[rainman::|:|]

General Clark was in town today, one of my co-workers and i went to see him... since there was no public knowledge of the event, there weren't many people at the diner besides regular patrons, so i actually got to say hi and wound up as the mic guy for some DC news network, it was cool. I got to be on the inner ring of his press statements further calling for independent counsel in the CIA incident. I just about worship the ground the man walks on, so it was quite an experience for me.

as i think you can figure out from above, i am quite confident that he stands a good chance of being elected, and i've never been happier with a presidential candidate. his environmental policies are just what the country needs after bush befowled everything from Yellowstone to the catskill mountains, now they're threatening forests in alaska. the poor kyoto treaty didn't stand a chance with this guy.

i'm also very happy with his stance on affirmative action, women, and gays. He hasn't yet come out in favor of medical marijuana, but i think he will (he is initially not supportive but says he has an open mind). I heard him today mention how we as a nation must not threaten syria and iran as we are, as it's only going to increase the likelyhood of terrorism, not decrease it. his foreign policy is very tempered and even-handed.

mostly, i like the fact that he's military: as he's held many positions of command, and doesn't feel the need to play with the military as do some other presidents. i think many (bush) presidents have been bedazzled with their ability to command such a massive force, and are too tempted to play with it. but he knows what the military can do, he knows what the cost of war truly is, he knows when it's worth it.

a president with character. it's been a very long time.

pnw

[vniow]

Originally posted by paulwhannel
i'm also very happy with his stance on [...] gays.

What is his stance anyhoo, I haven't seen anything on it...

[Sayhey]

I was reading Clark's latest speech to the DNC. Got to say I loved the rhetoric. How's this,

This New American Patriotism is not just about waving the flag and guarding our borders. It's about guarding what makes us distinctive as Americans - our personal liberties, our right to debate and dissent. We are not a country that manipulates facts, ignores debate, and stifles dissent. We are not a country that retaliates against people who criticize the government. We are not a country that disdains our friends and allies. We are not a country that sheds blood before every other option has been exhausted. And we can't have a government that stands for any of these things.

And that's why I'm running for President - to return America to the core ideals of our democracy: personal liberty; service to country; respect for others; the right to criticize and correct the government - in time of war, especially. Debate, dialogue, discussion, disagreement, dissent - that's not wrong - that's not unpatriotic, that's one of the highest forms of patriotism and love of country, and we need to say it.

These American ideals have made us great. They can make us greater. They can make us safer and more prosperous. They're the ideals of our party - the Democratic Party. They're the ideals of our country. That's why I'm running, that's why I'm asking for your support. That's why we're going to build a mighty wave across this country, that's going to carry this party, and these ideals, back to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

I also liked this little jab,

Now, the American people are moving. The polls are showing the shift. I don't put too much stock in polls. But if you believe the recent poll numbers, George W. Bush will need brothers in 49 other states to take this election. Well, he's not going to take this election.

The whole speech is at:
http://www.americansforclark.com/speeches/003/

[Marc2B]

Aren't all politicians "political opportunists"? I mean, isn't that the nature of the game? Would Clark have run as a Republican if Gore were sitting in the White House? Who knows? All flag rank officers are nominated by the President, and confirmed by Congress. All unified commanders are also named by the President and confirmed by Congress. Hmmmmm, who was the President when General Clark was nominated to Eucom? Hmmmm, think maybe there's a connection there. I mean, Arkansas, both about the same age, I wonder... I can say that due to the very nature of today's military, General Clark, by virtue of his rise to four star rank, is qualified politically, and able to lead the country. If anybody for one minute thinks that there isn't any politics in today's military, do I have news for ya'all. :D