OT: General Wesley Clark

[Guest guest]

The problem with General Clark is that rather then the military leader he

portrays himself to be, he is just a classic spinning politician. He lied about

his position on Iraq - that he always opposed it; but that's not what he said to

Congress:

 

" At a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee in September 2002, Mr Clark

expressed no misgivings about the imminent war with Iraq and called deposed

dictator Saddam Hussein a credible threat to the United States Since then, Mr.

Clark has proclaimed his strong opposition to the war " from the beginning, " and

has continued to state that position at debates and events nationwide.

" He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he

doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I

think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks, as would

we, " Mr. Clark said. "

 

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040115-112529-9766r.htm

 

As a matter of fact, why was he relieved of his duties, as NATO's supreme allied

commander, by superiors who called him trigger-happy and not a team player?

Clark ordered NATO forces to strike Russian troops approaching an airfield in

Kosovo at the end of that war, threatening to " start World War III, " according

to British General Michael Jackson, who defied the order. That doesn't sound

like a calm hand on the stern, now does it?

 

http://www.progressive.org/nov03/conn1103.html

 

And what do his peers have to say?

Retired Gen. H. Hugh Shelton, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says

Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark has some " integrity and character

issues " and won't be getting his vote.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34768

And then there is this story going around about him:

 

Clark's forces bombed a civilian convoy by mistake, killing more than 70 ethnic

Albanians, and then Clark openly lied about it to the press. First he denied

NATO had done it, and when forced to retract that, Clark pinned the blame on an

innocent U.S. pilot. As New York Newsday reported on April 18, 1999: " American

officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the staff of Army Gen.

Wesley Clark, the NATO commander, pointed to an innocent F-16 Falcon pilot who

was castigated by the media for blasting a refugee convoy. " Eventually, even a

model of probity like Bill Clinton was shocked by Clark's mendacity and fired

him.

 

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11766

 

 

I just don't trust him. With two sons in the military, I have become a news

junkie, so I follow this stuff very closely. I just have a bad gut feeling

about him. But everyone can make up their own mind - this is America.

 

Blessings,

Doreen

 

 

-

kerley983

Tuesday, January 20, 2004 7:47 PM

 

Re: OT: General Wesley Clark

 

What makes me wonder is why all the hints that General Clark is less than

honest yet we never hear what the problem is with General Clark. He was and is

my choice for president right away. I quite frankly feel that he is the

only one who can get our country out of the clutches of the big lie. I bought

the O'Neil book and it should be required reading for high schoolers as well

as every voter in the US. I did not realize that there was a huge problem

with the fact that he was lobbying for a company from Arkansas.

 

I would say this administration suffers so much from conflict of interresst

I am very surprised that General Clark is singled out with the problem. I

actually thought this is modus operande now. How about Dick Cheney and

Halliburton and the Bush conies in all. They are all getting a piece of the

pie. If

you can fill me in on any of General Clarks problem do so, I know none. Of

course Other generals are afraid to stand up to the government their jobs are

on the line. One big emotion this administrations s eems to stir up is fear.

Sometime try to catch a chicken in a chicken pen with other chickens, this

is how we out here are being directed or shall we say played. My self I say

anyone but this same. sharon

 

Also what happened to the huge surplus of money that was there when this

fellow got a hold of the whitehouse. Do you really think this Mars is not a

diversion. People are smart enough to know that it is not a good one, it is too

costly I do not know anyone signing up to leave for Mars they also may have an

inkling that it may be the new colony for disidents. Remember we are

Americans, and I have never heard a president make a statement that " You are

either

with me or against me " we have always had this choice.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hey Sharon,

 

I'll answer a portion of your post .. about Wes Clark. I'm not going to

deal with anti-Bush, anti-Republican, pro-Democratic views of Who Shot

John and why .. but I will deal with the matters of record as far as

Retired General Wesley Clark is concerned .. and I will say that though

I personally believe he has no chance of becoming the Democratic

candidate .. I would not be opposed to seeing him be the candidate cause

I've not seen a major landslide presidential election in my life-time ..

I mean, like 75% for one and maybe 25% for the other .. which would be

the case if Wes Clark somehow won as the Democratic nominee.

 

I'll also say that I am not a dyed in the wool Republican .. and would

have given some heavy thinking toward voting for Gephart if he had not

bit the dust.

 

> What makes me wonder is why all the hints that General Clark is less

> than honest yet we never hear what the problem is with General Clark.

 

I'll try to explain that. And there is plenty of information out and

about on Wes Clark .. its not been dragged out yet because (this is my

opinion) he has not been seen as a serious contender by the other

Democratic hopefuls. If he should win the nomination .. then plan on

seeing it all brought forward.

 

> He was and is my choice for president right away.

 

We all have choices .. but we can't all get what we want. :-( Still,

we have a danged good system. :-)

 

> I quite frankly feel that he is the only one who can get our country

> out of the clutches of the big lie.

 

Nothing wrong with that opinion. But I try to avoid feeling .. I prefer

looking at issues without being emotional. And the below are my

opinions spliced with some facts that are a matter of record in the

Department of Defense. Saying that DOD is this and that might justify

one's personal opinion but it would also mean that they have no

knowledge of how DOD works.

 

Wesley Clark is a military grand-stander .. he always was. He is NOT a

general of fame amongst those who personally know him and those who know

about him .. he was a clown .. a bit like Al Gore, who claimed that he

invented the I-Net. Clark claimed to be the driving factor behind

giving GPS to civilians .. not true. He was asked for recommendations

on giving GPS to civilians .. along with all other active and retired

generals ..

that was his role in it .. period.

 

Long ago the military recognized that the Top Secret GPS system was too

valuable to keep to themselves forever .. there would come a day that it

had to be shared because the concept was revolutionary and had potential

application far beyond the technology of the day.

 

Those funny things stuck to the top of GI's helmets are GPS devices to

tell them where they are .. sorta necessary in an area where there are

no identifiable terrain features.

 

Sharing of GPS with civilians was a project of the Pentagon .. driven at

first by a recommendation by Ronald Reagan. Reagan should get

historical credit for sharing the GPS with civilian aviation. Now GPS

is used in security work by police forces .. VIP security .. as well as

being a luxury option for expensive automobiles. The sharing all

happened after the Russians shot down a Japanese civilian aircraft.

 

When active duty and retired senior officers and generals do not come

forward to support a fellow officer, civilians need to question why that

is. I used to have a synopsis of Clark's less than sterling military

career .. he was fired from his position in SHAPE due to incompetence,

character and integrity flaws .. and other failures shine in his

records.

 

To me .. a man who has spent 30 years in uniform .. including multiple

VOLUNTEER tours of duty in Vietnam and Somalia .. that is important.

 

Wes Clark as a general officer was incompetent .. and was ALMOST the man

who would have gotten historical credit for starting WW III with the

Russians if a British subordinate general had not FLAT REFUSED to follow

an order issued by Clark to attack them at a particular airfield.

 

The finest general officer we've had in decades (methinks) was General

Hugh Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. When at a forum a

while back, retired General Shelton was asked if he would support

retired

Wesley Clark for president. Shelton said, " 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. "

 

General Hugh Shelton was the person who relieved Wes Clark of duty.

 

Retired General Norman Schwarzkopf and other contemporaries of Clark's

think even less of him. The British generals think he's a joke.

 

Do not think that active duty military officers .. generals or

otherwise,

are restricted in any way from expressing their opinions about political

events. There are, however, legal ramifications to badmouthing the

sitting Commander In Chief .. as there should be. So don't confuse

cowardice with discipline and adherence to oaths, legality or tradition.

 

When left-wing CNN hired Clark as an analyst during the early stages of

the war against Saddam .. they soon learned it was a bad idea .. and

replaced him with a couple of smarter dudes. But at that time .. Wes

Clark was talking all kinds of support for the president and his

policies in Iraq .. it was only after he decided to play presidential

candidate and was no longer drawing a salary as a TV consultant that he

remembered he didn't support those policies.

 

Wes Clark is going down in flames .. he has no substance. Retired

generals are not good presidential material anyway .. we in the military

recognize this. Eisenhower was an exception in some ways .. Grant was

more true to form as being unacceptable.

 

I would never campaign against Wes Clark because I hope he gets the

Democratic nomination .. nobody can beat Bush anyway but if Bush goes

against a fellow like Wes Clark it will be a Democratic disaster.

 

I snipped all the rest .. reading it once is sufficient .. I think.

 

You gave your opinion about the present administration and you asked a

question about Wesley Clark .. I answered it based on what I know. I

will not answer any more political oriented messages on this list ..

this is NOT the Idma list .. Y'all keep smiling. Butch :-)

 

> If you can fill me in on any of General Clarks problem do so, I know

> none. Of course Other generals are afraid to stand up to the

> government their jobs are on the line. Sharon