History of Misinformation tarnishes Clark's Military Record

Chicago Sun-Times ^ | October 6, 2003 | Thomas H. Lipscomb

[tkathy]

I sure hope the military doesn't close ranks, and speaks up with the truth. If they don't they are @#$%^&'s.

[dirtboy]

bumpit again...

[MamaLucci]

How Shelton continued to serve under Clinton is beyond me.

[Southack]

"Wes Clark's candidacy may seriously backfire on the DLC wing. As they keep trying to imply that Bush lied about Saddam's WMDs, now Clark brings the clearly documented lies of the Kosovo campaign back into the news..."

The Democrats keep acting as though they still have full control over all national news (as in, that they could keep Clark's Kosovo/Waco dirt buried while creating a new image for him).

...And they keep losing elections, so who am I to set them straight?!

[okie01]

I will hazard a guess as to how a general officer so widely mistrusted by his peers could advance to so high a station as General 'Wes' Clark: Waco. The commander of First Cav did as he was told, via back channels, by the then C-in-C.

That earned him a role as "favorite" in the Clinton administration. Clark, perhaps, even knew a little more than he "should". Thus, the rapid escalation to SACEUR.

And while NATO commander in Brussels, Clark got another request from his then C-in-C: "Do me a favor and promote this Kosovo thingie, Wes. I've got some heat to deal with over here in the States -- an impeachment, a little corruption, maybe some treason and a even a rape charge, y'know. Lemme tell ya, I could stand a media distraction. Why doncha ratchet up some of those atrocity charges -- CNN, those folks, they'll lap it up -- and see if we can't get ourselves into a little war over there. You can run the deal, Wes...get all the glory, that's what you guys want, isn't it?"

So, can it be any wonder that his colleagues hate his guts? I sure do. And I don't even know him...

Clark is one puppet who is truly a martinet...

[dirtboy]

How Shelton continued to serve under Clinton is beyond me.

He may have been doing this country a service by trying to minimize the impact of Clinton on the military.

[okie01]

"How Shelton continued to serve under Clinton is beyond me."

High-ranking generals are often confronted with a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation when dealing with a corrupt President.

For example, Dereliction of Duty, by H.R. McMaster, explores the relationship between the JCS and the Johnson administration at the outset of the Viet Nam war.

McMaster finds that the generals were in the position of a.) resigning, so as to register their distaste for the orders they were being asked to carry out, and thus have no influence over events or b.) hanging in there and trying to influence events as best they could.

I tried putting myself in their place and concluded there was no good answer.

[Verginius Rufus]

The air war over Kosovo and the remnants of Yugoslavia took place March-June 1999, after the end of the "trial" in the Senate, so Clinton didn't have to worry about being removed from office...but was concerned with having his "legacy" be something more than just Monica.

I do agree with the basic premiss that Clark got where he did by his willingness to carry water for the Clintons whenever called upon.

[DTA]

bttt

[MamaLucci]

Very good points.

[Coop]

Yet Wes Clark has been kind enough to raise $3.5 million that would have most likely gone to one of the other nine dwarves.

[Clodia Pulcher]

Interesting article here on the Presidential Candidate CNN Built...

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/10/06/Worldandnation/The_presidential_cand.shtml

[Wolfstar]

Thanks for pinging me to this article. Somehow, I just can't imagine Wesley Clark getting the Dem nominiation, but should that happen, we're going to have to fight with everything that's in us to try to keep him from the presidency. The man is really creepy.

Analyzing the Dem race strictly on campaigning skills, the favorite to win the nomination has to be Howard Dean. He's run a brilliant campaign so far, raised huge amounts of money, and seems to have enough energy and determination to sustain him for the long haul to come. I find it difficult to believe he will just roll over for Clark and his Clintonian backers. In every possible way that counts, Clark is an empty suit. Of course, I have never understood Democrats, so my analysis could most definitely be flawed.

[WaterDragon]

ping

[Clinging Bitterly]

Not sure why the ping to this old thread, but I don't have any particular interest in Clark, or anyone with a D after their name, for that matter.

I'll snoop around & see if I can find what you probably really wanted to ping me to.

[WaterDragon]

Sorry. It is an older piece, but I thought there was new info on Clark that you might like to see. And no, I never suspected you of liking the D's!

[Clinging Bitterly]

Musta been another thread, cause there was nothing newer than Oct 6 here.

>>And no, I never suspected you of liking the D's!

Well I'm glad we have that settled (on the other hand, I saw Spud-Man on Meet the Depressed today doing an interview with with Zel Miller. Can't say I dislike the Dem Senator Miller, he's an upstanding guy).

[WaterDragon]

I guess Zell is the exception that proves the rule, then, eh? I think I'm going to get his book. He is not only a very interesting writer, he's also a man of high character, IMO.