Clark has a troubled past...

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/printrn20030922.shtml

I got the link from www.drudgereport.com, so I don't want to hear any crying about how this is a conservative site.

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The important Democrats eager to run retired Gen. Wesley Clark for president might exercise due diligence about a military career that was nearly terminated before he got his fourth star and then came to a premature end. The trouble with the general is pointed out by a bizarre incident in Bosnia nearly a decade ago.

Clark was a three-star (lieutenant general) who directed strategic plans and policy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Washington. On Aug. 26, 1994, in the northern Bosnian city of Banja Luka, he met and exchanged gifts with the notorious Bosnian Serb commander and indicted war criminal, Gen. Ratko Mladic. The meeting took place against the State Department's wishes and may have contributed to Clark's failure to be promoted until political pressure intervened. The shocking photo of Mladic and Clark wearing each other's military caps was distributed throughout Europe.

Last week on CNN's "Crossfire," I asked one of Clark's new supporters -- Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois -- about that indiscretion. "Well, I don't know about the photo," he replied. He and other Clark backers, led by Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, might want to dig more deeply into the general's turbulent military career before getting too deeply committed.

For Emanuel, Rangel and other well-connected Democrats, Wes Clark seems a dream come true. He is walking the liberal line on taxes, abortion, racial quotas and Iraq. But he has military credentials and decorations that George W. Bush lacks. Even before formally announcing last week, Clark had 10 percent in Gallup's first national listing of him among presidential candidates and was just 6 percentage points behind the front-runner. Clark comes over on television as a square-jawed straight-shooter, not the stormy petrel that the Army knew during 34 years active duty -- including his conduct in the Banja Luka incident.

U.S. diplomats warned Clark not to go to Bosnian Serb military headquarters to meet Mladic, considered by U.S. intelligence as the mastermind of the Srebrenica massacre of Muslim civilians (and still at large, sought by NATO peacekeeping forces). Besides the exchange of hats, they drank wine together, and Mladic gave Clark a bottle of brandy and a pistol.

This was what U.S. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke's team seeking peace in Yugoslavia tried to avoid by instituting the "Clark Rule": whenever the general is found talking alone to a Serb, Croat or Muslim, make sure an American civilian official rushes to his side. It produced some comic opera dashes by diplomats.

After Clark's meeting with Mladic, the State Department cabled embassies throughout Europe that there was no change in policy toward the Bosnian Serbs. The incident cost Victor Jackovich his job as U.S. ambassador to Bosnia, even though he protested Clark's course. The upshot came months later, when Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic, in bitter negotiations with Holbrooke, handed Clark back his Army hat.

After such behavior, Clark was never on the promotion list to full general until he appealed to Defense Secretary William Perry and Gen. John Shalikashvili, chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He got his fourth star and became commander in chief of the Southern Command. His last post, as NATO supreme commander, found this infantry officer leading an air war against the Serbs over Kosovo. Clark argued with NATO colleagues by insisting on a ground troops option and complaining about the slowly graduated bombing campaign. He was pushed out abruptly by Defense Secretary William Cohen.

Since retiring in 2000, Clark has not been less contentious. Secretary of State Colin Powell was furious that a fellow four-star general in his CNN commentary would criticize U.S. strategy in Iraq, without much information and with the war barely underway. Clark attributed one comment to a Middle East "think tank" in Canada, although there appears to be no such organization. After claiming that the White House pressured CNN to fire him, Clark later said, "I've only heard rumors about it."

Nevertheless, liberals who gathered Thursday night at the Manhattan home of historian Arthur Schlesinger agreed that a general is just the right kind of candidate to oppose President Bush and that they never had seen any general so liberal as Wes Clark. They chose to ignore past performance, which may be cause for regret.
 

mastertech01

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Nov 13, 1999
11,818
207
106
If Bill Clinton can make two terms anyone is possible, regardless of thier past, especially in the Democratic Party.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: mastertech01
If Bill Clinton can make two terms anyone is possible, regardless of thier past, especially in the Democratic Party.
Clinton and Clark are both Rhodes scholars. Bush-lite is a below-average, drunken, cocaine-snorting deserter who imagines he talks to God. He has a solid track record of failed business endeavors, a talent he's inflicted upon this country's economy, foreign policy, and invasion of Iraq. If not for his daddy's name and connections, he'd be stocking shelves at Wal-Mart.

You were saying?
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Bow -
You're being a bit soft on Dubya, don't ya think ?
Nah - he's just "diverting" attention away from Clark's issues;)

Isn't that what you call it?

CkG
Dunno Cad, you're the Queen of Diversions. I thought I was replying to an ignorant troll, but I'll defer to your vast expertise.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Bow -
You're being a bit soft on Dubya, don't ya think ?
Nah - he's just "diverting" attention away from Clark's issues;)

Isn't that what you call it?

CkG
Dunno Cad, you're the Queen of Diversions. I thought I was replying to an ignorant troll, but I'll defer to your vast expertise.
I'm just seeing to it that you see that you do the things you accuse others of doing:)

CkG
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Bow -
You're being a bit soft on Dubya, don't ya think ?
Nah - he's just "diverting" attention away from Clark's issues;)

Isn't that what you call it?

CkG
Dunno Cad, you're the Queen of Diversions. I thought I was replying to an ignorant troll, but I'll defer to your vast expertise.
I'm just seeing to it that you see that you do the things you accuse others of doing:)

CkG
 

Insomniak

Banned
Sep 11, 2003
4,836
0
0
Show me a perfect politician sometime, and while you're at it, snag one of those flying pigs. They look tasty.

 

burnedout

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,249
2
0
Yes sir, looks like General Clark has a rather steep hill awaiting him.

After the Yugo "train and bridge" episode loses a bit of steam, the newly re-energized Chinese embassy should occupy topics of conversation for at least another month or so. There will be interviews with distant relatives of the-then bombed and displaced Chinese embassy staff, survivors and perhaps even their neighbors.

"The weather was unfavorable that day." "Maps were wrong." "Damned malfunctioning smart bombs". "A near-miss on the intended target."

Then, some former soldiers from his unit in Vietnam will mysteriously crawl outta the woodwork. Body counts during your power lunch, anyone?

Such is life under the political microscope when seeking the Presidency.
 

friedpie

Senior member
Oct 1, 2002
703
0
0
The dude has issues, man!

While commanding NATO troops in defense of Muslim Kosovo and against Serbian Christians, for example, the hot-headed Clark commanded a subordinate British General to attack Russian troops that had landed without NATO permission at the airport in Kosovo?s capital. (Clark speaks fluent Russian but chose not even to talk with the Russian troops before attacking them.)

The British General Sir Mike Jackson reportedly refused Clark?s risky orders, saying: ?I?m not going to start the Third World War for you!?

Others who interviewed Gen. Clark in Kosovo were shocked by his casual talk about how he would launch military strikes against Hungary if it tried to send fuel to the Christian Serbians, or against Russian ships if they entered the war zone.

Do antiwar, peace-activist supporters of Howard Dean really want this kind of twitchy-fingered militarist hot-head a heartbeat away from the nuclear button? Would they really want a Commander-in-Chief Wesley Clark?

Clark?s incompetence, disregard for human life, dishonesty and criticism of Clinton policies cost him his command. President Clinton and Defense Secretary William Cohen removed Clark months ahead of schedule.

But this did not alter the special bond between Clark and the Clintons that began in 1993, and that is evident today in their effort to control his presidential campaign.

What the national media are not telling you, of course, is that General Clark?s ascent to military four-stardom was itself a political act orchestrated by the Clintons.

This might have been motivated by gratitude, an emotion the Clintons scarcely ever feel for those of their servants they routinely betray. More likely it was satisfaction to find a high-ranking military man who would serve them with more loyalty than he showed to his oath or to the Constitution or to the military that the Clintons loathe (and that in turn loathes them).

This was, after all, the Clinton era, in which officers in U.S. Marines commando training were given mysterious questionnaires asking if they would obey a command to shoot American citizens who disobeyed a law that required them to disarm. By a similar method, Communist China selected the elite troops who could be trusted to gun down 1989 student protestors at Tiananmen Square.

In 1993 Wesley Clark, after a solid-but-not-stellar military career, was commanding the 1st Cavalry Division at a sweaty 339-square-mile base in Texas called Fort Hood. On a late winter day his office got a call from Democratic Texas Governor Ann Richards (later defeated and replaced by George W. Bush).

The Governor had an urgent matter to discuss. Crazies about 40 miles north of Fort Hood in Waco, Texas, had killed Federal agents, she said. If newly sworn-in President Bill Clinton signed a waiver setting aside the Posse Commitatus Act, which generally prohibits our military from using its arms against American citizens inside our borders, could Fort Hood supply tanks, men, and equipment to deal with the wackos at Waco?

Wesley Clark?s command at Fort Hood ?lent? 17 pieces of armor and 15 active service personnel under his command to the Waco Branch Davidian operation. Whether Clark himself helped direct the assault on the Davidian church using this military force at Waco has not been documented, but it certainly came from his command with his approval.

Eighty-two men, women, children and babies ? including two babies ?fire aborted? as their mothers? bodies writhed in the flames of that Clinton holocaust ? died from the attack using military equipment from Clark?s command.

?Planning for this final assault involved a meeting between Clinton Attorney General Janet Reno and two military officers,? this column reported, ?who developed the tactical plan used but who have never been identified. Some evidence and analysis suggests that Wesley Clark was one of these two who devised what happened at Waco.?

?Clark is more Clinton than Eisenhower,? writes Matthew Continetti of the Weekly Standard. His career advanced via politics, not the battlefield.

After Waco, Clark in April 1994 was promoted to Director of Strategic Plans and Policy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Pentagon, which meant he could see and consult with the Clintons easily. Soon thereafter he was promoted to Commander of all U.S. Latin American Forces, and a year thereafter to the ultimate title of SACEUR, commander of all the NATO forces in Europe, a position Clark would hold until he retired in May 2000.

Even Clark?s vaunted fourth star as a general was unearned, according to Robert Novak. It was twice rejected as undeserved by Pentagon brass, but then was awarded by his patron Bill Clinton after Clark begged the President for it.

?Clark,? wrote Novak, ?is the perfect model of a 1990s political four-star general.? The Clintons love him. The troops he has commanded, by contrast, call him the ?Ultimate Perfumed Prince.?




 

sMiLeYz

Platinum Member
Feb 3, 2003
2,696
0
76


A piece of turd from the very same article....

This might have been motivated by gratitude, an emotion the Clintons scarcely ever feel for those of their servants they routinely betray. More likely it was satisfaction to find a high-ranking military man who would serve them with more loyalty than he showed to his oath or to the Constitution or to the military that the Clintons loathe (and that in turn loathes them).

This was, after all, the Clinton era, in which officers in U.S. Marines commando training were given mysterious questionnaires asking if they would obey a command to shoot American citizens who disobeyed a law that required them to disarm. By a similar method, Communist China selected the elite troops who could be trusted to gun down 1989 student protestors at Tiananmen Square.
What happened to objectivism in journalism? Do even conservative journalists have any scruples anymore? The writer obviously has a agenda, because its so friggin blatent.

I want to become a conservative journalist one day... so I can get paid to write trash like that. Might be fun ;).
 

Lucky

Lifer
Nov 26, 2000
13,126
1
0
Just because it comes in article form does not mean it is meant to be taken as objective.
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,862
84
91
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz


A piece of turd from the very same article....

This might have been motivated by gratitude, an emotion the Clintons scarcely ever feel for those of their servants they routinely betray. More likely it was satisfaction to find a high-ranking military man who would serve them with more loyalty than he showed to his oath or to the Constitution or to the military that the Clintons loathe (and that in turn loathes them).

This was, after all, the Clinton era, in which officers in U.S. Marines commando training were given mysterious questionnaires asking if they would obey a command to shoot American citizens who disobeyed a law that required them to disarm. By a similar method, Communist China selected the elite troops who could be trusted to gun down 1989 student protestors at Tiananmen Square.
What happened to objectivism in journalism? Do even conservative journalists have any scruples anymore? The writer obviously has a agenda, because its so friggin blatent.

I want to become a conservative journalist one day... so I can get paid to write trash like that. Might be fun ;).

conservatives are just climbing the walls trying to throw dirt on a 3 star general, rohde scholar, purple heart recipient etc when thats all they'd want in their candidate. compared to MIA, vietnam ducking bush he's practically gold.
 

burnedout

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,249
2
0
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz


A piece of turd from the very same article....

This might have been motivated by gratitude, an emotion the Clintons scarcely ever feel for those of their servants they routinely betray. More likely it was satisfaction to find a high-ranking military man who would serve them with more loyalty than he showed to his oath or to the Constitution or to the military that the Clintons loathe (and that in turn loathes them).

This was, after all, the Clinton era, in which officers in U.S. Marines commando training were given mysterious questionnaires asking if they would obey a command to shoot American citizens who disobeyed a law that required them to disarm. By a similar method, Communist China selected the elite troops who could be trusted to gun down 1989 student protestors at Tiananmen Square.
What happened to objectivism in journalism? Do even conservative journalists have any scruples anymore? The writer obviously has a agenda, because its so friggin blatent.

I want to become a conservative journalist one day... so I can get paid to write trash like that. Might be fun ;).

conservatives are just climbing the walls trying to throw dirt on a 3 star general, rohde scholar, purple heart recipient etc when thats all they'd want in their candidate. compared to MIA, vietnam ducking bush he's practically gold.
I agree.

You know, this is actually what I would call an American tragedy. The man does his job for 35 years within the confines of his skill set. One might be fortunate to hear his name in the media maybe once a month at most in a favorable light. Then the word "Presidency" is mentioned. Suddenly, he becomes this brutal villian hiding in a closet.

The following statement is utter horsecrap:

"Wesley Clark?s command at Fort Hood ?lent? 17 pieces of armor and 15 active service personnel under his command to the Waco Branch Davidian operation. Whether Clark himself helped direct the assault on the Davidian church using this military force at Waco has not been documented, but it certainly came from his command with his approval."

The III Corps commander at the time, a three-star General, had to approve the request from the governor. Consequently, the corps commander 'directed' Major General Clark to send equipment and personnel in assisting the effort at Waco.

Unbelievable.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: burnedout
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz


A piece of turd from the very same article....

This might have been motivated by gratitude, an emotion the Clintons scarcely ever feel for those of their servants they routinely betray. More likely it was satisfaction to find a high-ranking military man who would serve them with more loyalty than he showed to his oath or to the Constitution or to the military that the Clintons loathe (and that in turn loathes them).

This was, after all, the Clinton era, in which officers in U.S. Marines commando training were given mysterious questionnaires asking if they would obey a command to shoot American citizens who disobeyed a law that required them to disarm. By a similar method, Communist China selected the elite troops who could be trusted to gun down 1989 student protestors at Tiananmen Square.
What happened to objectivism in journalism? Do even conservative journalists have any scruples anymore? The writer obviously has a agenda, because its so friggin blatent.

I want to become a conservative journalist one day... so I can get paid to write trash like that. Might be fun ;).

conservatives are just climbing the walls trying to throw dirt on a 3 star general, rohde scholar, purple heart recipient etc when thats all they'd want in their candidate. compared to MIA, vietnam ducking bush he's practically gold.
I agree.

You know, this is actually what I would call an American tragedy. The man does his job for 35 years within the confines of his skill set. One might be fortunate to hear his name in the media maybe once a month at most in a favorable light. Then the word "Presidency" is mentioned. Suddenly, he becomes this brutal villian hiding in a closet.

The following statement is utter horsecrap:

"Wesley Clark?s command at Fort Hood ?lent? 17 pieces of armor and 15 active service personnel under his command to the Waco Branch Davidian operation. Whether Clark himself helped direct the assault on the Davidian church using this military force at Waco has not been documented, but it certainly came from his command with his approval."

The III Corps commander at the time, a three-star General, had to approve the request from the governor. Consequently, the corps commander 'directed' Major General Clark to send equipment and personnel in assisting the effort at Waco.

Unbelievable.
Articles like that are only useful to whip up the into a frenzy those who view Clark as a threat to the Dub. Nobody with an objective eye would give it a second thought.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
You know, this is actually what I would call an American tragedy. The man does his job for 35 years within the confines of his skill set. One might be fortunate to hear his name in the media maybe once a month at most in a favorable light. Then the word "Presidency" is mentioned. Suddenly, he becomes this brutal villian hiding in a closet.
That's exactly why Alma Powell told Colin she'd divorce him if he ran for President. She doesn't want to go through it and doesn't want to watch him go through it.
 

Ldir

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2003
2,184
0
0
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
You know, this is actually what I would call an American tragedy. The man does his job for 35 years within the confines of his skill set. One might be fortunate to hear his name in the media maybe once a month at most in a favorable light. Then the word "Presidency" is mentioned. Suddenly, he becomes this brutal villian hiding in a closet.
That's exactly why Alma Powell told Colin she'd divorce him if he ran for President. She doesn't want to go through it and doesn't want to watch him go through it.
Smart woman.
 

burnedout

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,249
2
0
Originally posted by: friedpie
The dude has issues, man!

In 1993 Wesley Clark, after a solid-but-not-stellar military career, was commanding the 1st Cavalry Division at a sweaty 339-square-mile base in Texas called Fort Hood. On a late winter day his office got a call from Democratic Texas Governor Ann Richards (later defeated and replaced by George W. Bush).

The Governor had an urgent matter to discuss. Crazies about 40 miles north of Fort Hood in Waco, Texas, had killed Federal agents, she said. If newly sworn-in President Bill Clinton signed a waiver setting aside the Posse Commitatus Act, which generally prohibits our military from using its arms against American citizens inside our borders, could Fort Hood supply tanks, men, and equipment to deal with the wackos at Waco?

Wesley Clark?s command at Fort Hood ?lent? 17 pieces of armor and 15 active service personnel under his command to the Waco Branch Davidian operation. Whether Clark himself helped direct the assault on the Davidian church using this military force at Waco has not been documented, but it certainly came from his command with his approval.

Eighty-two men, women, children and babies ? including two babies ?fire aborted? as their mothers? bodies writhed in the flames of that Clinton holocaust ? died from the attack using military equipment from Clark?s command.

?Planning for this final assault involved a meeting between Clinton Attorney General Janet Reno and two military officers,? this column reported, ?who developed the tactical plan used but who have never been identified. Some evidence and analysis suggests that Wesley Clark was one of these two who devised what happened at Waco.?
DEBUNKED!

I've thought about the above referenced hogwash since my earlier, not-so-definitive reply this morning. So, I decided to perform some research.

Appendix III:

Vehicles

"Texas National Guard?2 M-35A2 2½-ton cargo trucks with transport trailers, 5 M-818 5-ton tractor trucks with trailers, 12 M-1009 high-mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicles"

"Texas National Guard?10 M-2 Bradleys (infantry fighting vehicles), 3 M-332 tractor trailers, 5 M-728 combat engineer vehicles, 1 M-88A1 tracked recovery vehicle (tank retriever), miscellaneous vehicles"

"Active Army?8 M-998 high-mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicles, an M35A2 2½-ton cargo truck, 2 5-ton trucks, 14 heavy equipment transports, miscellaneous vehicles"

Source: Military Assistance Provided at Branch Davidian Incident - GAO Report in PDF format

Even the amounts billed are described in the report.

This Lowell Ponte dude is a nutcase. The Texas Army National Guard, NOT the 1st Cavalry Division, supplied most of the vehicles for the operation! Additionally, assault vehicles for the mission, such as the BFVs and CEVs, were from TANG, not active.

Finally, no division commander would normally have that amount of latitude over a corps commander. If Governor Richards would have contacted General Clark directly back then, there would have been little he could have done. If anything, the request should have originated from FBI/ATF to FORSCOM. Then FORSCOM would have contacted III Corps. III Corps would have ultimately tasked the mission to 1 CAV.

Consider this as another conspiracy theory debunked.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY