Clark has a troubled past...

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

preslove

Lifer
Sep 10, 2003
16,755
61
91
I got the link from www.drudgereport.com, so I don't want to hear any crying about how this is a conservative site.
XZeroII, you my friend, are a complete idiot. The drudge report is a rumor mill for the right wing that puts fabrications into the media, which are then picked up by the "somewhat legitimate" right wing press of the Washington Times, New York Post, Wall Street Journal, and then finally sometimes (if drudge is lucky) is picked up by the mainstream. If you take drudge as an objective source, then i have some swamp land that you might want to look at.
 

villager

Senior member
Oct 17, 2002
373
0
0
Kind of reminds you that Rumsfeld made buddy buddy with Hussein after he gassed the Kurds. Around the time when we passed on some chemical weapon technology.
 

laFiera

Senior member
May 12, 2001
862
0
0
What politician is a saint???/

didn't george bush at one point lose his flying privileges b/c not keeping up with his medical records??? yeah..that shows some responsabiltiy and accountability right there...Also..i remember prior to the election his time of actually serving in the military was questioned, as he was an AWOL...i'm sure a google search engine on bush and AWOL would bring up some info..bottomline, politicians are of a funny breed.
 

jahawkin

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2000
1,355
0
0
From Novak:
Clark attributed one comment to a Middle East "think tank" in Canada, although there appears to be no such organization.
Right - This is certainly not a Middle East think tank in Canada, and this is NOT a middle east think tank in Canada, especially when stating on its homepage:
The Canadian Institute for Jewish Research (CIJR) is a unique, independent academic think-tank devoted to bringing objective, up-to-date data on, and analysis of, Israel- and Middle East-related issues to our university campuses, to the media, and to the Jewish and non-Jewish communities at large.
Yep, "no such organization."
 

jahawkin

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2000
1,355
0
0
Even more distortions of the truth by Novak:
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.
First, when Clark met with Mladic, he was not a indicted war criminal. Mladic was indicted one year after Clark's meeting with him, for crimes he committed 11 months after Clark's visit.
And, according to Clark, the State Department never did tell Clark not to visit with Mladic, as Clark states in his book:
The fact was that I had not received instructions not to visit. Fortunately, I had strong support within the Defense Department, the National Security Council staff, and at State for having visited both sides to lay the basis for a proper policy analysis. I heard that the President sent a letter back to the Congress in my defense, and, after a few meetings with Congressional staffers, the controversy died. -Waging Modern War, Pages 40-41
The republicans must be pretty desperate to smear Clark when they produce hack jobs like this......But get used to it...There's 13 months left till the election....
 

friedpie

Senior member
Oct 1, 2002
703
0
0
Originally posted by: jahawkin

First, when Clark met with Mladic, he was not a indicted war criminal. Mladic was indicted one year after Clark's meeting with him, for crimes he committed 11 months after Clark's visit.
OMG, you can not be serious trying to "spin" this nonsense. Why can't some of you liberal toadies be objective for once instead of trying to defend every thing democrat? Not all of us conservatives defend Ann Coulter. You don't have to defend every stinking democrat.

Now, as for Clark, he was warned by the State Department not to meet with Mladic because he was suspected (but not yet charged) of ethnic cleansing in Croatia (this was before Clark met with him). Wrap your head around this if you can. NATO was there to protect the Muslims from the Serbs. Mladic was the commander of the Serbs, aka the bad guys. Clark had no business meeting with him. It's been likened to "cavorting with Hermann Goering."

Y'all still have no answer for all of his other silliness.
 

burnedout

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

Y'all still have no answer for all of his other silliness.
This Ponte dude's claim about the armored vehicles used in the Branch Davidian siege coming from 1 CAV is just totally false. A published GAO report collaborates which vehicles were used, which components (active or ANG) provided what vehicles and even how much money was billed to the FBI/ATF for use of the vehicles. General Clark had little, if anything to do with that siege. It is common knowledge that the FBI and ATF blew everybody else off, including the Texas Rangers and, for the most part, active-duty forces.

The Army declined to review the FBI's approach at Waco

This ain't about partisanship. This is about the truth.
 

Looney

Lifer
Jun 13, 2000
21,941
5
0
Originally posted by: friedpie
Originally posted by: jahawkin

First, when Clark met with Mladic, he was not a indicted war criminal. Mladic was indicted one year after Clark's meeting with him, for crimes he committed 11 months after Clark's visit.
OMG, you can not be serious trying to "spin" this nonsense. Why can't some of you liberal toadies be objective for once instead of trying to defend every thing democrat? Not all of us conservatives defend Ann Coulter. You don't have to defend every stinking democrat.

Now, as for Clark, he was warned by the State Department not to meet with Mladic because he was suspected (but not yet charged) of ethnic cleansing in Croatia (this was before Clark met with him). Wrap your head around this if you can. NATO was there to protect the Muslims from the Serbs. Mladic was the commander of the Serbs, aka the bad guys. Clark had no business meeting with him. It's been likened to "cavorting with Hermann Goering."

Y'all still have no answer for all of his other silliness.
Um, he met with him. It's not like they were planning assaults on the Muslims together. Do you even know what the point of that meeting was? To get drunk with? Mladic was NOT indicted on any charges yet, so he was treating him as he would treat any others.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
All of this crap has been FABRICATED BY Republican SPINMEISTERS! This is KARL ROVE 's JOB
 

Miramonti

Lifer
Aug 26, 2000
28,651
98
91
Originally posted by: friedpie
The dude has issues, man! 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.
This is a lie. He wanted to use ground troups to speed things up and save civilian lives. 500 civilians died from Nato bombing at the expense of a few american/nato troops, now thats "disregard for human life". He also discussed his views on television which really pissed cohen off and he subsequently had him removed.

I also just read that as a television commentator when 9/11 happened, the bush administration called up clark and told him to say that Iraq was involved. He asked for proof but wasn't given any, so he refused their request.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: jjsole
Originally posted by: friedpie
The dude has issues, man! 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.
This is a lie. He wanted to use ground troups to speed things up and save civilian lives. 500 civilians died from Nato bombing at the expense of a few american/nato troops, now thats "disregard for human life". He also discussed his views on television which really pissed cohen off and he subsequently had him removed.

I also just read that as a television commentator when 9/11 happened, the bush administration called up clark and told him to say that Iraq was involved. He asked for proof but wasn't given any, so he refused their request.
He has backtracked on that as well. He was called by some canadian group, not the bush admin.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: jjsole
Originally posted by: friedpie
The dude has issues, man! 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.
This is a lie. He wanted to use ground troups to speed things up and save civilian lives. 500 civilians died from Nato bombing at the expense of a few american/nato troops, now thats "disregard for human life". He also discussed his views on television which really pissed cohen off and he subsequently had him removed.

I also just read that as a television commentator when 9/11 happened, the bush administration called up clark and told him to say that Iraq was involved. He asked for proof but wasn't given any, so he refused their request.
If you can find any link for the part about asking him to say Iraq was involved then we can have another one of these threads that bash the azzholes who are trying to bash him

CKG.. do you believe that Karl Rove never DISTORTS the truth to fit his goals.. or possibly even LIES to SMEAR his clients Competitors??

 

jahawkin

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2000
1,355
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: jjsole
Originally posted by: friedpie
The dude has issues, man! 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.
This is a lie. He wanted to use ground troups to speed things up and save civilian lives. 500 civilians died from Nato bombing at the expense of a few american/nato troops, now thats "disregard for human life". He also discussed his views on television which really pissed cohen off and he subsequently had him removed.

I also just read that as a television commentator when 9/11 happened, the bush administration called up clark and told him to say that Iraq was involved. He asked for proof but wasn't given any, so he refused their request.
He has backtracked on that as well. He was called by some canadian group, not the bush admin.
Clark never claimed it was the white house that called him. It is all debunked here
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: jahawkin
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: jjsole
Originally posted by: friedpie
The dude has issues, man! 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.
This is a lie. He wanted to use ground troups to speed things up and save civilian lives. 500 civilians died from Nato bombing at the expense of a few american/nato troops, now thats "disregard for human life". He also discussed his views on television which really pissed cohen off and he subsequently had him removed.

I also just read that as a television commentator when 9/11 happened, the bush administration called up clark and told him to say that Iraq was involved. He asked for proof but wasn't given any, so he refused their request.
He has backtracked on that as well. He was called by some canadian group, not the bush admin.
Clark never claimed it was the white house that called him. It is all debunked here
"plausable deniability"? ;)

Isn't this what people accuse Bush of doing? Why don't they call Clark on it? I don't think he blatantly lied, but it most definately could be said that his context was inclusive - not exclusive.

CkG
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
You have to be an absolute liberal to become a Rhodes Scholar. They don't just give it to anyone
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: jahawkin
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: jjsole
Originally posted by: friedpie
The dude has issues, man! 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.
This is a lie. He wanted to use ground troups to speed things up and save civilian lives. 500 civilians died from Nato bombing at the expense of a few american/nato troops, now thats "disregard for human life". He also discussed his views on television which really pissed cohen off and he subsequently had him removed.

I also just read that as a television commentator when 9/11 happened, the bush administration called up clark and told him to say that Iraq was involved. He asked for proof but wasn't given any, so he refused their request.
He has backtracked on that as well. He was called by some canadian group, not the bush admin.
Clark never claimed it was the white house that called him. It is all debunked here
"plausable deniability"? ;)

Isn't this what people accuse Bush of doing? Why don't they call Clark on it? I don't think he blatantly lied, but it most definately could be said that his context was inclusive - not exclusive.

CkG

now for another answer on the same topic


linkage
Sean Hannity followed up two weeks later on Fox's "Hannity and Colmes": Referring to the Russert transcript above, Hannity said of the call, "I think you owe it to the American people to tell us who."

Clark replied, "It came from many different sources, Sean."

HANNITY: "Who? Who?"

CLARK : "And I personally got a call from a fellow in Canada who is part of a Middle Eastern think tank who gets inside intelligence information. He called me on 9/11."

HANNITY: "That's not the answer. Who in the White House?"

CLARK: "I'm not going to go into those sources."
followed by

Clark finally had to write a letter to the NY Times after Krugman repeated this assertion and finally said, "No one from the White House asked me to link Saddam Hussein to Sept. 11."

Seems like clark was not agenda free and was trying very hard to imply the white house was trying to make him say something.



 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: Dari
You have to be an absolute liberal to become a Rhodes Scholar. They don't just give it to anyone
You also have to be an absolute liberal to become a 4 star general too ;)
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: jahawkin
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: jjsole
Originally posted by: friedpie
The dude has issues, man! 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.
This is a lie. He wanted to use ground troups to speed things up and save civilian lives. 500 civilians died from Nato bombing at the expense of a few american/nato troops, now thats "disregard for human life". He also discussed his views on television which really pissed cohen off and he subsequently had him removed.

I also just read that as a television commentator when 9/11 happened, the bush administration called up clark and told him to say that Iraq was involved. He asked for proof but wasn't given any, so he refused their request.
He has backtracked on that as well. He was called by some canadian group, not the bush admin.
Clark never claimed it was the white house that called him. It is all debunked here
"plausable deniability"? ;)

Isn't this what people accuse Bush of doing? Why don't they call Clark on it? I don't think he blatantly lied, but it most definately could be said that his context was inclusive - not exclusive.

CkG

now for another answer on the same topic


linkage
Sean Hannity followed up two weeks later on Fox's "Hannity and Colmes": Referring to the Russert transcript above, Hannity said of the call, "I think you owe it to the American people to tell us who."

Clark replied, "It came from many different sources, Sean."

HANNITY: "Who? Who?"

CLARK : "And I personally got a call from a fellow in Canada who is part of a Middle Eastern think tank who gets inside intelligence information. He called me on 9/11."

HANNITY: "That's not the answer. Who in the White House?"

CLARK: "I'm not going to go into those sources."
followed by

Clark finally had to write a letter to the NY Times after Krugman repeated this assertion and finally said, "No one from the White House asked me to link Saddam Hussein to Sept. 11."

Seems like clark was not agenda free and was trying very hard to imply the white house was trying to make him say something.
Ah yes - I had forgotten about the second interview.

CkG
 

friedpie

Senior member
Oct 1, 2002
703
0
0
Originally posted by: Moralpanic
Originally posted by: friedpie
Originally posted by: jahawkin

First, when Clark met with Mladic, he was not a indicted war criminal. Mladic was indicted one year after Clark's meeting with him, for crimes he committed 11 months after Clark's visit.
OMG, you can not be serious trying to "spin" this nonsense. Why can't some of you liberal toadies be objective for once instead of trying to defend every thing democrat? Not all of us conservatives defend Ann Coulter. You don't have to defend every stinking democrat.

Now, as for Clark, he was warned by the State Department not to meet with Mladic because he was suspected (but not yet charged) of ethnic cleansing in Croatia (this was before Clark met with him). Wrap your head around this if you can. NATO was there to protect the Muslims from the Serbs. Mladic was the commander of the Serbs, aka the bad guys. Clark had no business meeting with him. It's been likened to "cavorting with Hermann Goering."

Y'all still have no answer for all of his other silliness.
Um, he met with him. It's not like they were planning assaults on the Muslims together. Do you even know what the point of that meeting was? To get drunk with? Mladic was NOT indicted on any charges yet, so he was treating him as he would treat any others.
Jesus, I am just slackjawed at this insanity.

Did you miss the part where the State Department warned him not to meet with the enemy? Hello? Anyone home?

Even Col. Hackworth thinks Gen. Clark is incompetent and dangerous. Clark is a guy who wanted to attack the Russians for landing at a nato airfield, who threatened to attack Hungary if they sold fuel to the Serbs, who called himself "the Supreme Being." This is a guy who was so incompetent that then Defense Sec. William Cohen (as if the Clinton admininstration knew how to run the military) removed him from his command early.

You want this clown as our commander in chief?


 

Miramonti

Lifer
Aug 26, 2000
28,651
98
91
Originally posted by: jahawkin
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: jjsole
Originally posted by: friedpie The dude has issues, man! 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.
This is a lie. He wanted to use ground troups to speed things up and save civilian lives. 500 civilians died from Nato bombing at the expense of a few american/nato troops, now thats "disregard for human life". He also discussed his views on television which really pissed cohen off and he subsequently had him removed. I also just read that as a television commentator when 9/11 happened, the bush administration called up clark and told him to say that Iraq was involved. He asked for proof but wasn't given any, so he refused their request.
He has backtracked on that as well. He was called by some canadian group, not the bush admin.
Clark never claimed it was the white house that called him. It is all debunked here
My info was taken from michael moores email that he sent today. He writes:

My wife and I were invited over to a neighbor's home 12 days ago where Clark told those gathered that certain people, acting on behalf of the Bush administration, called him immediately after the attacks on September 11th and asked him to go on TV to tell the country that Saddam Hussein was "involved" in the attacks. He asked them for proof, but they couldn't provide any. He refused their request.

Standing in that living room 12 nights ago, Clark continued to share more private conversations. In the months leading up the Iraq War, friends of his at the Pentagon -- high-ranking career military officers -- told him that the military brass did NOT want this war in Iraq, that it violated the Powell Doctrine of "start no war if you don't know what your exit strategy is." They KNEW we would be in this mess, and they asked the General, in his role now as a television commentator, to inform the American people of this folly. And, as best he could, that's what he did.

I don't know whether I am violating any confidence here, but I think all of you have a right to know these things -- and I left there that night convinced that this pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-affirmative action retired general should be in the debates so that the American people can hear what I heard. The public needs to see and hear what he's all about so we can make up our own minds about him. Now, thanks to all the encouragement you gave him to run, we will have a chance to do just that.
Given that clark said just 12 days ago that certain people "acting on behalf of the Bush administration" called him, I don't think this story is dead yet...
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: jjsole
Originally posted by: jahawkin
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: jjsole
Originally posted by: friedpie The dude has issues, man! 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.
This is a lie. He wanted to use ground troups to speed things up and save civilian lives. 500 civilians died from Nato bombing at the expense of a few american/nato troops, now thats "disregard for human life". He also discussed his views on television which really pissed cohen off and he subsequently had him removed. I also just read that as a television commentator when 9/11 happened, the bush administration called up clark and told him to say that Iraq was involved. He asked for proof but wasn't given any, so he refused their request.
He has backtracked on that as well. He was called by some canadian group, not the bush admin.
Clark never claimed it was the white house that called him. It is all debunked here
My info was taken from michael moores email that he sent today. He writes:

<STRONG>My wife and I were invited over to a neighbor's home 12 days ago where Clark told those gathered</STRONG> that certain people, acting on behalf of the Bush administration, called him immediately after the attacks on September 11th and asked him to go on TV to tell the country that Saddam Hussein was "involved" in the attacks. He asked them for proof, but they couldn't provide any. He refused their request.

Standing in that living room 12 nights ago, Clark continued to share more private conversations. In the months leading up the Iraq War, friends of his at the Pentagon -- high-ranking career military officers -- told him that the military brass did NOT want this war in Iraq, that it violated the Powell Doctrine of "start no war if you don't know what your exit strategy is." They KNEW we would be in this mess, and they asked the General, in his role now as a television commentator, to inform the American people of this folly. And, as best he could, that's what he did.

I don't know whether I am violating any confidence here, but I think all of you have a right to know these things -- and I left there that night convinced that this pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-affirmative action retired general should be in the debates so that the American people can hear what I heard. The public needs to see and hear what he's all about so we can make up our own minds about him. Now, thanks to all the encouragement you gave him to run, we will have a chance to do just that.
Given that clark said just 12 days ago that certain people "acting on behalf of the Bush administration" called him, I don't think this story is dead yet...
Given that Clark has also printed a retraction in the New York times stating that admin did not contact him how will we know when clark is telling the truth.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY