Clark has a troubled past...

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

jahawkin

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2000
1,355
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison

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.
I'd like to see a full transcript of the Hannity-Clark interview. As spinsanity puts it,
(Hannity was not asking who "from the White House" made the call, but who made an effort to connect Saddam Hussein to September 11.)
 

Miramonti

Lifer
Aug 26, 2000
28,651
98
91
Originally posted by: charrison
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:
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...
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.
In what he apparently said recently, it didn't contradict his letter to the times because he used the words "acting on behalf of the administration" and not the administration itself, which is what he apparently refuted to the times.

Either case, I guarantee we'll hear more about the issue directly from him (publicly) and I'll wait til then before I conclude anything.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: jjsole
Originally posted by: charrison
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.
In what he apparently said recently, it didn't contradict his letter to the times because he used the words "acting on behalf of the administration" and not the administration itself, which is what he apparently refuted to the times.

Either case, I guarantee we'll hear more about the issue directly from him (publicly) and I'll wait til then before I conclude anything.

Yes, lets see how many ways he can tell this story.
 

jahawkin

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2000
1,355
0
0
Originally posted by: friedpie
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?
Hackworth has since changed his mind about Clark:
No doubt he?s made his share of enemies. He doesn?t suffer fools easily and wouldn?t have allowed the dilettantes who convinced Dubya to do Iraq to even cut the White House lawn. So he should prepare for a fair amount of dart-throwing from detractors he?s ripped into during the past three decades.

Hey, I am one of those: I took a swing at Clark during the Kosovo campaign when I thought he screwed up the operation, and I called him a ?Perfumed Prince.? Only years later did I discover from his book and other research that I was wrong ? the blame should have been worn by British timidity and William Cohen, U.S. SecDef at the time.
 

friedpie

Senior member
Oct 1, 2002
703
0
0
the people defending clark is embarrassing (who the hell would sign up for a newsletter from michael moore?).
Clark is the same guy who said he would have run as a republican if only Karl Rove had returned his call.
We won't even get into the fact that he never called the White House as he claimed. The point is
what kind of nut would base his party affiliation on a phone call? he sounds rather wishy washy.
 

jahawkin

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2000
1,355
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: jjsole

In what he apparently said recently, it didn't contradict his letter to the times because he used the words "acting on behalf of the administration" and not the administration itself, which is what he apparently refuted to the times.

Either case, I guarantee we'll hear more about the issue directly from him (publicly) and I'll wait til then before I conclude anything.

Yes, lets see how many ways he can tell this story.
How has he told this story in different ways?? As spinsanity puts it, "Clark's story, while ambiguously phrased at first, has actually been quite consistent."
The first comment was certainly ambiguously phrased, but he has since clarified it.
 

jahawkin

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2000
1,355
0
0
Originally posted by: friedpie
the people defending clark is embarrassing (who the hell would sign up for a newsletter from michael moore?).
Clark is the same guy who said he would have run as a republican if only Karl Rove had returned his call.
Total distortion of the truth. Some people don't know how to take a joke. Read up buddy.
 

Miramonti

Lifer
Aug 26, 2000
28,651
98
91
Originally posted by: jahawkin
Originally posted by: friedpie
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?
Hackworth has since changed his mind about Clark:
No doubt he?s made his share of enemies. He doesn?t suffer fools easily and wouldn?t have allowed the dilettantes who convinced Dubya to do Iraq to even cut the White House lawn. So he should prepare for a fair amount of dart-throwing from detractors he?s ripped into during the past three decades. Hey, I am one of those: I took a swing at Clark during the Kosovo campaign when I thought he screwed up the operation, and I called him a ?Perfumed Prince.? Only years later did I discover from his book and other research that I was wrong ? the blame should have been worn by British timidity and William Cohen, U.S. SecDef at the time.
nice facial, errr, post. :)
 

burnedout

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,249
2
0
*sigh* Well, I suppose that presenting an argument either way on this topic is just totally pointless............
 

burnedout

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,249
2
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
If I'm not mistaken, former Heisman Trophy winner and Rhodes Scholar Pete Dawkins (Major General-Retired) ran as a Republican against Frank Lautenberg in 1994 for a U.S. Senate seat from NJ.
 

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
It's funny how one little rumor about bush is treated as fact by liberals and declare Bush evil, but something pops up about their boy Clark and they defend him till the cows come home.
 

naddicott

Senior member
Jul 3, 2002
793
0
76
?Clark took a burst of AK fire, but didn?t stop fighting. He stayed on the field till his mission was accomplished and his boys were safe. He was awarded the Silver Star and Purple Heart. And he earned ?em.? - Lt. Gen. James Hollingsworth

IMO, Clark showed more personal integrity and honor in that single act than Bush has Shown in an entire lifetime. I would play the patriotism card in relation to these baseless attacks, but I think the conservatives have trademarked that method.

Considering the sheer ineptitude of the "smear Clark" campaign so far, I think he may have nothing to fear. Only the most blind-hearted liberal hater would take these accusations as truthful (or even damning if true for that matter) at face value.

As far as a General having a meeting with "bad person" - as long as he doesn't make any promises on our country's behalf that he isn't authorised to, I don't have any problem with that. "Know thy enemy" - Sun Tzu.

[edit: spelling]
 

Miramonti

Lifer
Aug 26, 2000
28,651
98
91
Originally posted by: XZeroII
It's funny how one little rumor about bush is treated as fact by liberals and declare Bush evil, but something pops up about their boy Clark and they defend him till the cows come home.
And all these rumors about Bush lying to the american public to justify an unjust and unsanctioned war against iraq.

Snopes, where are you?
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: XZeroII
It's funny how one little rumor about bush is treated as fact by liberals and declare Bush evil, but something pops up about their boy Clark and they defend him till the cows come home.
Yeah, it's funny how one side does stuff and the other side doesn't.
Those guys over there are doing it, and we're not. Or maybe we're doing it and they're not. But they started it. Definitely.
 

friedpie

Senior member
Oct 1, 2002
703
0
0
Hackworth has a change of heart, eh?

Well 4 years ago he had this to say. There are some pretty harsh words in there. I guess that was before he knew Clark was a democrat. Of course he didn't know Clark was a democrat because no one knew he was a democrat until 3 weeks ago. Anyway, I find Hack's change of heart to be slightly suspicious.


DEFENDING AMERICA
David H. Hackworth
April 20, 1999

CLARK AND VIETNAM.

NATO's Wesley Clark is not the Iron Duke, nor is he Stormin' Norman. Unlike Wellington and Schwarzkopf, Clark's not a muddy boots soldier. He's a military politician, without the right stuff to produce victory over Serbia.

Known by those who've served with him as the "Ultimate Perfumed Prince," he's far more comfortable in a drawing room discussing political theories than hunkering down in the trenches where bullets fly and soldiers die. An intellectual in warrior's gear. A saying attributed to General George Patton was that it took 10 years with troops alone before an officer knew how to empty a bucket of spit As a serving soldier with 33 years of active duty under his pistol belt, Clark's commanded combat units -- rifle platoon to tank division - for only seven years. The rest of his career's been spent as an aide, an executive, a student and teacher and a staff weenie.

Very much like generals Maxwell Taylor and William Westmoreland, the architect and carpenter of the Vietnam disaster, Clark was earmarked and then groomed early in his career for big things. At West Point he graduated No. 1 in his class, and even though the Vietnam War was raging and chewing up lieutenants faster than a machine gun can spit death, he was seconded to Oxford for two years of contemplating instead of to the trenches to lead a platoon.

A year after graduating Oxford, he was sent to Vietnam, where, as a combat leader for several months, he was bloodied and muddied. Unlike most of his classmates, who did multiple combat tours in the killing fields of Southeast Asia, he spent the rest of the war sheltered in the ivy towers of West Point or learning power games first hand as a White House fellow.

The war with Serbia has been going full tilt for almost a month and Clark's NATO is like a giant standing on a concrete pad wielding a sledgehammer crushing Serbian ants. Yet, with all its awesome might, NATO hasn't won a round. Instead, Milosovic is still calling all the shots from his Belgrade bunker, and all that's left for Clark is to react. Milosevic plays the fiddle and Clark dances the jig. 'Stormin' Norman or any good infantry sergeant major would have told Clark that conventional air power alone could never win a war -- it must be accompanied by boots on the ground.

German air power didn't beat Britain. Allied air power didn't beat Germany. More air power than was used against the Japanese and Germans combined didn't win in Vietnam. Forty three days of pummeling in the open desert where there was no place to hide didn't KO Saddam. That fight ended only when Schwarzkopf unleashed the steel ground fist he'd carefully positioned before the first bomb fell.

Doing military things exactly backwards, the scholar general is now, according to a high ranking Pentagon source, in "total panic mode" as he tries to mass the air and ground forces he finally figured out he needs to win the initiative. Mass is a principle of war. Clark has violated this rule along with the other eight vital principles. Any mud soldier will tell you if you don't follow the principles of war you lose.

One of the salient reasons Wellington whipped Napoleon in 1815 at Waterloo is that the Corsican piecemealed his forces. Clark's done the same thing with his air power. He started with leisurely pinpricks and now is attempting to increase the pain against an opponent with an almost unlimited threshold. Similar gradualism was one of the reasons for defeat in Vietnam.

Another mistake Clark's made is not knowing his enemy. Taylor and Westmoreland made this same error in Vietnam. Like the Vietnamese, the Serbs are fanatic warriors who know better than to fight conventionally in open formations. They'll use the rugged terrain and bomber bad weather to conduct the guerrilla operations they've been preparing for over 50 years.

And they're damn good at partisan warfare. Just ask any German 70 years or older if a fight in Serbia will be another Desert Storm. It's the smart general who knows when to retreat. If Clark lets pride stand in the way of military judgment, expect a long and bloody war.

Clark bad, no wait, Clark good, can't make up my mind
 

naddicott

Senior member
Jul 3, 2002
793
0
76
Originally posted by: friedpie
Hackworth has a change of heart, eh?

Well 4 years ago he had this to say. There are some pretty harsh words in there. I guess that was before he knew Clark was a democrat. Of course he didn't know Clark was a democrat because no one knew he was a democrat until 3 weeks ago. Anyway, I find Hack's change of heart to be slightly suspicious.
What's so suspicious? Reading the article, Hackworth was assuming Clark was behind the unwillingness to use ground troops. The fact of the matter appears to be that Clark was pushing for ground troops and prohibited from using that option by William Cohen. Hackworth says himself that he has since corrected his misunderstanding by researching the matter.

"Another mistake Clark's made is not knowing his enemy." - Given the recent reports that Clark met at least one of "the enemy" face to face (oh, horror), I would say this was also an innacurate complaint.

"expect a long and bloody war." - I think that line is standard operating procedure for any Op-Ed piece before any major U.S. engagement.

Aside from "nation building" complaints, and the idiotic snafu of bombing the Chinese embassy (ultimately blamed on out-of-date maps), the Kosovo operation went fairly well from the perspective of the military achieving a clearly laid out objective. Not to mention the minor diplomatic difference of being able to keep our major NATO allies on our side throughout the conflict and afterwards.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY