• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Clark may have broken federal election law

sMiLeYz

Platinum Member
Feb 3, 2003
2,689
0
76
If our current REGIME is any indication, he belongs in the whitehouse for certain! ;)
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
If our current REGIME is any indication, he belongs in the whitehouse for certain! ;)
Nah, he's an amateur by comparison. If dishonesty and corruption are your metrics for the White House, Clark isn't even in the same game, let alone the same league.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
0
0
Maybe he knows some CIA agents that he can betray. Maybe than he'll be qualified fo the Whitehouse. Election law isn't gonna cut it ;)
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,551
3
0
Clark may have broken federal election law
Man it sounds like he has really gotten the Neo Cons in Office scared. Hmmm ...maybe he is worth looking into!
 

sMiLeYz

Platinum Member
Feb 3, 2003
2,689
0
76
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Clark may have broken federal election law
Man it sounds like he has really gotten the Neo Cons in Office scared. Hmmm ...maybe he is worth looking into!
The chicken hawks SHOULD be intimited by a man that actually fought in a war.
 

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,117
0
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Clark may have broken federal election law
Man it sounds like he has really gotten the Neo Cons in Office scared. Hmmm ...maybe he is worth looking into!
Please do....he's a fairly scary character....ever wonder why he "retired" early? Do some looking into that....

 

sMiLeYz

Platinum Member
Feb 3, 2003
2,689
0
76
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Clark may have broken federal election law
Man it sounds like he has really gotten the Neo Cons in Office scared. Hmmm ...maybe he is worth looking into!
Please do....he's a fairly scary character....ever wonder why he "retired" early? Do some looking into that....
Why don't you please tell us why hes retired early, huh?
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Curiously, the man partially responsible for Clark's early retirement - Bill Clinton - is singing a very different tune these days.

It's pretty clear that Clark violated federal election law. He should return the money and not do it again. I only wish the junta renting out the VP's residence would get similar consideration.
 

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,117
0
0
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Clark may have broken federal election law
Man it sounds like he has really gotten the Neo Cons in Office scared. Hmmm ...maybe he is worth looking into!
Please do....he's a fairly scary character....ever wonder why he "retired" early? Do some looking into that....
Why don't you please tell us why hes retired early, huh?
Oh...this had some to do with it.

Wesley Clark's 'High Noon'
The Nation | September 12, 2003 | Katrina vanden Heuvel

Will he or won't he? Will retired four-star General, ardent critic of Bush's national security policies, telegenic TV commentator, and recently declared Democrat Wesley Clark enter the crowded presidential race?

As a former military officer, Democrats believe Clark could make the party more viable on foreign affairs than it's been since a general named George Marshall was containing Communism under the command of a president named Harry Truman. (That's the conventional wisdom, though the staggering cost of the badly bungled Iraqi occupation has diminished the Republican advantage on defense no matter who runs against Bush.)

While media commentary on Clark's prospective candidacy has been almost entirely favorable--even adulatory--it's worth looking back at a forgotten chapter in his military biography that occurred when Clark was Supreme Allied Commander of NATO and Commander In Chief for the US European Command. Call it Clark's "High Noon" showdown. It's an incident that deserves scrutiny because Clark's claim to be an experienced leader in national security matters is tied, in significant part, to his record in the Balkans.

On June 12, 1999, in the immediate aftermath of NATO's air war against Yugoslavia, a small contingent of Russian troops dashed to occupy the Pristina airfield in Kosovo. Clark was so anxious to stop the Russians that he ordered an airborne assault to confront these units--an order which could have unleashed the most frightening showdown with Moscow since the end of the Cold War. Hyperbole? You can decide. But British General Michael Jackson, the three-star general and commander of K-FOR, the international force organized and commanded by NATO to enforce an agreement in Kosovo, told Clark: "Sir, I'm not starting world war three for you," when refusing to accept his order to prevent Russian forces from taking over the airport. (Jackson was rightly worried that any precipitous NATO action could risk a confrontation with a nuclear- armed Russia and upset the NATO-led peacekeeping plan just getting underway with the withdrawal of Serbian forces from Kosovo.)

After being rebuffed by Jackson, Clark, according to various media reports at the time, then ordered Admiral James Ellis, the American in charge of NATO's southern command, to use Apache helicopters to occupy the airfield. Ellis didn't comply--replying that British General Jackson would oppose such a move. Had Clark's orders been followed, the subsequent NATO- negotiated compromise with the Russians--a positive element in the roller- coaster relationship between Moscow and Washington, which eventually incorporated Russian troops into peacekeeping operations--might well have been undermined.

In the end, Russian reinforcements were stopped when Washington persuaded Hungary, a new NATO member, to refuse to allow Russian aircraft to fly over its territory. Meanwhile, Jackson was appealing to senior British authorities, who persuaded Clinton Administration officials--some of whom had previously favored occupying the airport--to drop support for Clark's hotheaded plan. As a result, when Clark appealed to Washington, he was rebuffed at the highest levels. His virtually unprecedented showdown with a subordinate subsequently prompted hearings by the Armed Forces Services Committee, which raised sharp questions about NATO's chain of command.

As a Guardian article said at the time, "The episode triggers reminscences of the Korean War. Then, General Douglas MacArthur, commander of the UN force, wanted to invade, even nuke, China, until he was brought to heel by President Truman." Of course, the comparison is inexact. The stakes were not as high in the Balkans, but Clark's hip-shooting willingness to engage Russian troops in a risky military showdown at the end of the war is instructive nonetheless.

Indeed, it is believed in military circles that Clark's Pristina incident was the final straw that led the Pentagon to relieve him of his duties (actually retire him earlier). Clark had also angered the Pentagon brass--and Secretary of Defense William Cohen in particular--with his numerous media appearances and repeated public requests for more weapons and for more freedom to wage the Kosovo war the way he wanted (with ground troops). At one point, according to media reports, Defense Secretary Cohen, through Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Hugh Shelton, told Clark to "get your fvcking face off of TV."

In recent years, it's only fair to note, Clark has insisted in interviews and in his memoir Waging Modern War that the incident was a surprising moment for him. Clark said that his order to confront the Russian troops was refused by an emotional General Jackson, who took the matter up the British chain of command, where General Charles Guthrie, British Chief of Defence, said that he agreed with Jackson. Guthrie, according to Clark, told him that Joint Chiefs Chairman Shelton also agreed with the British. This surprised Clark because he claims that the original suggestion to block the Russians came from Washington. Clark maintains that the matter was a policy problem between the US and British governments and insists that he was carrying out the suggestions of the Clinton Administration.



More of the same from the BBC


Flashback: Brit General stops Wes Clark 'from starting WWIII'
BBC News | 9 March, 2000

Details of Russia's surprise occupation of Pristina airport at the end of the Kosovo war are revealed in a new BBC documentary on the conflict.

For the first time, the key players in the tense confrontation between Nato and Russian troops talk about the stand-off which jeopardised the entire peacekeeping mission.

The Russians, who played a crucial role in persuading Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic to end the war, had expected to police their own sector of Kosovo, independent of Nato.

When they did not get it, they felt double-crossed.

As Nato's K-For peacekeepers prepared to enter the province on 12 June, they discovered the Russians had got there first.

A contingent of 200 troops, stationed in Bosnia, was already rolling towards Pristina airport.

General Wesley Clark, Nato's supreme commander, immediately ordered 500 British and French paratroopers to be put on standby to occupy the airport.

''I called the [Nato] Secretary General [Javier Solana] and told him what the circumstances were,'' General Clark tells the BBC programme Moral Combat: Nato at War.

''He talked about what the risks were and what might happen if the Russian's got there first, and he said: 'Of course you have to get to the airport'.

General Jackson: Backed by UK Government ''I said: 'Do you consider I have the authority to do so?' He said: 'Of course you do, you have transfer of authority'.''

But General Clark's plan was blocked by General Sir Mike Jackson, K-For's British commander.

"I'm not going to start the Third World War for you," he reportedly told General Clark during one heated exchange.

General Jackson tells the BBC: ''We were [looking at] a possibility....of confrontation with the Russian contingent which seemed to me probably not the right way to start off a relationship with Russians who were going to become part of my command.''

The Russian advance party took the airport unopposed. The world watched nervously.

A senior Russian officer, General Leonid Ivashev, tells the BBC how the Russians had plans to fly in thousands of troops.

''Let's just say that we had several airbases ready. We had battalions of paratroopers ready to leave within two hours,'' he said.

Amid fears that Russian aircraft were heading for Pristina, General Clark planned to order British tanks and armoured cars to block the runways to prevent any transport planes from landing.

General Clark said he believed it was ''an appropriate course of action''. But the plan was again vetoed by Britain.



 

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,117
0
0
And of course you know that Clark was involved with the siege at Waco right?
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
0
0
Originally posted by: shinerburke
And of course you know that Clark was involved with the siege at Waco right?
All I know is you are pro-Bush and are bashing Clark the most. So that tells me that Clark is the best guy to nominate to beat Bush. That's all.

 

naddicott

Senior member
Jul 3, 2002
793
0
76
Originally posted by: shinerburke
And of course you know that Clark was involved with the siege at Waco right?


If you're determined to try again at making these old smears stick, at least continue the argument in the old threads where they've already been shot down. Try the search function.

Judging by the poor excuses for character assassination that have been leveled at Clark so far, he seems like a pretty good guy, for a politician. ;)

[edit: formatting]
 

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,117
0
0
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: shinerburke
And of course you know that Clark was involved with the siege at Waco right?
All I know is you are pro-Bush and are bashing Clark the most. So that tells me that Clark is the best guy to nominate to beat Bush. That's all.
What you are really trying to say is "I can't be bothered to read the facts you posted so I'm going to make an assumption and attack you that way."
 

SilentZero

Diamond Member
Apr 8, 2003
5,158
0
76
As more information comes out on Clark its turning into a interesting race. Im a registered Republican, however been voting democrat for almost the past decade. Any democratic or indepentant canadate would be a improvment over bush. Id vote a monkey to replace him if i had too.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,929
3,735
126
What you are really trying to say is "I can't be bothered to read the facts you posted so I'm going to make an assumption and attack you that way."
-------------------
That pretty well sums up my attitude.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
0
0
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: shinerburke
And of course you know that Clark was involved with the siege at Waco right?
All I know is you are pro-Bush and are bashing Clark the most. So that tells me that Clark is the best guy to nominate to beat Bush. That's all.
What you are really trying to say is "I can't be bothered to read the facts you posted so I'm going to make an assumption and attack you that way."
No, I don't care if he was involved in Waco or not. I guess I am not a big separatist sympathiser. I do believe in people's right to immolate themselves. ;)
 

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: shinerburke
And of course you know that Clark was involved with the siege at Waco right?
All I know is you are pro-Bush and are bashing Clark the most. So that tells me that Clark is the best guy to nominate to beat Bush. That's all.
Lol. There is a psycological names for what you have, but I can't remember what it is right now. It describes when a person ignores any evidence that contradicts what that person believes, and automatically accept and evidence that supports their position. SOOOOO many people on this board do that.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: shinerburke
And of course you know that Clark was involved with the siege at Waco right?
All I know is you are pro-Bush and are bashing Clark the most. So that tells me that Clark is the best guy to nominate to beat Bush. That's all.
Lol. There is a psycological names for what you have, but I can't remember what it is right now. It describes when a person ignores any evidence that contradicts what that person believes, and automatically accept and evidence that supports their position. SOOOOO many people on this board do that.
The term you're looking for is "neo-conservative." You're welcome.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
0
0
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: shinerburke
And of course you know that Clark was involved with the siege at Waco right?
All I know is you are pro-Bush and are bashing Clark the most. So that tells me that Clark is the best guy to nominate to beat Bush. That's all.
Lol. There is a psycological names for what you have, but I can't remember what it is right now. It describes when a person ignores any evidence that contradicts what that person believes, and automatically accept and evidence that supports their position. SOOOOO many people on this board do that.
I never said I didn't believe Clark was involved in Waco. So what? First of all, there is no evidence of any wrongdoing by him in Waco, and secondly, noone,aside from rightwingers who will vote for Bush anyways, cares about Waco. How many people outside of rightwing circles do you hear talking about this decade old stuff?
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: shinerburke
And of course you know that Clark was involved with the siege at Waco right?
All I know is you are pro-Bush and are bashing Clark the most. So that tells me that Clark is the best guy to nominate to beat Bush. That's all.
Lol. There is a psycological names for what you have, but I can't remember what it is right now. It describes when a person ignores any evidence that contradicts what that person believes, and automatically accept and evidence that supports their position. SOOOOO many people on this board do that.
I never said I didn't believe Clark was involved in Waco. So what? First of all, there is no evidence of any wrongdoing by him in Waco, and secondly, noone,aside from rightwingers who will vote for Bush anyways, cares about Waco. How many people outside of rightwing circles do you hear talking about this decade old stuff?
Umm...I do believe that a few of the dwarves have dug up some of this stuff. Ofcourse they aren't going to get to the really good stuff until later.:) Should be an interesting next couple months with all these wanna-bes in the race.

CkG
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Id vote a monkey to replace him if i had too.
I'm not sure replacing a simian with another simian is what we really need.

Lol. There is a psycological names for what you have, but I can't remember what it is right now. It describes when a person ignores any evidence that contradicts what that person believes, and automatically accept and evidence that supports their position. SOOOOO many people on this board do that.
Acutally it's called delusional disorder . . . and it is a psychiatric term not a psychological one. A delusion is a fixed false belief. Contradictory evidence is disregarded, while null or ambivalent information is uniformly interpreted as confirmation.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
0
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: shinerburke
And of course you know that Clark was involved with the siege at Waco right?
All I know is you are pro-Bush and are bashing Clark the most. So that tells me that Clark is the best guy to nominate to beat Bush. That's all.
Lol. There is a psycological names for what you have, but I can't remember what it is right now. It describes when a person ignores any evidence that contradicts what that person believes, and automatically accept and evidence that supports their position. SOOOOO many people on this board do that.
I never said I didn't believe Clark was involved in Waco. So what? First of all, there is no evidence of any wrongdoing by him in Waco, and secondly, noone,aside from rightwingers who will vote for Bush anyways, cares about Waco. How many people outside of rightwing circles do you hear talking about this decade old stuff?
Umm...I do believe that a few of the dwarves have dug up some of this stuff. Ofcourse they aren't going to get to the really good stuff until later.:) Should be an interesting next couple months with all these wanna-bes in the race.

CkG
It certainly should be interesting. Maybe Clark was involved with Elian Gonzalez too? ;)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY