Input: Wesley Clark Questions

[ViRGE]

Clark is going to be at our Uni Tuesday to speak(this was planned before he made his annoucement), and our media staff is taking questions from the staff/students that we'd like to have asked of Clark. So, since most of you guys won't get the oppertunity to ask Clark any questions, does anyone here have any questions they'd like submitted on my behalf? I'm only going to take a couple, and the staff may not even pass them on to Clark, but it's worth a shot. I'll get back to you on Wednesday if he answers any of the questions I submit.

 

[Bowfinger]

I'd love to hear his views on the escalating battle between the entertainment industry and consumers over intellectual property, and what, if anything, he would do to ensure traditional fair-use rights to consumers.

I'd also like to know how he's going to get us out of Iraq, restore our stature in the world community, and increase the number of good jobs for Americans, but everyone will ask those questions.

 

[burnedout]

Cool.

General Clark:

Sir, would you consider running as a VP if you don't receive the Democratic nomination?

Sir, how do you feel about concurrent receipt for military retirees? (he knows what that means... or he should)

Sir, if you win the Presidential election in 2004 then what is your strategy for the Iraq situation?

Sir, would you consider further reduction of our nation's armed forces? If so, then could you please specify?

Sir, how would you address permanent domestic job loss due to outsourcing?

Sir, what is your position regarding the "War on Drugs"?

Sir, how do you propose to stimulate the economy and simultaneously reduce the budget deficit?

Sir, what is your strategy on working with the Republicans if you are indeed elected?

Sir, how serious do you consider the threat of terrorism to the United States? What measures would you implement in counteracting terrorism and how would these measures differ from those currently in effect?

Sir, what is your position on capital punishment?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

My questions wouldn't pass his handlers but if you're looking for softballs - How about asking him why he didn't take Dean up on his offer of VP?

OK - so that one won't pass his handlers either

CkG

 

[LunarRay]

I would want to know one thing... I like the man and feel he'd do a great job.

Of the existing USSC members who would you nominate for a position on that court if one became open.

Who on the court most typifies the type of Judge he'd nominate assuming senatorial passage regardless of choice..

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: burnedout
Cool.

General Clark:

Sir, would you consider running as a VP if you don't receive the Democratic nomination?

Sir, how do you feel about concurrent receipt for military retirees? (he knows what that means... or he should)

Sir, if you win the Presidential election in 2004 then what is your strategy for the Iraq situation?

Sir, would you consider further reduction of our nation's armed forces? If so, then could you please specify?

Sir, how would you address permanent domestic job loss due to outsourcing?

Sir, what is your position regarding the "War on Drugs"?

Sir, how do you propose to stimulate the economy and simultaneously reduce the budget deficit?

Sir, what is your strategy on working with the Republicans if you are indeed elected?

Sir, how serious do you consider the threat of terrorism to the United States? What measures would you implement in counteracting terrorism and how would these measures differ from those currently in effect?

Sir, what is your position on capital punishment?

all good questions.

MIght also want to ask about his opinions on gun control.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Better have his ducks in a row. Clark is in the spotlight and he has only so much time in to make an impression

Specifics he does not need, but workable concepts on major issues, yes.

 

[Gravity]

Did he ever figure out why Carl Rove never returned his phone calls?

Gravity

 

[digitalsm]

I have some.

1. Why did you when you were a Lt General serving in Serbia/Bosnia, meet with a war criminal, boosed it up, traded gifts with him, and then took pictures of it, when you were told by the State Department not to meet with him? Did you ever apologize to Victor Jackovich for costing him his job?

2. How did you weasel your 4th star after #1 virtually ended your military career?

3. You were politically and militarily inept in 1998 as Supreme NATO Commander of Europe, whats changed since then?

4. You have called Bush inept and unexperianced, what are your qualifications, because I dont see any?

5. Why must you lie so much and waffle on issues? You waffled on the war in Iraq, and you lied about calling Carl Rove.

 

[SuperTool]

I have one.

General Clark, instead of serving in Serbia/Kosovo why didn't you go AWOL on a rum and 'coke' binge, like a true Patriot Commander-in-Chief?

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
I have one.

General Clark, instead of serving in Serbia/Kosovo why didn't you go AWOL on a rum and 'coke' binge, like a true Patriot Commander-in-Chief?

Is that the best you can come up with?

You dont think Clarks military experiance warrants heavy questioning? Hes basing himself off as a 4 Star General, with high honors in military leadership, when he in fact is more of a disgrace to the military than anything.

Meeting with an enemy, who is a war criminal, to boose it up and trade gifts is not excusible behavior for a Lt General serving in the region. More so when the State Department tells YOU NOT TO.

We all know Bush has a 1 year gap in his National Guard Record, but all you people are deluded to think Gen Clark has a steller military career, because he does not, the image he tries to portray is a total sham, and you people buy into it. Hes not all the respected by the military either, because of his ineptness at leadership.

The only reason he ever got his 4th star was because he was causing political problems, for the Clintons and the Pentagon, so he finally got it. He eventually finally got pushed out and his military career ended after he tried to pull that sh!t with Russia in Bosnia.

Frankly if he was that inept back in the late 90s theres not a chance hes any better today.

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: SuperTool
I have one.

General Clark, instead of serving in Serbia/Kosovo why didn't you go AWOL on a rum and 'coke' binge, like a true Patriot Commander-in-Chief?

Meeting with an enemy, who is a war criminal, to boose it up and trade gifts is not excusible behavior for a Lt General serving in the region.

DITTO

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: SuperTool
I have one.

General Clark, instead of serving in Serbia/Kosovo why didn't you go AWOL on a rum and 'coke' binge, like a true Patriot Commander-in-Chief?

Meeting with an enemy, who is a war criminal, to boose it up and trade gifts is not excusible behavior for a Lt General serving in the region.

DITTO

Last I checked, back in those days Saddam was not an enemy of the United States. Gen Clark, while on ACTIVE DUTY in Bosnia, meet with a war criminal. Comparing that to Rumsfield meeting Saddam in the early 80s is idiotic. Times change. Policies change, and Rumsfeild wasnt told not to meet Saddam, I believe in fact he was sent to see Saddam by the US, which is totally different from Gen Clark's dealings with a war criminal.

The US created the problems in Iraq, it dates back from JFK, to Johnson and Nixon. Carter, and Regean didnt help matters either.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: SuperTool
I have one.

General Clark, instead of serving in Serbia/Kosovo why didn't you go AWOL on a rum and 'coke' binge, like a true Patriot Commander-in-Chief?

Is that the best you can come up with?

You dont think Clarks military experiance warrants heavy questioning? Hes basing himself off as a 4 Star General, with high honors in military leadership, when he in fact is more of a disgrace to the military than anything.

Meeting with an enemy, who is a war criminal, to boose it up and trade gifts is not excusible behavior for a Lt General serving in the region. More so when the State Department tells YOU NOT TO.

We all know Bush has a 1 year gap in his National Guard Record, but all you people are deluded to think Gen Clark has a steller military career, because he does not, the image he tries to portray is a total sham, and you people buy into it. Hes not all the respected by the military either, because of his ineptness at leadership.

The only reason he ever got his 4th star was because he was causing political problems, for the Clintons and the Pentagon, so he finally got it. He eventually finally got pushed out and his military career ended after he tried to pull that sh!t with Russia in Bosnia.

Frankly if he was that inept back in the late 90s theres not a chance hes any better today.

Do you want to shake hands on this one?
The point is people exchange souvenirs and pose for photos a lot, and this guy was not under indictment when the photo was taken. I think a 4 star general with a purple heart is more qualified than a chickenhawk president who not only didn't serve in Vietnam, but went AWOL during what little duty he was asked to do. Now that's a disgrace to the military. A president flying on aircraft carrier for a photo op, when when he was given a chance to fly to serve his country, he abandoned his duty.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: SuperTool
I have one.

General Clark, instead of serving in Serbia/Kosovo why didn't you go AWOL on a rum and 'coke' binge, like a true Patriot Commander-in-Chief?

Meeting with an enemy, who is a war criminal, to boose it up and trade gifts is not excusible behavior for a Lt General serving in the region.

DITTO

Last I checked, back in those days Saddam was not an enemy of the United States. Gen Clark, while on ACTIVE DUTY in Bosnia, meet with a war criminal. Comparing that to Rumsfield meeting Saddam in the early 80s is idiotic. Times change. Policies change, and Rumsfeild wasnt told not to meet Saddam, I believe in fact he was sent to see Saddam by the US, which is totally different from Gen Clark's dealings with a war criminal.

The US created the problems in Iraq, it dates back from JFK, to Johnson and Nixon. Carter, and Regean didnt help matters either.

Was Mladic an indicted war criminal at the time this exchange happened? You are being a typical republican hypocrite.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: SuperTool
I have one.

General Clark, instead of serving in Serbia/Kosovo why didn't you go AWOL on a rum and 'coke' binge, like a true Patriot Commander-in-Chief?

Meeting with an enemy, who is a war criminal, to boose it up and trade gifts is not excusible behavior for a Lt General serving in the region.

DITTO

Last I checked, back in those days Saddam was not an enemy of the United States. Gen Clark, while on ACTIVE DUTY in Bosnia, meet with a war criminal. Comparing that to Rumsfield meeting Saddam in the early 80s is idiotic. Times change. Policies change, and Rumsfeild wasnt told not to meet Saddam, I believe in fact he was sent to see Saddam by the US, which is totally different from Gen Clark's dealings with a war criminal.

The US created the problems in Iraq, it dates back from JFK, to Johnson and Nixon. Carter, and Regean didnt help matters either.

Was Mladic an indicted war criminal at the time this exchange happened? You are being a typical republican hypocrite.

He was not indicted at the time, but he was a known war criminal, he was being investigated by everyone(US, NATO, etc), Clark knew this and did not follow the state departments memo to him. He went on and meet with someone on the other side.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: SuperTool
I have one.

General Clark, instead of serving in Serbia/Kosovo why didn't you go AWOL on a rum and 'coke' binge, like a true Patriot Commander-in-Chief?

Is that the best you can come up with?

You dont think Clarks military experiance warrants heavy questioning? Hes basing himself off as a 4 Star General, with high honors in military leadership, when he in fact is more of a disgrace to the military than anything.

Meeting with an enemy, who is a war criminal, to boose it up and trade gifts is not excusible behavior for a Lt General serving in the region. More so when the State Department tells YOU NOT TO.

We all know Bush has a 1 year gap in his National Guard Record, but all you people are deluded to think Gen Clark has a steller military career, because he does not, the image he tries to portray is a total sham, and you people buy into it. Hes not all the respected by the military either, because of his ineptness at leadership.

The only reason he ever got his 4th star was because he was causing political problems, for the Clintons and the Pentagon, so he finally got it. He eventually finally got pushed out and his military career ended after he tried to pull that sh!t with Russia in Bosnia.

Frankly if he was that inept back in the late 90s theres not a chance hes any better today.

Do you want to shake hands on this one?
The point is people exchange souvenirs and pose for photos a lot, and this guy was not under indictment when the photo was taken. I think a 4 star general with a purple heart is more qualified than a chickenhawk president who not only didn't serve in Vietnam, but went AWOL during what little duty he was asked to do. Now that's a disgrace to the military. A president flying on aircraft carrier for a photo op, when when he was given a chance to fly to serve his country, he abandoned his duty.

Go look up how he 'earned" his 4th star. He isnt much of a 4 star general nor was he ever a good leader.

 

[Gaard]

I apologize for my ignorance, but why did Clark meet with him?

 

[Queasy]

Here is what I would ask:

"General Clark. In an appearance on Meet the Press, you stated that you thought that this country was founded on progressive taxation. Sir, do you realize that progressive taxation was not a founding principle of this country but one of the founding principles of the Communist Manifesto? And if so, have you gone back and read the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights to clarify just what this country was founded on?"

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: SuperTool
I have one.

General Clark, instead of serving in Serbia/Kosovo why didn't you go AWOL on a rum and 'coke' binge, like a true Patriot Commander-in-Chief?

Meeting with an enemy, who is a war criminal, to boose it up and trade gifts is not excusible behavior for a Lt General serving in the region.

DITTO

Last I checked, back in those days Saddam was not an enemy of the United States. Gen Clark, while on ACTIVE DUTY in Bosnia, meet with a war criminal. Comparing that to Rumsfield meeting Saddam in the early 80s is idiotic. Times change. Policies change, and Rumsfeild wasnt told not to meet Saddam, I believe in fact he was sent to see Saddam by the US, which is totally different from Gen Clark's dealings with a war criminal.

The US created the problems in Iraq, it dates back from JFK, to Johnson and Nixon. Carter, and Regean didnt help matters either.

Was Mladic an indicted war criminal at the time this exchange happened? You are being a typical republican hypocrite.

He was not indicted at the time, but he was a known war criminal, he was being investigated by everyone(US, NATO, etc), Clark knew this and did not follow the state departments memo to him. He went on and meet with someone on the other side.

And Saddam was a known fairy at the time Rumsfeld met with him?

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: SuperTool
I have one.

General Clark, instead of serving in Serbia/Kosovo why didn't you go AWOL on a rum and 'coke' binge, like a true Patriot Commander-in-Chief?

Is that the best you can come up with?

You dont think Clarks military experiance warrants heavy questioning? Hes basing himself off as a 4 Star General, with high honors in military leadership, when he in fact is more of a disgrace to the military than anything.

Meeting with an enemy, who is a war criminal, to boose it up and trade gifts is not excusible behavior for a Lt General serving in the region. More so when the State Department tells YOU NOT TO.

We all know Bush has a 1 year gap in his National Guard Record, but all you people are deluded to think Gen Clark has a steller military career, because he does not, the image he tries to portray is a total sham, and you people buy into it. Hes not all the respected by the military either, because of his ineptness at leadership.

The only reason he ever got his 4th star was because he was causing political problems, for the Clintons and the Pentagon, so he finally got it. He eventually finally got pushed out and his military career ended after he tried to pull that sh!t with Russia in Bosnia.

Frankly if he was that inept back in the late 90s theres not a chance hes any better today.

Do you want to shake hands on this one?
The point is people exchange souvenirs and pose for photos a lot, and this guy was not under indictment when the photo was taken. I think a 4 star general with a purple heart is more qualified than a chickenhawk president who not only didn't serve in Vietnam, but went AWOL during what little duty he was asked to do. Now that's a disgrace to the military. A president flying on aircraft carrier for a photo op, when when he was given a chance to fly to serve his country, he abandoned his duty.

Go look up how he 'earned" his 4th star. He isnt much of a 4 star general nor was he ever a good leader.

He is a decorated soldier, 1st of his class in West Point aside from being a 4 star general. I don't know how good of a leader he is, but we lost fewer soldiers in Kosovo than we lose on average day in Iraq, and we had an international coolition instead of dropping a 100 Bil on it out of pocket.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: SuperTool
I have one.

General Clark, instead of serving in Serbia/Kosovo why didn't you go AWOL on a rum and 'coke' binge, like a true Patriot Commander-in-Chief?

Meeting with an enemy, who is a war criminal, to boose it up and trade gifts is not excusible behavior for a Lt General serving in the region.

DITTO

Last I checked, back in those days Saddam was not an enemy of the United States. Gen Clark, while on ACTIVE DUTY in Bosnia, meet with a war criminal. Comparing that to Rumsfield meeting Saddam in the early 80s is idiotic. Times change. Policies change, and Rumsfeild wasnt told not to meet Saddam, I believe in fact he was sent to see Saddam by the US, which is totally different from Gen Clark's dealings with a war criminal.

The US created the problems in Iraq, it dates back from JFK, to Johnson and Nixon. Carter, and Regean didnt help matters either.

Was Mladic an indicted war criminal at the time this exchange happened? You are being a typical republican hypocrite.

He was not indicted at the time, but he was a known war criminal, he was being investigated by everyone(US, NATO, etc), Clark knew this and did not follow the state departments memo to him. He went on and meet with someone on the other side.

And Saddam was a known fairy at the time Rumsfeld met with him?

Was Rumsfield an active duty Lt General in the United States army when he meet with Saddam? No. No I believe he was an offical for the US, sent their by the US, correct me if Im wrong. At the time of the meeting Saddam had only been in power for a few years.

You are fvcking moron if you dont see how improper Gen Clarks actions were. He was a Lt General, serving in a conflict when he meet with someone he knew to be a war criminal, he was told not to, he did so anyways for no real reason.

Its laughable that he got his 4th star, the only reason he did was he was a political liability and it was to get him to leave them alone. That was until his idiotic stunt as NATOs Supreme Commander of Europe, after which he was forced out and eventually retired because the military did not want him. He was an inept leader, as a Lt General, he was an inept General, he was inept politically, and he is the democrats saving grace.

Heres the deal, hes being backed by the Clintons(who for the last 6 years have not liked him, and vis versa) because they know hes not going to win after all the negative press that will eventually come out. The is a coup for Hillary, she is bying time for 2008, and Gen Clark is the perfect fodder to go up against Bush. Where as Dean, Kerry or Gore would be alot closer races.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: SuperTool
I have one.

General Clark, instead of serving in Serbia/Kosovo why didn't you go AWOL on a rum and 'coke' binge, like a true Patriot Commander-in-Chief?

Is that the best you can come up with?

You dont think Clarks military experiance warrants heavy questioning? Hes basing himself off as a 4 Star General, with high honors in military leadership, when he in fact is more of a disgrace to the military than anything.

Meeting with an enemy, who is a war criminal, to boose it up and trade gifts is not excusible behavior for a Lt General serving in the region. More so when the State Department tells YOU NOT TO.

We all know Bush has a 1 year gap in his National Guard Record, but all you people are deluded to think Gen Clark has a steller military career, because he does not, the image he tries to portray is a total sham, and you people buy into it. Hes not all the respected by the military either, because of his ineptness at leadership.

The only reason he ever got his 4th star was because he was causing political problems, for the Clintons and the Pentagon, so he finally got it. He eventually finally got pushed out and his military career ended after he tried to pull that sh!t with Russia in Bosnia.

Frankly if he was that inept back in the late 90s theres not a chance hes any better today.

Do you want to shake hands on this one?
The point is people exchange souvenirs and pose for photos a lot, and this guy was not under indictment when the photo was taken. I think a 4 star general with a purple heart is more qualified than a chickenhawk president who not only didn't serve in Vietnam, but went AWOL during what little duty he was asked to do. Now that's a disgrace to the military. A president flying on aircraft carrier for a photo op, when when he was given a chance to fly to serve his country, he abandoned his duty.

Go look up how he 'earned" his 4th star. He isnt much of a 4 star general nor was he ever a good leader.

He is a decorated soldier, 1st of his class in West Point aside from being a 4 star general. I don't know how good of a leader he is, but we lost fewer soldiers in Kosovo than we lose on average day in Iraq, and we had an international coolition instead of dropping a 100 Bil on it out of pocket.

Yes he was a decorated soilder, big deal almost every career soilder is. He was an inept 3 star Lt General, and he continued to be an inept 4 star General. His orders were almost always over ridden by British Generals when he was Supreme NATO Commander of Europe, the British basically told him to fvck off and get lost. He wanted to endanger many thousands of troops and potentially provoke Russia in Bosnia. That just shows how militarily and politically inept he was as well as.

His military career was dead once he meet with that known war criminal. He only received his 4th star due to politcal pressure. The pentagon, the white house, and the military were tired of hearing from him. In reality his actions in no way warranted it, he was never on a list to be promoted, he got it, because they didnt want to deal with him.

 

[Gaard]

<<...he did so anyways for no real reason.>>

Is this true? What was his stated reason?

 

[Tripleshot]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: SuperTool
I have one.

General Clark, instead of serving in Serbia/Kosovo why didn't you go AWOL on a rum and 'coke' binge, like a true Patriot Commander-in-Chief?

Meeting with an enemy, who is a war criminal, to boose it up and trade gifts is not excusible behavior for a Lt General serving in the region.

DITTO

Last I checked, back in those days Saddam was not an enemy of the United States. Gen Clark, while on ACTIVE DUTY in Bosnia, meet with a war criminal. Comparing that to Rumsfield meeting Saddam in the early 80s is idiotic. Times change. Policies change, and Rumsfeild wasnt told not to meet Saddam, I believe in fact he was sent to see Saddam by the US, which is totally different from Gen Clark's dealings with a war criminal.

The US created the problems in Iraq, it dates back from JFK, to Johnson and Nixon. Carter, and Regean didnt help matters either.

Was Mladic an indicted war criminal at the time this exchange happened? You are being a typical republican hypocrite.

He was not indicted at the time, but he was a known war criminal, he was being investigated by everyone(US, NATO, etc), Clark knew this and did not follow the state departments memo to him. He went on and meet with someone on the other side.

And Saddam was a known fairy at the time Rumsfeld met with him?

Was Rumsfield an active duty Lt General in the United States army when he meet with Saddam? No. No I believe he was an offical for the US, sent their by the US, correct me if Im wrong. At the time of the meeting Saddam had only been in power for a few years.

You are fvcking moron if you dont see how improper Gen Clarks actions were. He was a Lt General, serving in a conflict when he meet with someone he knew to be a war criminal, he was told not to, he did so anyways for no real reason.

Its laughable that he got his 4th star, the only reason he did was he was a political liability and it was to get him to leave them alone. That was until his idiotic stunt as NATOs Supreme Commander of Europe, after which he was forced out and eventually retired because the military did not want him. He was an inept leader, as a Lt General, he was an inept General, he was inept politically, and he is the democrats saving grace.

Heres the deal, hes being backed by the Clintons(who for the last 6 years have not liked him, and vis versa) because they know hes not going to win after all the negative press that will eventually come out. The is a coup for Hillary, she is bying time for 2008, and Gen Clark is the perfect fodder to go up against Bush. Where as Dean, Kerry or Gore would be alot closer races.

I hope he wins just to piss you off. He is 1000 times better than you are, and if you check the polls today, he is ahead of shrub by several points, and he just got into the race. There is not a damn thing shrub has done in his control of the whitehouse that could be viewed as a positive step for the nation. NOTHING!!!

Tax cuts for the rich, abandoning kyoto treaty, removing enviromental sanctions to protect clean air and water, no Osama, and no Saddam.. Yep, this rooty tooty cowboy you degenerative republicans elected is the biggest farce in history, and your grandchildrens' grandchildren will still be paying for this A-holes decisions long after you and I are dead and buried.

Keep up your dissying of Clark. You make a good target.