T Nation

General Wesley Clark


#1

I was wondering what conservatives think about presidential candidate, General Clark. Republicans constantly complain that democrats offer no solutions to agressors, are against war of any sort, and are peace loving hippies. I offere Clark as evidence that we are not. He was the supreme commander of Nato, but was still very against our actions in Iraq. He wasn't against fighting, he wasn't disagreeing that Sadaam was a dangerous man, but he realized that the manner in which our current administration went through with it was fatally flawed. What do you guys who constantly berate liberals as anti-military have to say when you compare Clark who was a great general, to Bush who avoided combat in Vietnam.


#2

He got fired for a reason...and has very low standing with his fellow peers in the military, who I respect more than him. That pretty much somes it up.


#3

He realized this because he was a top-ranking general in the armed forces and has a lot of experience. He isn't a complete moron like Rumsfeld, Cheney and the rest of the hawks there in Washington. They have their reasons, sure, but securing oil rights for the next 30 years when we should be focusing on eliminating the need for oil isn't really a good one.

A friend of mine's father is a 3-star and used to be head of Nato's mechanized force. I believe he has gone on to bigger and better things. He knows of Clark and his only retort to his character was that he was "political". I asked him a variety of questions, usually adding some snide remark like "he's probably called in an airstrike or two" or "he's not your typical pot-smoking tree-hugger". He agreed. Clark was in charge of the forces that were involved in Bosnia, a successful campaign.

If there is anyone out there that isn't smart enough to see that Iraq is another Vietnam, start smoking weed and drinking heavily and remove yourselves from the gene pool.

Placing a bunch of cops in Iraq does nothing unless they were wanting to go into Syria as well. Why invade a country if you aren't going to invade another? At least Bush could be at least as brazen as Hitler and start acting accordingly. Instead, he deems himself the 2nd coming of Christ; much like every other 40-something born-again.

I wish this administration would have at least had the decency of planting weapons of mass destruction. US intelligence couldn't be that bad. The feds even knew that there were a bunch of rag-head extremists taking flight lessons who "didn't want to learn how to land.". Well gee whiz, lets get through another annoying security hearing and get on with our fishing trips.

All these gun-toting yahoos are so concerned about what everyone else is doing instead of minding their own business. They envision a world much like the old west; open, free, and beautiful. There is really something to be said for that and I aspire to the same thing. I don't think, however, that these same individuals would enter another man's house across the range because "he thought he was up to something." In a fair world, that entry would equate their own demise.

I don't like Saddam, I don't like the extremism, I don't like what is happening in Isreal; who knows what the solutions are but naked aggression probably isn't one of them.


#4

Clark has been the topic of several recent threads. Its been said already that Clark isn't the most popular General in the military. There are reasons for this.


He's the golden boy of the Clintons and is as liberal as they are. No way in hell I'd vote for him. Any other questions?


Dustin


#5

I love you guys logic. "Well, a couple of other generals said they didn't like him so they must have a reason!" Come on... That is the biggest load of bullshit I have ever read. Obviously, just because he is running as a Dem, you just want to find a reason not to like him. And when those reasons are absent, forget rational thought... just agree with some yahoo you have never met!

That being said, we all well know that Bush was a draft dodger. Why is it that you have FACTS of his dishonor yet you continue to give him respect he does not even deserve! Clark is not unpopular BTW... He was actually quite well respected and very successful. You don't become a SAC by being a lazy sack of shit! First in his class at West Point, and no one even had to buy him into a school that prestigious... He got in there all by his little lonesome. He was shot SEVEN times in Vietnam, and he still didn't quit! He could have stopped right there and no one would have held it against him. Meanwhile, Bush was AWOL in America, probably off smoking weed or drinking himself into a stupor.

Your priorities are completely fucked up!


#6

Follow this old thread for the scoop:

http://t-forums.t-mag.com/t-forums_frames.html


#7

Check out the following. Remember the quote "In the war on terrorism, alliances are not an obstacle to victory. They're the key to it." General Wesley Clark made that quote in An Army of One?

http://www.zpub.com/un/clark.html
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles8/DVNS_Wesley-Clark.htm

Photo: (August 27, 1994) Lt. General Wesley Clark meets and exchanges hats with Serbian war criminal Ratko Mladic. Clark accepted as gifts from Mladic a hat, bottle of brandy and a pistol inscribed in Cyrrilic. A US official complained of Clark?s unauthorized visit: ?It's like cavorting with Hermann Goering.?


#8

Hey Roy, Pass me some info about Bush.


#9

Why thanks damici, thats a great link to follow. Hmmm I wonder where that will take me.


#10

damici = dipshit.


#11

Wow, that was intelligent, CC. Care to elaborate? I'm waiting with baited breath . . . .


#12

(Oops). Touche. Try this:

http://www.socnetcentral.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28705


#13

Clark=one of Clinton's top military commanders.

Isn't that like having to go to war with the French as you allies.

Let's face it Supreme Nato Commander is a job best given to the best administrator in the army, not a warfighter. That was always the knock on Clark as I see it.

Agree with his methods or not. When the call was given Bush rose to the challenge against terrorism. He didn't rationalize against it. He fought against it.


#14

Solomon...

So Clark is an ass-kissing ego-maniac? Sounds perfect for the job.


#15

Have you guys learned nothing?

Sheesh. These topcis are useless. No one's mind will be changed. Unless you love the conflict and to spend your time arguing about something that cannot be agreed upon this whole thread is turning into a useless political debate. No one wins, no one loses but you do get to waste a little bit of your time.


#16

That is diesel's best post ever.


#17

Dr. D,

Ass kissing is great for a subordinate, but not for a world leader. On second thought as the President the only asses he should be kissing are the citizens that elected him. I am not saying that he is not successful, and I?m sure that he is a great politician. What I am saying is that as a country, it is time to get past the politicians and find a leader. There has to be a way to reach our goals with out making a deal with the devil.

Me Solomon Grundy


#18

I wouldn't worry to much about ole' Wesley Clark. He is pretty much a non-entity relative to the Democratic nomination.

His best hope is to grab a VP slot, and that most likely will not happen.

My predicton: Howard Dean at the head spot and John Edwards as his running mate. This will be a formidable match for Bush/Cheney. It's early to predict, but what the heck it's free!


#19

"Agree with his methods or not. When the call was given Bush rose to the challenge against terrorism. He didn't rationalize against it. He fought against it."

Oh please...

On 9-11 Bush was flying around in the stratosphere, AFRAID to touch down. Then he stopped long enough to read a couple of sentences off of 3x5 cards, which somebody else write for him. Then he flew around in the stratosphere some more. Fucking Cheney was hiding in a bunker and couldn't be found for DAYS. Nobody knew where he was! How the fuck do these wimps get painted as "brave"?

How does Bush get labeled "strong on defense" when we got clobbered under HIS WATCH? If we get hit by another terrorist attack, will you still think Bush is "strong on defense" or start to realize that he is a totally inept fuckhead?

When Bush took office, he was given intelligence reports on Al-Qaeda and warnings of upcoming threats. Bush's team chose to IGNORE the briefings from the previous administration because they wanted to gather "their own facts" and draw their own conclusions. They were still getting their shit together when we got hammered on 9-11. It was totally avoidable, if only Bush-Cheney hadn't been such arrogant fucktards (too good for the outgoing administration's briefings, they need to start from scratch) the twin towers would still be standing. These morons don't know what they're doing, they have you totally snowed with their 4th of July baloney.

George Bush's thanksgiving visit to Baghdad just shows what a pussy he is. He spent 3 hours in country, at the Baghdad airport, and didn't meet a single "real" Iraqi. The whole time Team Bush was freaking out. He served up some turkey and ran off like a chicken. Fucking HILLARY CLINTON spent more time in country than Bush. Deal with that!

That's the closest Bush's ever been to a combat situation in his life, and it lasted for a mattrer of hours. The guy is a fucking pussy, I can't believe you guys can't see right through him.

I only wish Wesley Clark makes it onto this ticket, so I can watch him give that pussy Dick Cheney a monster wedgie, and then a swirlie. Clark is smarter than all those idiots combined, and he is not all talk like George "bring em on" Bush.

Bush is a fucking wimp.


#20

I don't think Clark will win the nomination either, which is a shame. I think he has a great chance of beating Bush because he is a military genius, has his foreign afairs information under control, was a rhodes scholar, and is very personable.