Wesley Clark's Big Surprise

There are so many dumb generals that it's a big surprise when one of them is actually smart. Wesley Clark is like a dog that can walk on its hind legs: you don't expect it! Just when we thought all generals were dimwits like Westmoreland and Schwartzkopf, along comes Clark. He's not only capable of nuanced thinking, he also can speak in whole paragraphs.

But let us not overestimate General Clark or any other professional military officer. There are no anti-war generals - they are all more or less Richard Myers, who is a cut above Ollie North but only slightly. The generals disapproved of the war in Iraq for reasons that have nothing to do with humanitarian values.

A month from now, Clark's novelty will have worn off completely. There's no conspiracy here, just surprise. When we saw the four stars, we were expecting a dummkopf, but Wes Clark is actually bright. However, as we will soon find out, there's no reason to rush to make him President.

and while I knew many dipshit officers, I never knew of a dipshit general.

...and I think a lot of people are treating him like the Messiah. He comes across well, but that was BEFORE he started campaigning. Josh Marshall on TPM has a good point about Clark's interview with Aaron Brown on CNN yesterday--the questions he's now being asked--and the tone--are much different now. He's a candidate, and that's new. He may do well, but my point is he's been untested. I wish him well, because whoever the Dems nominate will be the strongest to beat Bush because they will have learned to runa tough campaign and have connected with the people. My point is that some people are getting ahead of themselves.

The Right Way ~ The Wrong Way ~ And The Military Way. Is this an open admission that they don't do things the "Right" way?

about those who rise to high places in the military. You don't get there without being a nationalist, an authoritarian, & without being skillful at kissing up to other Pentagon types. Independent thinkers & visionaries usually choose other lines of work.

lie down in all sort of political beds and kiss and kiss and kiss and then seal the papers that show what you went to bed with. Goddamn we need Jesus to run but I guess he would be accused of being a Jew who loved trees so much he got nailed by one...............and the bullshit keeps going and going and going and where it stops no one knows: how about 4 more years of Bush. At least I can trust that he is what he is.

last night while watching a re-run of David Letterman. Franks struck me as a rock, he had to search for answers and frankly didn't deliver well when he found them. It of course didn't help that he was just playing the BFEE soundtrack.

Clark on the other had IS a rocket scientist. I also offer that if you would dig a little further into warfare philosphy you will find that an intelligent military leader looks to minimalize conflict rather than rush headlong into battle. Clark is intelligent and seems to firmly believe his role is to protect and serve his country.

Why someone who serves with honor at the will of politicians is so maligned simply amazes me. Recall that it is the career Pols who often act based on personal agendas.

edit - tpyos

Now, I may be wrong, but it seems to me you're implying that a candidate's #1 position to qualify him to you is that he be anti-war.

I'm reading this as ANTI-WAR and not ANTI-IRAQ war...

If I'm understanding you correctly, the following were bad leaders in your book:

William Jefferson Clinton
John F. Kennedy
Franklin Roosevelt
Woodrow Wilson
Abraham Lincoln
George Washington and all the founding fathers, who advocated armed rebellion.

There are times when was is necessary. Iraq WASN'T such a time. I feel Kosovo was. I feel all of Reagan/Bush's conflicts were not. I believe Viet Nam was not. I believe Korea was not. I believe WWII WAS! I believe WWI WAS! I believe the Civil War WAS! I believe the Revolutionary War WAS!

Wesley Clark is not anti-war. I can't think of a President who was, either.

Dean is not anti-war. Kucinich is not anti-war.

They are all anti-Iraq war.

chose the military as his life's work. But we are far away from a nomination and people need to get to know him. Frankly, I think the more candidates we have, the better off we are.

All wars are alike in the fact that atrocities are committed on both sides. Without knowing anything at all about what when on in Kosovo, it's likely that General Clark will have to defend at least some of his decisions while serving as NATO commander. Clark's supporters will be pressed to answer what the General knew and when he knew it. There will be grisly photographs.

Clark may find it difficult to allow his tribe to promote him as the anti-war general. There's a reason military commanders get nicknames like "Stormin' Norman" and " Old Blood and Guts".

Oh, wait a minute, only Kerry has to do that. :eyes:

I came across a website that claims Clark was wounded four times in Vietnam. It doesn't appear to be authoritative on the subject.

... After receiving his Master's Degree at Oxford he left to fight in Vietnam where he was wounded in combat four times and received the Purple Heart and the Silver Star ...

http://rwneill.com/mississippiforclark/

but left behind a chunk of his calf, and maybe a piece of hand, in the Big Muddy.

will get too caught up in war details if Prez. and
not enough in domestic problems.

will be running against him. Everything that happens like this catches him off guard and I'm sure they have to adjust their strategy every time something new happens! I think plenty of pugs are fed up with this idiot for the ruin of our economy as well as his unending wars and no accomplishments in protecting the country against terriorism.

Clark aims for the Wes Wing
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1044318,00.html

Amusing quote here:
<snip>
...General Barry McCaffrey told the Washington Post: "This is no insult to army culture ... but he was way too bright, way too articulate, way too good looking and perceived to be way too wired to fit in with our culture."
</snip>

I was not able to find the source of the statement that General Schwartzkopf has an IQ of 170. IQ is measured on the Stanford-Binet test, which is given to children. It's likely that Norman's intelligence hasn't been measured in years.

In calling Schwartzkopf a "dimwit" I went by his TV appearances during the first Gulf war. He played videotapes of smart bombs hitting Iraqi buildings with pinpoint accuracy. We later learned that the whole presentation was a deception. Was the general aware that it was a deception? I gave him the benefit of the doubt, thinking that he was merely stupid.

Westmoreland, although inept, was no dumber than his contemporary, General Curtis LeMay, who is said to have coined the phrase "bomb them back to the Stone Age". Come to think of it, that's somewhat inventive, too!

First of all, I said 165, not 170. Where did you get 170? Second, who cares when it's measured? It is what it is. Or did Schwartzkopf get dumb as he aged? Prove it. Playing videotapes of smart bombs hitting buildings hardly makes one a 'dimwit;' that that's the best you were able to come up with is further evidence that you were simply talking out of your ass.

Your attack on Westmoreland is based on ignorance. I chose not to discuss it last time, but now I'm going to challenge you: prove Westy is a dimwit. Prove that he ever was. Prove that he was 'inept.'

Your reference to LeMay is simply bizarre, and has no relevance to anything.

It is measured whenever one enters a branch of service, roughly equivalent to IQ, and subsequent change absent exogenous factors is insignificant.

of being elected because he is anti any war.

No one ever said Clark was "anti war." He is anti Iraq war." and he is against fighting countries in the war on terrorism as opposed to fighting the terrorists.

Clark, Dean, Sharpton and Mosely-Braun are anti IRAQ war. That's a significant difference to being "anti-war."

Surprised, don't tell me the new target is Clark.

Obviously, you've never been to a Republican convention

:yourock:

DTH

I don't want someone who's anti-every war; I think sometimes war is necessary. However, the Iraq war certainly wasn't, and he was against that war.

loved him.....even Democrats......even folks here on DU though he was the "voice of reason."

When it comes to War the Military has to do what the Commander-in-Chief tells them. It would be hard to believe that Clark would have risen up to General if he didn't believe in what he was doing. He may be a fine, intelligent man.....but he isn't going to be the best diplomat.....or negotiator to keep us OUT of war when he has been trained to fight in wars if he has to.

Maybe folks hope he's the exception.....but I don't want to take a chance....on an unknown. A General who will keep us out of conflict by stong diplomacy......it's just too big a risk. And, until our intelligence agencies are cleared out of the PNAC supporters and Reagan/Bush types.....then he will have to rely on the same kind of reporting that Clinton and now Bush have......How can we trust that. Not that I think Bush/Cheney/Rummy didn't have influence over getting the kind of intelligence they wanted....the fact is it was out there.......