Thoughts on Clark's Integrity. For what it's worth.....

excerpt....
---
The Clark Standard
Finally, the skinny on what former Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Hugh Shelton meant by questioning the integrity and character of retired general and Democratic presidential candidate Wes Clark. Pentagon sources say Clark gave overly optimistic assessments about winning the war in Bosnia. Worse, Clark often cozied up to European and United Nations officials to get what he wanted in the war, at times disobeying Shelton's orders. "In terms of the honesty and integrity of most politicians, Clark is probably in the 99th percentile," says one who observed the Shelton-Clark spats. "But it's a different standard when you're talking about professional military officers." No reaction from candidate Clark. Shelton, says spokeswoman Kym Spell, "is entitled to his own opinion." "
---
end excerpt

link: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/031013/whispers/13whisplead.htm

i don't think that's in the "99th percentile" of honesty, even among
politicians.

nor was Clark's initial response of "not remembering" when he was first asked whether he'd voted for any repub presidents.

nor was Clark's response that he had registered as a dem on a particular date, when in fact he had not yet done so.

i doubt these behaviors and responses would pass muster with the cadet honor code, either.

the standard of honesty for politicians may be lower than for military officers, but it's not that much lower.

"overly optimistic assessments, disobeying orders..."

- When did he go against the orders of the Commander-in-Chief, or the head(s) of NATO?

- Weren't his prescriptions _non_-optimistic, since he called for a more aggressive response in the Balkans, since he had skepticism over the worth of air power alone? And nontheless he directed a winning air power campaign: seems like a good record.

any of our military and for that I am grateful - however he did it. General Shelton said a few days (in another speech) that he did not approve of going to war with Iraq but he did Afghanistan. What do you suppose General Shelton would have done had he still been active duty when Iraq started?

that thousands of innocent people were killed for his victory? That's o-kay because they weren't USians?

Pathetic.

But I am glad that he ended a genocide on the European continent with no American casualities and far fewer civilian deaths than usually occur with campaigns of that size.

And why is it wrong to be glad that no American soldiers died? That doesn't mean a person thinks those soldiers are inherently more worthy or more humans than the innocents who perished.

It's just a very human response: if you hear a tragedy occurs, you hope nobody in your family was hurt; then none of your friends; then no one on your block, or in your high school, or city, or state, or nation. The sighs of relief at such news don't mean that you think those more near to you are worth more; it just means you react like a human being.

logic, no military person who has ever been in a war could run for public office

has been proven to be false and that fsact has been posted here a number of times.

and have been posted here many times.

I consider denying the ethnic cleansing and genocide in the Balkans nearly on par with denying the Holocaust during World War II.

It will take longer for the Balkan genocide to enter the public consciousness, but for anyone with the means and interest to get themselves informed, I consider it a moral equivalence.

To have your political passions lead to to deny the truth is nothing less than despicable.

It is truly disgusting.

That act is the bastard child of disintegrity and total callousness.

Some light reading to keep you up:

http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/kar-ai000428e.htm

(edit typo)

their merit. Genocide was taking place in Bosnia. At the time I was outraged that Clinton took so long to respond. Clark was appointed Supreme Commander and took charge of the military operation. He was doing his job but I believe he also helped prevent another Holocaust.

I'm in the middle of Chris Hedges' book and you really need to read it if you haven't. He and I agree with you that all war is bad, however:

Although the war was painted from a far as a clash of rival civilizations , the primary task of Milosevic in Serbia, Franjo Tudjman in Croatia, and the other ethnic leaderships was to dismantle and silence their own intellectuals and writers of stature and replace them with second-rate, mediocre pawns willing to turn every intellectual and artistic endeavor into a piece of ethnic triumphalism and myth. ..They are manufactured wars, born out of the collapse of civil societies, perpetuated by fear, greed, and paranoia, and they are run by gangsters, who rise up from the bottom of their own societies and terrorize all, including those they purport to protect...And yet, despite all this, I am not a pacifist. I respect and admire the qualities of professional soldiers. Without the determination and leadership of soldiers like General Wesley K. Clark we might not have intervened in Kosova and Bosnia.

And a comment from Clark is on the back of the book...written before the war in Iraq:

A powerful book, one which bears sad witness to what veterans have long understood... somber and timely warning to those--in any society--who would evoke the emotions of war for the pursuit of political gain."

Number of ethnic Albanians who showed up to cheer President Clinton a couple of weeks ago= THOUSANDS

Number of Serbian War criminals charged or convicted in the Hague=Dozens including Slobadon

That deserves one more big :grouphug: for the magnificent General!

People on DU are capable of analyzing information if it is provided. How about it?

And send some of those links to the Balkans. I'm sure that will balm the souls of the families of the butchered.

So anyone who has worked for an investment bank or who comes from a background in investment banking is, I am reasoning by your posts here, part of "the establishment."

Anyone lobbying for a company from their state is also, I am reasoning, part of "the establishment."

And, from this post or some of your previous posts, we certainly can't let anyone who has been in the military and participated in combat in because they are "THE establishment!"

Since you have disqualified most of the field of nominees with these three series of remarks, exactly what/who would you propose we run for the Democratic nomination? Who is going to fit your puritanical parameters and have a chance of not being laughed out of the election in 2004?

Bechtel a number of years ago. I guess I'd better rifle through his wallet to see if I can find his PNAC card. :crazy:

MzPip
:dem:

You just don't.

If Clark pissed a few people off, he's just doing his job.

I dare you to show me any four star general who hasn't pissed a few people off.

Or any CEO.

Or any successful person in any walk of life.

Name one person you admire. He's probably pissed a few people off. Hell, look what happened to Martin Luther King.

Or thought he was arrogant, or self-aggrandizing, or whatever. Many of the critics were actual good people themselves.

I'm the first to grant that Wes Clark is no MLK.

Not everyone who has critics is a great person, true; but no person who is great has no critics.

Everything this man says reinforces my belief that he is a progressive Democrat, who combines both tremendous charisma and military credentials, which will allow him to pull in many who would otherwise either abstain from voting or not vote Dem. What the hell more do Dem activists want?????

A vote for Reagan was a bad vote, but I think it could work out for the best:

* The pressure will be on him to be more liberal because of that, since some segment of the base will always be suspcious that he's GOP-lite (useful idiots?)

* His vote will gain him credibility among Reagan Democrats who have cultural issues with our party, but don't necessarily disagree with its politics. They won't care if he's liberal, center-left, or center.

They swing voters get their image and a sheer level of competence that all people like. We get our progressive politics.

I don't see why people see what a fucking great deal we have in this guy. We lucked out!

Martin Luther King, Jr. was the enemy of J Edgar Hoover. In fact, almost all the racist-NAZI-Mafia-oil stooges Hoover served hated Dr. King. These turds weren't Liberal, let alone in favor of Civil Rights. Please, give me some examples of "A TON of Civil Rights people" who "hated MLK."

And many people were very unhappy with or jealous of MLK. Except for the few extremists, I was wrong and exagerating to use the word "hate." I am not speaking of the FBI fascists who wanted MLK out of the picture. I can't give you names off-hand, but I hope these will give you some clue as to the great complexity of the civil rights movement

http://martinlutherking.info/martinlutherking/dr-martin-luther-king-jr-pictures-photos-i-have-a-dream-speech-biography-assassination-quote-14.shtml

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/society_culture/protest_reform/martin_luther_king_05.shtml

Politics exists everywhere, even in movements striving for the greatest ideals. Especially in such movements. . .

In a contest of integrity between Shelton, a man who attacked Clark with mere innuendo (not even making any specific criticism) and Clark, I'll choose Clark. Shelton is probably a paper pushing, no-talent mediocrity who is disgruntled because Clark surpassed him.

Clark is a brilliant military strategist, who has the heart of a progressive Democrat. That is truly threatening to a buracratic rightwing loser.

quite a bit and he just doesn't strike me as the brightest bulb on the block. I'm sure he would find someone like Clark pretty damn annoying.

MzPip
:dem:

That represents reality for Village Idiot, aka BFEE.
:smoke:

sounds like a bigger asshole everytime he opens his mouth. Or...maybe he is just best buds with Gen. Myers...who is best buds with Rummy...who is best buds with Satan.

The problem arises from Supreme Allied Commander being both in charge of NATO and the US commander of a quarter of our Army. Plus the Civilian NATO chief is always European. Clark was beholden to 19 heads of state, NATO high command, Cohen the Republican mole, Shelton who conspired, and Bill Clinton who was busy defending himself from wingnuts. What are the chances that you will piss someone off. Especially, if that someone wanted to be pissed off. Samantha Powers refers to Clark's position in her book. She said that the American military (repub) doesn't appreciate wars fought for humanitarian reasons. Oil? Sure 'nuff. At times during that war, the bastards would be meeting with Clinton to discuss the situation and would fail to tell Clinton that Clark was in DC. They certainly didn't invite Clark to their cozy little meetings.

Hell, no! Those rightwing sociopathic bastards were working overtime to promote distance between Washington leadership and those pesky humanitarian 'adversaries', such as General Wes Clark. And they're still at the same shenanigans, I see.