Wesley Clark said US Army will be destroyed in Iraq.

It was about a year ago. Does anybody recall this?

He said it would be like what happened to the US Military during Vietnam.

He has been consistant on his stand on the War!

At one point, he said he WOULD have voted for the war, he was quoted in the NYT. Earlier on, he said he would not have voted for it.

Clark also praised Bush on the war. I'd hardly call his position "consistent."

He was talking about a different resolution. He was absolutely consistent in what he said, and testified, prior to the invasion.

Edited to add: Nor did he "praise Bush" on the war. There are some quotes floating around in which he was talking about Bush I, and others plucked from an article that basically said, "Hurray, the regime is deposed and people can vote, BUT, that doesn't mean it's over and settled, there's diplomatic work the administration has to do beyond military action."

http://www.factcheck.org/article107.html

General Clark says he's been "very, very clear" about opposing the U.S. war with Iraq, but earlier statements show otherwise
****

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0919-01.htm
snips

Clark Says He Would Have Voted for War
by Adam Nagourney

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla., Sept. 18 — Gen. Wesley K. Clark said today that he would have supported the Congressional resolution that authorized the United States to invade Iraq, even as he presented himself as one of the sharpest critics of the war effort in the Democratic presidential race.
At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question," General Clark said.

A moment later, he said: "I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position — on balance, I probably would have voted for it."

Moving to fill in the blanks of his candidacy a day after he announced for president, General Clark also said that he had been a Republican who had turned Democratic after listening to the early campaign appeals of a fellow Arkansan, Bill Clinton.

"Mary, help!" he called to his press secretary, Mary Jacoby, at the front of the plane, as he faced questions about Iraq. "Come back and listen to this."

At one point, Ms. Jacoby interrupted the interview, which included four reporters who were traveling on the general's jet, to make certain that General Clark's views on the original Iraq resolution were clear.

"I want to clarify — we're moving quickly here," Ms. Jacoby said. "You said you would have voted for the resolution as leverage for a U.N.-based solution." "Right," General Clark responded. "Exactly."

***
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0339,schanberg,47244,1.html

Clark's Changing Tune on Iraq
General Wobbled and Weaved as His Candidacy Neared

by Sydney H. Schanberg
September 24 - 30, 2003

From this picture of a bold commander with a keen intellect, one might expect to find his views on the Iraq war to be clear minded and unambiguous. That is not the case. A search through the transcripts of his war commentaries on CNN and his opinion columns in the print press finds instead that he wobbled and weaved.

He said one thing in Time magazine and something quite different in The Times of London. In his CNN analyst role, he said on several occasions that Saddam Hussein "absolutely" possessed weapons of mass destruction but then said last week, no such weapons having yet been found, that "there was no imminent threat" to justify a war against Iraq. While those two statements are not automatically incompatible, they suggest confusion or worse.

In April, when the Baghdad regime succumbed quickly to the American-British invasion force, Clark exuberantly compared it to the fall of the Berlin Wall. Writing in the London Times, he said: "President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt." By August, though, he was telling CNN's Aaron Brown: "The simple truth is that we went into Iraq on the basis of some intuition, some fear, and some exaggerated rhetoric and some very, very scanty evidence . . . that's a classic presidential-level misjudgment. And I think the voters have to be aware of that."

*****

London Times, April 10, Clark article after the fall of Baghdad: Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. . . . Liberation is at hand. Liberation—the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. . . . Surely the balm of military success will impact on the diplomacy to come—effective power so clearly displayed always shocks and stuns. Many Gulf States will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western standards of human rights. . . . But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven't yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's been run down quite nicely thanks to the scum in this administration. And if they have their way, it'll be decimated.

The enemy's not helping but, that's not what's gonna 'destroy the US Army'.

ground up in purposeless tit-for tat type operations and morally eviscerated. It wasnt' about being defeated in the field.

meanwhile Duncan Hunter says it is just equipment being destroyed. Methinks DH has forgotten about American GI's families taking hits in their relationships and finances over this nasty war. IIRC, most military wives don't look forward to their husbands being deployed for 18 months.

Noodles Jefferson and two types of fruit.

But the point is right. That when you stretch something too far it will break. You can only rotate our limited forces so many times. That it takes time and money to replenish a division after rotation and equipment is going to break down and need replacing.

He actually gave guidlines as to what it takes to replenish a division.

But it isn't quite Viet Nam yet. We haven't started drafting our children (I say sarcasticly). I do not understand why anyone doubts this is coming.

Point is right. That is why a lot of us voted for Clark.

Joe

powell,bush1, and schwarzkopf knew what was going to happen as soon as they were shown the plans.remember the general that was fired for saying we needed 400,000+ troops. if the iraqi`s had an army that could fight our troops would have been fucked and stuck in the sea of sand. saddam knew if he could get the the us army in the cities they would lose and they have. instead of the jungle in nam it`s a sea of sand that has destroyed the us army.

US casualty. Now we show how Cheney linked up with Halliburton, and how their subsidiary Kellogg Brown Root wrote the plans for fighting Iraq and how Cheney suddenly morphed into a war hawk. We go a long way toward showing the true motivation for this war.

Are the NCO's (She's one of them getting out) Some of changes are NOT positive-new promotion guidelines for instance. They are breaking down army units into smaller striker brigades supposedly for a faster, more mobile army. The NCO's are what holds the army together as far as any moral goes, and they are the ones who know how to keep soldiers alive in battle. According to her, the army is in trouble. Lots of undertrained kids without experience to follow as a guide going to any war is a scary thought. Kids going to a war period is a terrifying one.
Fucking recruiters at fucking high schools really, really pisses me off.

Where Vietnam hurt the Army most was in the long term NCO's... the guys who did 8-20+ years, making the army thier life. The Professionals at Arms. During the Vietnam war, the long term NCO's got out rather than go back to 'the Nam'. The solutions put in place (instant NCO's from the draftees) hurt the Army even more than the loss of NCO's.

They're losing the core of professionals in favor of fanatics and involutary extentions. Next up, the conscripts.

She'll have nearly 9 years in when she gets out next month. She had actually reenlisted after her tour in Afghanistan, but the new unit they promised her didn't materialize, -- they reneged on her reenlistment contract. Her unit is going to Iraq in 4 or 5 months I believe. Came back from Afghanistan in May. More to the story of course, but she's had enough.

I mean he's ONLY a Four-Star General and former Supreme Commander of NATO afterall.

That's NOTHING compared to the BIG SHOT Armchair General's of Junior, the Dickhead, Rummy and Condi.

:sarcasm:

..Jean Schmidt, either!

*Slaps forehead* HOW could I have forgotten General Schmidt. Her CV is next to none...ESPECIALLY that part in her CV where it tells of how General Schmidt personally led her battalion of miniature toy Prussian tin soldiers in that FULL-ON charge over the anthill.

*Phew* that General Schmidt anthill charge was...well, we're talking ON PAR with the execution of the Normandy landings.

It is very moving to hear Wes Clark speak of our Armed Forces. After Vietnam, Wes made the decision to stay in the military partly because he saw the great need to rebuild the "volunteer" Army. I believe General Clark and others had done a fantastic job reaching this goal. (I am a former army wife). I have heard the General speak many times and you can hear and see the sadness, anger and frustration he feels about what these assholes have done.

And so Bush made it so.