The Supreme Allied Commander gets fired and...

...he doesn't ask why?

Is this at all believable?

From MTP 6/15/03:

(snip)

MR. RUSSERT: When you left your command, there was an article in The Washington Post on—in July of 1999, which I want to talk about and give you a chance to talk about it. And here it is on the screen.
“General Clark to Leave Top Post at NATO. After months of tension with the Pentagon over the conduct of NATO’s war against Yugoslavia, Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark was abruptly informed that his term as the alliance’s top commander will end...the decision to end Clark’s term a few months short of three years was unusual, and some military officials said it may be seen by his congressional supporters and among European allies as an affront to the general who led NATO to victory. ...Informed of the decision less than an hour before a reporter called seeking his response, Clark later issued a statement accepting the change...”
Why were you asked to step down?

GEN. CLARK: Well, the honest answer is I don’t know. And I never really asked. I was given a number of reasons. I don’t know. It’s one of those things when it happens, it happens. You know, you work for the president and the secretary of Defense and when—I was told that was the decision, that was the decision.

MR. RUSSERT: Was it a performance issue?

GEN. CLARK: Not to my knowledge.

MR. RUSSERT: And you’re not the least bit curious?

GEN. CLARK: Yeah, I have been curious, Tim. It hurt. But, you know, you just have to move past things like that in your life. I mean, one of my staff members finally, you know, asked somebody months later, “Why did you do that? Why did do you that?” He asked somebody on somebody else’s staff. And everybody had a little bit different explanation. And I don’t know if you even went to those people today and said, “Why did you do that?,” I don’t know if there’s a reason for it. It was a feeling.

(snip)

http://www.msnbc.com/news/927000.asp

Fired and doesn't even ask why...yeah, right.

"Were you asked to step down?"

"...I don't know..."

What earthly good would it do him? He almost certainly wouldn't have gotten an honest answer in any case. He served at the pleasure of the Secretary of Defense and that is that.

That he would not know the reason for his dismissal. He was a very high ranking officer.

It smells funny.

its made of tinfoil

It's probably silly to question a former SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER.

Nothing to see here...move along.

"Just clean out your "supreme" desk General, and be outa here in an hour...

"Uh, sure, yessir...OK...bye now.

as he indicated, and there were a bunch of reasons: Def. Secy. Cohen--the only GOPer in Clinton's cabinet, I might add--and he didn't get along. Clark pushed very hard for ground troops (which would have stopped Milosevic more quickly and intervened directly in ethnic cleansing, and more humane than high altitude bombing, I might add). He also believed that when modern liberal democratic countries fight wars, they should give a lot of access to the press, and he was on TV a lot. This combination of this also irritated a number of stodgier Pentagon people, too.

Finally, his replacement, Joe Ralston, needed a post, otherwise he would have to retire--there's some rule that generals have to move through a certain number of different commands or something within a certain amount of time. And so Cohen pushed and Clinton, not really knowing the politics involved, signed off on it without realizing that he had approved the dissing of his buddy Clark.

But I dunno, it seems to me that one should not have to speculate about this sort of stuff if one doesn't feel like it--how often does any politician admit "well, we didn't really get along?" How often does that actually happen? Like all of the time...

It has been said that Clark "knows where the bodies are buried", and similar things. He is held out as a paragon of honesty and truthfulness.

What is the problem with saying in response to the question, "I got fired because of differences with....etc.".

He just never seems to answer a question directly. From his political party affiliation to his stance on gays in the military it's always a opaque, obtuse sorta kinda answer that never really addresses the question.

Now, a lot of inferences can be made, but is that what a candidate for the highest office in the land ought to be giving us? Inferences and code talk?

I would prefer just simple straight answers and let the chips fall where they may.

Frankly, he acts more like a politician than some politicians...

Well, you should like that. Clearly, the "lacks experience" thing shouldn't be a problem for you, then!

What bothers you is that you don't like Clark.

Period. Not because of any particular reason, but for a cluster of reasons that you can't completely articulate.

Maybe part of it is because he isn't saying that he's not a Democrat and that bothers you.

Maybe part of it is because you've put in a lot of time for Dean (a fine candidate, in my opinion--unlike a lot of people, I feel no need or desire to attack him) or maybe donated money or whatever and you are worried that your contribution would be wasted, which is an awfully narrow view, since Dean is contributing a lot to the party just by running.

But instead, you have to invent the claim that Clark is held up as "paragon of honesty and integrity"--which, if you were paying attention, is not the big reason everyone is attracted to him; considering Bush's dishonesty, just about all of the Dems compare favorably on this point--and then parse like mad to try to show he's intrinsically evasive, when there are 1000s of other reasons to choose to answer in the way he does.

What's wrong with just coming out and saying: "I don't like Clark because I've already thrown in my chips with Dean and in some of my darker moments, I might have to admit that I care more about my horse winning than about what's best for the Democratic Party as a whole..."

What I don't like is his chronic evasiveness on virtually anything he's asked. I want a candidate to declare his position clearly and succinctly. I am bothered that he won't simply state his party affiliation. Really...what is the big deal about that? Why the secret? If he is a Democrat, he ought to be proud of that fact, and state so. I am bothered that he won't simply address issues when he is directly asked. Granted, ALL politicians evade hot issues at times, it goes with the territory, but the General is particularly evasive. In the MTP interview, I don't think he answered one question directly. If that is attractive to you, that's fine. I see it differently.

I'm certain Gen Clark is a fine man, he certainly isn't my choice, and I have problems with decisions he's made as a military commander. I have a serious problem that he could have been involved in an illegal operation at Waco. That is my right as a voter to decide whom I will support. I can assure you it won't be Clark, if he is "drafted". (Which is another thing I have a problem with.)

If Clark IS going to run, I think it is fair to examine his record, and his statements as closely as all the others candidates get scrutinized.

years of service. He lost his command of that post. He was not stripped of rank or court marshalled.

At the time, the explanation was that without an early departure, his replacement would be in violation of rules regarding full generals (4 stars) needing reappointment within a short time frame.

It was appearent, however, that there were other reasons, which might have centered around Cohen's dislike of Clark's advocacy of the Kosovo campaign, and an internecine battle between the Air Force and the Army. Clark and Ralston were at odds, and while Clinton and Albright sided with Clark, Cohen sided with Ralston. (Ralston is recently retired and now is Vice Chairman of Cohen's consulting group.)

So what's he supposed to do, call Bill Cohen in the middle of the night? Dig through dumpsters?

He was given an official reason for his early dismissal, which was a reasonable and benign explanation. What you really want him to say is what the real reason was. He doesn't know, and his contacts all have different stories.

...why doesn't Clark when he's asked?

"I don't really know"?

Yeah, everyone's got a theory, but it serves little purpose for the person involved to start leveling accusations about the motives of others.

I quit my last job "to spend more time with my family". Why don't you start speculating. BTW, the people who know the real answer why I had previously been but was no longer willing to work 80-100 hour weeks are precisely the people who I trusted not to share that information.

This was pretty widely reported on in 1998. Basically, the JCS was pissing and moaning about Clinton and all the 'peacekeeping' work that Albright and Cohen were giving them to do, and not enough defense contracting to give them sinecures when they wanted to retire. Clark was the only one willing to step up and do a good job when Cohen went to the Joint Chiefs with the Kosovo problem.

So Clark stood up and did about as good a job as could be demanded with what he had and all the political constraints involved. He really embarrassed the JCS by winning the thing, after all the foot and ass dragging (remember the Apache helicopter story, and the tanks in Tirana business?) they did and all the daggers they put in his back.

Powell was not an active participant but he let it all happen- I've had no respect for him since. Franks was more directly involved, but IIRC it was a bunch of publicly faceless and very Republican Air Force generals and Navy staff that really did a lot of sabotaging him internally. Clinton hatred and all that had its role, but it was more or less straightforward hating of a man who proved himself able to win a war against the JCS and Milosevic at the same time.

Clark wrote a book about the Kosovo war in 2000 or 2001. I don't know the Pentagon people he mentions in sufficient detail, but it's clearly a book intended to point out all of his internal malefactors and the petty reasons why they did as they did.

I suspect that's one reason he's running in '04- I suspect he'd love to be Secretary of Defense in any case if he can't be President and see to making a number of his former colleagues walk the plank.

Context.

Will those who post negative thread after thread on all the other candidates get the same scrutiny as Nicholas J does for his negative Dean threads?

Just asking.

take the time to do the analysis.

Don't expect me to do it, I only work towards my own agenda, not other peoples.

and whose avitar it has.

Is it not fair to examine and question any candidate? All of the candidates get a thourough exam here.

I posted an interview. I didn't make it up.

posted by a Dean supporter out to bash every other candidate who may challange their man. It's part and parcel of what the "politics and campaigns" forum has become. A bunch of fishwives.

if he had been FIRED, he would just be Wesley Clark.

You obviously have a bug up about this man. It's wearing thin.

Military officers do not lose rank if they are dismissed from a position.

The fact is that he appears to evade the question, which naturally leads to more questions.

Threatened much?

going after the other candidates - they're not.

been a *big* factor in this. It's not a regular job where folks usually lose their job for insubordination. This is a job where your bosses decide to keep you where you are, based on the political mood at the moment and the (many times undocumented) agenda of these same bosses.

If Clark dosen't run I will knock every door, call everybody I can to Elect Howard Dean, but now just isn't the right time

Clark can and WILL beat Bush.

The Sad reality is that Clark can't win the primaries.

PLEASE Support General Clark, Please.

Let's not have a bloody Primary.
That's just what Rove is counting on.

So I ask every Deanie to vote Clark/Dean in 04.

In 2012 I will work hard to elect Vice President Dean, President.

Than Dean can work the same magic that has inspired millions!