Clark defended Vietnam War

Just to set the record straight:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/10/14/wclark14.xml

At Oxford, Gen Clark threw himself into the Vietnam debate, defending the US position in arguments with classmates, and at the Oxford Union.

http://domapp01.shu.edu/depts/special%20programs/pressrelease.nsf/0/cc9b9dac2d560cfb85256bb200792a29?OpenDocument

In 1968, General Clark was the last Rhodes scholar to participate in embassy-arranged speaking tours across England defending American intervention in Vietnam.

http://clark04.com/speeches/002/

In the 1960s, I defended my nation's policy on Vietnam to groups in and outside this country.

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/politics/7372382.htm

He graduated first in this class and went to Oxford as a Rhodes scholar. Vietnam was an inflammable subject, and he defended American involvement, often overwhelmed.

snip

While Vietnam disenchanted so many of Clark's classmates that they fled the Army in droves, it only made Wesley Clark more certain that he was where he ought to be.

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/profiles/07clark.html

Clark left as another Rhodes scholar from Arkansas arrived. Unlike Bill Clinton, who spoke out against the Vietnam War, Clark defended it in speeches he gave on behalf of the U.S. Embassy. Protesters pelted him with rotten tomatoes.

Clark has said many times he was proud of his service in Vietnam.

one of the most vile and evil times in American Foreign Policy history are two seperate things.

he was against the Vietnam war.

And then he endorses someone who was all for it.

Even odder is the fact that so many Clark supporters are touting the endorsement saying what a good guy McGovern was.

Huh?

Does this even make sense?

;-)

"As a college student, McGovern was twice elected class president and won the state oratorical contest with the topic "My Brother's Keeper," an avowal of his belief in one's responsibility to humankind.

World War II interrupted McGovern's education in 1943. He flew 35 combat missions as a B-24 bomber pilot in Europe, earning the Distinguished Flying Cross."

You might want to brush up on George McGovern here:

http://www.mcgovernlibrary.com/george.htm

He sounds alot like Clark in his youth to me.

and the military does NOT get involved in making Policy or commenting on it.

:freak:




ed- sp

Month ago: McGovern the loser.

Today: McGovern the hero.

Why am I not surprised?

and Clark supporters think their both great guys?!? Why, that's just preposterous!! We must hate everyone who disagrees with our candidate on any one thing and shun his endorsement!

Also we must be ashamed of saying Dean's campaign will fail like McGovern's because McGovern endorsed Clark! If Dean was going to lose like McGovern then McGovern would endorse him, because that makes a lot of sense!

Is how one demonstrates purity of mind and commitment to principle. Politics, as all sound thinkers on the field avow, is a theater created particularly to display such qualities, for applause by the unwashed multitude of lesser folk....

"I am a man of principles, Sir, and chief among them is flexibility!"

I lurk mostly these days, but I always read your posts. This one, especially the last quote, is why. Thanks! :-)

Sorry...had to beat everyone else to saying it.

A lot of Democrats think McGovern is a good guy. No surprise there. I think the 'surprise' for some is that McGovern overwhelming embraces Clark as a Democrat. }(

As far as the anti-war McGovern endorsing the Vietman Vet...maybe McGovern feels that you can be anti-war without being anti-military. Some people didn't feel that way and that's part of the reason why Vietnam Vets were treated so crappy after the war.

Lots of people defended Vietnam in 1968. Lots of people still do. I've tried to say before that the entire country wasn't in the streets protesting, even though some people seem to think it was.

What's more important to me is what he thinks now and even more important, what does he think of the flooding of U.S. weapons around the world and the proxy wars of the 80s. Got anything on that?

defended it in the 60's.

That was in his announcement speech.

I think the Vietnam war was WRONG. And I think the draft was WRONG. And I think the lies that were told during the Vietnam war were WRONG.

Has Clark ever spoken out on these things? If so, I can't find anything.

i still think it was wrong
i thought the draft was wrong
now that i'm way too old i'm not so sure -
i want to see young guys (and their parents) in the streets

& has said so repeatedly!

All I see is him explaining why he went to Vietnam, not what he thinks about it now. Help!?! :shrug:

Clark takes the 'blind to social effects' position he seems to have a history of doing.

I hope this a campaign issue...keep digging. Your going to need a bigger shovel.

Check this one out, while your at it....

At age 50, as a 3-Star General working as J-5 for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Clark didn't hesitate to tie a rope around a tree stump and rappel several hundred meters down a mountainside while under fire, in the hopes of saving the lives of soldiers whose armored personnel carrier had fallen when a portion of the road gave way.

Sounds like a real un-American monster to me...

You'd better get busy....you've got a lot of digging to do buddy.

Now that would be a post I would expect to see deleted.

Just clarifying the issue for anyone who was under the impression that Clark was against the Vietnam war and that is why McGovern supported him.

35 years ago?

Things change and so do people.

The principles stay the same...

i'm younger than that now.

Are the slipperiest concepts ever it has been attempted to set forth. Great certainty about them often indicates no great measure of thought has ever been applied to them.

I now have friends who were for the war. I also have Vietnamese American friends, some of who were in the South Vietnamese military. What to say? I say move on.

Kerry is the ultimate stud!

Rock on' John....rock on'

I live in Hawaii, where there are many Vietnamese-Americans, & they fled here for freedom, & love the USA. Matter of fact Vietnam, since relations have resumed, is very pro-America, & they are welcoming Americans there in droves.

So nothing is as simple in life as some on this board would like it to be. And maybe those who were not even alive at the time do not understand the complexity of things. And I never hear any blame for LBJ who set these fine people off to die.

What? The man served in the military for 34 years and has 4 wounds from Vietnam to show for it. So? What's your point? I was against the Vietnam war, but I sure as HELL NEVER put ANYONE down for fighting it. Blame the damn government, not the soldiers. I had a LOT of friends who served in that war and if you are aginst Clark for serving, you are against my friends, too. :grr:

Or maybe you were one of the people doing the "spitting on" the troops as they returned from Vietnam?

thread that you are 24 years old.

Were you kidding then, or are you kidding now?

that was a joke. I'm 48. I watched many friends hold their breath while draft numbers were picked. It was just awful. Then, many came home mentally destroyed. The war SUCKED, but the soldiers should not be faulted for serving. That pisses me off.

I just think that even if you believed in it at the time, hindsight shows it was wrong.

Kerry had the right idea.

I just wonder...how can anyone support our decision to go to war with Vietnam today with the hindsight that we have now.

Why would the American Embassy have a soldier, even one that was TDY as a Rhodes Scholar, defend a political position of the Johnson Administration?

There is a line that was crossed here!

I opposed the Vietnam War, but I could not do so while in uniform, so I did not reenlist (which is something I wanted to do) and I left the one organization that had provided me with the only stability I had known during a very tumultuous period of my life.

:wow:

And I'm sure that if all of that was true I would oppose Clark for the 1972 Democratic presidential nomination. :eyes:

Clark was an active duty soldier. Here he is taking a political position while still in uniform. The fact that he was a Rhodes scholar does not alter the fact that he was still serving as an active duty officer. This is the same as having people on active duty today go around the country giving speeches in support of Bush's invasion of Iraq.

The issue is relevant today in that allegations have been made regarding Wes Clark conduct while he was NATO commander. The questions pertain to whether or not Clark tried to set policy in the Balkans, contravening the orders he was given by his military superiors and the National Command Authority.

Did Clark cross the line when he defended political decisions about Vietnam? Did Clark repeat the same behaviour during the war in Bosnia?

I don't know the answers, but I do know that it is legitimate to ask such questions.

and was shot four times. He can say whatever the fuck he wants about it, imho.


Can we move on to this century?

Not a combat vet, but I was in the Navy during the war.

After I got out in 1971 I vigorously opposed the war, but not the people fighting it. They were pawns, just like the 50,000 men and women who died there. I'm a very enthusiastic Dean supporter, but if Wesley Clark made statements supporting the war, while in the military, he's earned the right.

After taking 4 bullets for imperialism, he's still entitled to support it. I oppose the Iraq invasion, but I'm not going to say a bad word about our soldiers over there. They may oppose it privately,
but they'll kick your ass when you start calling them baby-killers.

Give the guy a break already. He's already done more for this country than most of us. But, I still plan on working for Dean.

and NOT while still on active duty. That is the real issue at hand!

On edit:

Kerry opposed the war AFTER he got out, as he should!

If mixing politics and religion is bad, mixing politics and the military is far worse!

That was a nice thing to say. I appreciate it.

The public will be turned off immensely and his General status will be essentially a nonissue, in fact, a liability (since it will aid in the Repubs painting him as Pro-Vietnam, WW3).

"I will never ask our troops to risk the ultimate sacrifice or ask their families to pay the ultimate price of patriotism except as an absolute last resort.

As President, I will rebuild our relationships abroad and the alliances which maintain them. And I will strengthen them, so that we can solve problems together, so that the use of military force is our last resort not our first, and if America must act with force we can call on the military, financial, and moral resources of others."

http://clark04.com/issues/10pledges/

Is the "last resort" for him after the hostile country says "no" the first time?

Wes Clark in the Balkans, I was there and thank God Wes Clark was in charge. A damn ground war against the Serbs would have been disastrous. They sent the German SS out feet-first after the NAZI invasion of that country in WWII.

I took an on-line test for who I would ideologically support as a candidate...

Clark came out on top at 81%
Dean got 80%

My comfort level with Wes Clark as compared to Dean on National Security issues is the primary reason I support him.

The last thing this country needs is someone who flies off the handle so easy in charge of Nuclear Weapons.

You are maintaining that the Party which talked the nation into war, and depends upon war for its maintainance in power, will attack the support of war with any credibility among the people? They will not, Sir, waste so much as a dime, even from such ample resources as they possess, on providing such comedic relief to the people's ears.

They are very good at smearing people, even when they are being hypocrites!

And will waste no effort in an endeavor that will strike the popular ear with the force of jumbo shrimp. To engage in hypocrisy is one thing, and often a necessary and advantageous thing; to make oneself rediculous is quite another, and always disasterous.

Most people in this country are rather fond still of the idea of telling Russians where to get off, after all, and rather enjoy the deployment of the nation's armed forces as an idea for contemplation. The most general feeling of the populace concerning Viet Nam, for good or ill, is that is was not fought hard enough, or led very well, not that it was wrong and evil.

it probably makes them sleep better after they read and post things like "Protesters pelted him with rotten tomatoes".

The one where the opponent is attacked and belittled for things unrelated to the topic at hand....it's on the tip of my tongue :P

Why is it such a problem for you? I'm concerned about current and future wars now, not yesterdays. Nothing personal against you, but I Know a lot more about McGovern's judgment and priorities than I do about yours. He walked the walk just about as far as you can go, and he's in Clark's camp now.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

lost more lives than any West Point class during the Vietnam war. Maybe he was defending the conflict because denouncing it would have been a horribly disloyal thing to do to his classmates and friends. If I recall correctly his roommate died in Vietnam. While people were protesting in the streets Clark and thousands of committed soldiers only heard the sounds of Duty, honor, Country. He was a soldier. Should he have denounced the policies of the US in a foreign country and disrespected the lives of his fellow soldiers? Should we criticize our soldiers in Iraq when they come home for not protesting that war. Should we throw things at them like they did to our Vets when they returned home from Vietnam. What is the correct etiquette in this situation?

He was shot something like 4 times in Vietnam.

;)

McGovern has "moved on" why can't the rest of you?

Tell that to the families of those that have been killed or wounded in Iraq.

The IWR is a clone of the Tonking Gulf Resolution. They were both based on lies. 58,000 Americans and nearly a million Vietnamese died for the latter, no one can say how many will die for the former.

Good to get this out now.....Nice links.

Thank You!


And then there were none!
” JAFO”

He left a part of himself and a lot of good friends there. There is a lot of misconception about the war in Viet Nam. Most people repeat what they have been told, very few have researched it. The Viet Nam debacle began with the end of WW2. The French were in control following the Japanese defeat. Eisenhower provided financial aid to the French to control the area as we were involved with China to the north. As Mao swept south it became part of the cold war. We became actively involved again because JFK was influenced by the stories of atrocities told in the Dooley books. It was another hot spot in the Cold War and the Dominoe Theory led to our deeper involvement. Who even remembers the Nixon-Kennedy debates over Quemoy-Matsu? This was American policy driven by politics and the question of who would stand up for America. Hindsight as they say is 20-20. Honorable men went with honorable intent. Under LBJ and his friends in Texas who are now known as KBR the corporate thieves took over policy for profit. There was no desire to win the war because the cash flow would then cease. It took Americans a long time and a lot of losses to realize this. The military did not fail, the leadership failed. This is the driving force behind Clark's candidacy. Once again he sees failed leadership and no end strategy and has determined it needs to be made right and prevented from happening again. Experience is a great teacher. Wes Clark offers us a wealth of knowledge and leadership. McGovern is a patriot and Clark is a patriot. They are brothers in arms and love America. Unfortunately there are a lot of self-hating Americans who don't even care about this country. I have a stake in this country and so do they and that's why we seek to remove B*** with the best candidate who upholds our Democratic principles.

The Viet Nam debacle began with the end of WW2. The French were in control following the Japanese defeat.

The French were not in control, they had been kicked out by the Japanese. It was the Viet Minh that fought the Japanese. The French decided to reclaim their former colony after Japan was defeated, with the blessings of the Allies, the problem is they didn't bothered to ask the Vietnamese.

Eisenhower provided financial aid to the French to control the area as we were involved with China to the north. As Mao swept south it became part of the cold war.

Actually, Mao did not kick the corrupt Kuomingtan out of power until 1949. Ike's entrance into this tale did not take place until the early 1950s when Ike sent the CIA to Vietnam to help the French.

The "domino theory" was proven to be wrong, but it was a good way to whip anti-socialist fears. "Who lost China?" and "Who stole our atomic secrets" were popular rallying cries together with "How many communists are in the State Department."

Did you mention Bao Dai, the playboy emperor of Vietnam that spent his days in the French Riviera?

The failures of Vietnam were not a failure of leadership, but a failure of policy. Our policies were wrong, as wrong as our policies now!

Changing personnel will not change a darned thing unless you change policy first!

my narrative too much. I thought it ran long enough. I think the CIA was the force used in the Cold War but we also paid France as surrogates and their defeat was one of the reasons we had to involve our troops on the ground when our puppets could not stand up to the populist forces. I don't know that the domino theory was proven wrong because by the time that domino fell the whole dynamic had changed. Our support of the corrupt regimes was definitely part of the failure not only there but through out the world. I will agree that it was a failed policy, but I consider that to be a result of failed leadership. As far as self-hating Americans, I am referring to those who will not give us the same leeway they give those who oppose us. I don't know of any perfect society. That is why we must be willing to change what is wrong with our government and I think that is what Clark refers to when he says dissent is patriotism. I don't think mistakes mean we must engage in self-immolation.

did a lot of people. :shrug: