The Clark Conundrum: Why didn't Pres. Clinton save Gen. Wesley Clark?

Wesley Clark's military career is an blueprint for success and a credit to the man himself; something that has always put him at the top of my candidates list.

However there has always been something that bothered me in the way Gen Clark was summarily let go by Sec. of Defense Bill Cohen: Why didn't Clark's nearest contemporary, President Bill Clinton, Rhodes Scholar and fellow Arkansaw native, come to the General's aide in his most trying time of crisis?

Clark has heavily leveraged his relationship with Clinton in his recent campaign ads and releases; however, when he needed Bill Clinton the most, at the height of his career, Clinton allowed him to slip into the abyss of innuendo and whisper with a hasty and contentious departure.

How do you reconcile this obvious disparity? The quote below is telling, Bill Clinton said he had nothing to do with Clark's dismissal, but it's clear he did nothing to prevent it either.

What does Bill Clinton know about Wesley Clark that we don't and why did he withhold his absolutely critical support at the man's most desperate hour?


--------------------------------------------
Clark Defends Military Record

By DANIEL J. HEMEL
Contributing Writer


"...Clark countered that he was neither "fired" nor "relieved" of his duties, but that he was "asked to retire three months early" by then-Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Henry "Hugh" Shelton.

The normally unflappable Clark grew uncharacteristically emotional as he explained Shelton’s "behind-the-back power play."

Clark recounted that he was dining with the president of Lithuania when he was interrupted by a phone call from Shelton, who asked Clark to step down from his post.

Within an hour of the phone call, Clark said that Shelton had leaked news of Clark’s ouster to reporter Bradley Graham of the Washington Post. After the leak, Clark said, then-President Bill Clinton and Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen could not have salvaged Clark’s job without sparking an embarrassing public flap with Shelton.

"Bill Clinton told me himself that he had nothing to do with this, and I believe him," Clark said."

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=356717

Didn't want to undermine his cabinet.

www.clarkmyths.com

Hey, if Clark doesn't hold it against Clinton, I certainly don't.

Bill Clinton....paging Bill Clinton.....white courtesy telephone please....

He'll let things shake out. And when it comes down to Clark-Dean, I'm sure we'll be hearing from him.

I tell you, it's always entertaining at DU these days.

Truly.

He doesn't make very astute political decisions, that's all. If he were running I'd vote for him. He's basically a good guy.

Sometimes I think that Al Gore did the smartest thing he could have done. The machine was in motion.... enabled by a Clinton presidency that had pushed no real democratic issues, had itself participated in bully military campaigns and who had been very good to big business.

Im pissed that Gore didnt show some huevos and set up a government in exile or something.. but, damn, every president since Reagan has simply been a pawn.

On the surface it would seem to be a struggle for control over the DNC/DLC? Whether that translates to change in direction remains to be seen, I have my doubts. Neither Gore nor Dean have governed in a direction opposite to the current leadership.

But I just dont know if the bearded mountain man, that is now Al Gore, has it in him to play any political power games. ;)

Unfortunately, a common pattern.
He let people loyal to him hang there on many occasions.
He didn't want to make waves, & gave him that medal as a consolation prize.

That might be when he was getting shot to pieces in VietNam.

Losing an inhouse political battle and a cushy mansion in Belgium?

Not quite the same thing.

Overrule your division chief because he gets rid of a subordinate that you like? Guess you could do that. Might not be prudent, though, especially with the Board of Directors breathing down your neck.

Clinton's loyalty has always been a sometime thing and Clark knew the risks he was taking in going over Shelton and Cohen's head. By the time you're a four star general you know how far you can go, and how far is too far. He took a shot and he lost. End of story.

If Clinton wasn't supporting Clark he would have complained about his image appearing in that commercial. The thing is being aired. Nuff said.

>Clinton's loyalty has always been a sometime thing <

Clinton was a great president but that doesn't mean you have to close your eyes to the truth.

Great President but I wouldn't want my daughter working for him.

And I wouldn't want my life depending on his doing the right thing.

stated two days ago, "Bill Clinton has ONE major fault. He likes sleezy women. He doesn't want to marry them. He just likes them."

I don't think one needs to worry about the upright, heads-on-tight young women. Just the ones who might not come near that description. After all, Genifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky were no shrinking virgins. Both were in the running from the gitgo and even started the gitgo to begin with.

.

Corporate prioritization and foundations for preemptive war and terrorist profiling and unfair punishment

1996-- Anti Terrorism and effective death penalty act

Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996

No reduction in military budget

1999- lifts the ban on advanced weapons in Latin America

Goes in and bombs Baghdad because of some assasination plot that was uncovered by the notoriously corrupt Kuwaiti police...he didnt wait for a trial.. They ended up bombing a suburban neighborhood, killing a prominent artist and his family. He then justified it by invoking Article 51 of the UN Charter.

Ill stop there.

I like Clinton, I think that in alot of ways he was a great President, but we need to do away with this whole mantra that the worst thing that the man did was get a blowjob.

Our government needs some changes, as does our party.

Would he rather have faced the guns in Viet Nam or been fired at the the very peak of his career?

I'd be curious as to the answer.

by now on probably 2 dozen or so threads.

His Army career was essentially over. He was three months from retirement so I'm not sure you could actually call that the peak. In fact, from what I understand Clinton was told that they needed to move Gen. Joe Ralston into place quickly because he needed to assume a 4-star billet in order to pin on his 4st star so he was being appointed a few months early and Clinton signed the order.

It was pretty obvious that Clinton was hoodwinked. From this KATHARINE Q. SEELYE article on 9/19/2003:

http://existentialmoo.com/politicsunusual/archives/002361.php

"Clinton signed on, apparently not realizing that he had been snookered," David Halberstam wrote in his book, "War in a Time of Peace: Bush, Clinton and the Generals" (Scribner, 2001).

"Clark was devastated by the news, a world-class slap in the face, a public rebuke of almost unparalleled proportions," Mr. Halberstam wrote. He added that Samuel Berger, Mr. Clinton's national security adviser, had told General Clark that the Pentagon had fooled the White House.

In September, Clinton had many supportive things to say about Wes Clark, including:

"He's a good man, he's a smart man, served our country well," Mr. Clinton said on Saturday in Iowa. "He was fabulous in the Bosnian peace process."

Clark was let go / dismissed / fired- he admitted it and it's been fully vetted, you're right.

Why didn't Clinton make an effort to save him? That was my question.

the NATO position has major diplomatic issues associated with it. Once you've announced a new commander and start date and worked it with the alliance, are you going to go public with some insider dirty laundry and renege? Nope. It really doesn't matter how you feel about someone's personal feelings at that point. There is a much larger issue on the table.

Okay, Patriot, is that really hard to fathom? It is commonsense it would seem to me. Oh wait, unless you are actually looking for something more nefarious -- like ... Clinton really doesn't like Wesley Clark at all and is glad he got hammered? Well...?

I just find a disparity between Clarks touting of Clinton as a backer, when Clinton let him slip into career oblivion.

He was one of Clinton's Generals and President Clinton didn't lift a finger even to allow him to save face.

it's a puzzle.

that President Clinton, just a few weeks ago, faxed a letter to refute any claim of Clark's character and integrity. I think he has more than made up for what Shelton and Cohen did behind his back. When they did that to Clark, Clinton didn't know the TRUTH. When he did finally learn the truth, it was too late to do anything about it.

Clinton didn't want the assholes who did that to Clark to look like the assholes that they are. Clinton should have fired their asses for doing what they did. They lied to him about why they were retiring General Clark. They told Clinton they needed to promote Clark's successor, General Joseph Ralston, because he would face a loss of rank unless he was promptly assigned to the NATO post. That was a lie. They did it all behind Clinton's back and when he found out, he decided not to embarrass them in public...which he should have done. IMO I doubt that any of them would have had the balls to come out NOW with their slanderous statement about Clark had they had a public verbal thrashing by Clinton.

Former ambassador to the UN and presidential envoy Richard Holbrooke thinks he knows what's happening with the Shelton, Schwartzkopf and Franks remarks...."What's behind the critisism? Jealous Generals." The worse nightmare would be to salute Clark and call him Mr. President or Mr. Vice President."

From Meet the Press, 6/15/03:

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.

Apparently he did ask. Why the disparity?

Clinton wasn't going to risk any political capital {which was critical to him at that time} and spark infighting in his Administration to give Clark another ten weeks in Europe. The potential benefit just wasn't worth the obvious potential costs.

Clark's mission as SACEUR was over, in effect. That's what enabled Shelton to deliver the slap in the face/stab in the back: it was all just symbolic.

as the depleted uranium he dropped on the innocent civilians of Serbia.

:eyes:

If we are speculating, it could be that Clinton needed (Republican) Cohen. Cohen was a cabinet member (Sec. Def.) and a key component of Clinton's excellent governing strategy. No way is Clinton going to overrule Cohen.

...What does that say?

Ultimately, it was his decision to make. What you're saying is he vauled Cohen more than Clark.

Clinton took the easy way is all. Not fighting for Clark against Cohen didn't cost him anything politically. Thre was no controversy about it at the time. Hardly anyone noticed. Had Clinton reversed Cohen over easing Clark out early, it would have been public political drama. Clinton had enough controvery going on at the time. This was an easy one for him to duck.

Please clarify that for me Tom, I thought Clark and Clinton were simpatico- and yet he allowed him to be cashiered so ignominiously. That seems contradictory.

Clinton was a great politician, shrewd and all of that. Able to outmaneuver the Republicans, win elections, advance some good programs blah blah. I give Clark higher marks than Clinton on personal honor. Clark and Clinton were never personally close, they actually had very few personal encounters before Clark's NATO Command. They knew some of the same people both being from Little Rock, but they followed different career paths.

So similar in their background and success, it just doesn't add up for me.

Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.

Obviously, in the wake of his NATO command, the two men have more contact. Their career paths are no longer divergent, but they are not close personal friends or anything like that. Allies, perhaps. Honest, I am not making this up. Do the research if it is worth your time.

All we have are the facts so far, not the truth; there is a difference.

To be let go in such a public way- humiliated and not allowed to serve out a measly three months- says a lot about how much acrimony there was between the players.

And Clinton allowed it to happen- this surprises me knowing Clinton's reputation for personal loyalty.

Bosses don't always like the decisions their lieutenants make, but the cost of overruling your SecDef in favor of keeping Clark another 12 weeks is higher than the cost of just letting it go and seeing Clark retire with honors (and flattering comments) from Cohen.

Keep in mind, all these Pentagon types are freepers and freepers hate democrats and Clark is a democrat so if a>b and b>c then a>c. You get the point. C'mon now.

www.clarkmyths.com

Clark was hardly a low level functionary like a Lt.

SecDef outranks a 4-star general and the risk/reward just wasn't there to extend Clark another 12 weeks. Don't worry about Clinton...something tells me he's going to back Clark when it counts.

Do you have another one which may better illustrate your point?

It happenz all the time.

And yes, I've seen politics at work in the military.

It says nothing about his belief in Clark.

Should Clinton have overruled Cohen and kept Clark for a few more months only to have Cohen resign or dissent loudly? That would have badly damaged Clinton's bipartisan governing strategy. And it would not have helped Clark. Clinton was in big time political hot water and was not popular with the military.

Clark is a big boy. He spoke his mind and took risks. I happen to think he did the right thing in the Balkans. He took his lumps in the end, and he took them with dignity.

I agree totally that a part of it was not wanting to burn capitol or call in favors over a three month difference. Remember, at that point Clark was not viewed as a potential political candidate. Also, I think it WAS easier for Clinton to just let it play out and not murk up the waters with Shelton and the rest.

The underlying thing I've pulled from different articles and statements I've seen is that Clark was already on the outs with both Shelton and Cohen. His usefullness really WAS limited by then. Clark had done some end runs to get Kosovo put to rest, and they were pissed about that. They had the chance to "payback" and like any ambitious General would do, they took it and pulled a fast one to get Clark out early.

Clark was seen as having gone almost renegade because he'd used everything he could think of to get the job done. He ruffled some fethers and paid the price for it with an early retirement... Pretty much a non-issue to my way of thinking.

There is an article in today's Chicago Trib tempo section that really does do a great job of laying it out there:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0312300299dec30,1,6709895.story?coll=chi-homepagenews-utl

Laura

First, I agree that Clinton wouldn't spend political capital in this case; however we will never know since he didn't have many options. Also remember, that with Clinton's uneasy peace with the Pentagon, he needed Cohen the respected repub. at the helm to run interference.

Clinton has already signed the papers promoting Ralston earlier in the day, but the most important point is that the story went to the Washington Post BEFORE Clark was told. By the time Clinton was appraised of the truth, by the time Shelton told Clark that his 34 year career was over, the presses were ready to roll. Even if if Clinton was prepared to make phone calls, he was cut off.

Now for those who post and gloat over this story--and you know who you are--I would worry more about your own karma for even suggesting that these back stabbing repubs. have some merit in their argument. It is a sick story of pettiness, made even worse by Shelton and Cohen's later behavior.

Any honest liberal would adopt the hope that "what goes around, comes around" rather than perpetuate feigned inqueries hoping to damage someone's character with repeating snips of a story, that when fully told reveals the depths of dishonesty to which Washington repubs.will descend. They are the problem, and your quizzically framed bile does this board no service.

:toast: