On MSNBC ...It was said that Wes Clark would sure to be on the VP list to give

Obama foreign policy credentials. Sounds good to me!

:evilgrin:

I wonder how Wes Jr. is gonna feel, he's been a rabid Hillary supporter on TYT ;)

he doesn't share the Clinton's self serving and self centered nature. So I would see him happily serving, if asked to do so.

for America, and her filthy campaign tactics, including her racial pandering.

If Obama chooses Clark Obama is basically saying that everything he said was the foundation of his campaign (changing politics in D.C.) was a lie, and that, for politcal expediency, he will put in the #2 position--the possible future president of the U.S.--who represents everything that Obama's supporters are against (and Obama said he was against): Rove/Bush politics, status-quo stagnation, and selling off America (especially American jobs) to the highest bidder.

There are plenty of great politiians who have supported Obama and his vision. We don't have to settle for the Clintons' leavings.

But even if he did, so what. Are we looking for a clone who hasn't ever disagreed with our candidate, or for a professional who can broaden our candidate's appeal in the general election.

Obama's vision.

If Clark approves of Hillary's pig-slop politics and her vision for America, he is 180 degrees from Obama's style of politics and vision for America. Obama will look like a hypocrite if he says he stands for one thing and that he has a better vision for America than does Clinton if chooses for VP one of Clinton's loyalists.

Finally, Clark IS a loyalist to the Clintons. The Clintons will not give up on their obsession with the Oval Office. There is just too much risk at having a Clinton loyalist having access to Obama's strategies and secrets of the administration.

As my Midwestern mother often said, "A skunk can't change it's stripes overnight."

Hillary is what she is. We have to be realistic about her impact on the future if she is in a position of power. Wishing she is different and will act differently than she has in the past simply is not realistic and puts our country at great risk.

:rofl:

Thanks for the level headedness!

he would put the country first. check him out. you would be surprised.

:crazy:

..in fact he really helped reinforce my positive view of his father. I didn't know he was "rabid" in support of Hillary.

but he was pretty out there with the Clinton talking points on more than one occasion. I don't hold it against him, I agree with him on almost everything else...

Clark chose the vision he thinks is best for America: the Clintons' vision.

The Clintons' vision is completely different from Obama's vision. For Obama to choose Clark, it would make a lie everything Obama said he stands for.

Also, do we REALLY want for the Clintons to have a pipeline to one of their loyalists, through which they can find out information about Obama with which they can bring him down?

I think we have to be very careful with bringing Clinton loyalists into the Obama administration. They certainly will run again in 2012, they are vindictive, and anyone who has stayed with the Clintons throughout this pig-slop, bigot-pandering, Rove/Bush campaign of theirs supports that vision of America.

I certainly don't. That's why I'm voting for Obama. But if Obama chooses a Clinton loyalist, it will make me rethink my support of him. If he brings on a Clinton loyalist, he's telling the world that all of the stuff he's said about how he will do politics in Washington was just an empty campaign promise. I won't support the Clintons or their vision for America, I don't care who is the mouthpiece for it.

He is loyal to whoever he chooses to fight for, samurai code.
That is a valuable trait in a running mate.

Clearly, Clark prefers the old-style, status-quo way things have been done in D.C.

What the Clintons offer is 180 degrees from what Obama offers. Clark made his choice: the Clintons.

There are many great politicians who have supported Obama, who understand Obama's vision, and are willing to support change in America. We don't have to settle for the Clintons' leavings.

One more thing: Clark has been a loyal supporter for the Clintons. If Obama chose Clark it would be risking giving the Clintons a pipeline to OBama's strategies, an in for undermining his admiistration, and a leg-up for a presidential run in 2012.

that right there makes him unfit for a position as VP or in the cabinet.

for info on where Wes Jr positions himself on the primaries. I haven't been able to find anything. TYT seem to have been more in the Obama camp but I am not able to hear the show to often. Do you have any more info on him being a rabid Hill supporter?

Doesn't it make you feel proud to be a Democrat that we have such an embarrassment of riches to choose from, as compared to the Republicans, whose presidential primary was based on them asking "which candidate do I detest least?"

And the more McCain tries to attack Obama for "not serving" and all that crap---I'd say the odds improve for Clark.

There are still to many people who simply see him as a retired general...

into green technology, he's a rhodes scholar and an economist. when someone says Evan Bayh I throw up in my mouth. Wes Clark for VP!

My first choice is Jim Webb, but Clark's the next one on my list. It's a choice that would calm those who doubt Obama's national security/foreign relations cred, and it would go along great with the "change" theme, since both Webb and Clark can claim Washington-outsider status.

1) Hillary supporter. Hard for the Clinton's to complain about him choosing one of their most loyal supporters.

2) Age and looks. He's older, but not too old. Will look good standing next to Obama.

3) Republicans respect him. He has never been a divisive person; even on Fox News.

4) General and Foreign Policy Creds!! 'McCain would have to salute him' seemed like a good reason when I heard it.

5) Presidential. Voters could see him as President.

:patriot: I totally agree, with that resume and experience, Obama/Clark would be an unbeatable ticket!
John Edwards said he wasn't interested in being the VP-- However,he would make a great attorney general! Obama has said that his attorney general will investigate corruption!
:dem: I would love watching Wes Clark debate!
Wes Clark Smacks Down Fox 11-17-2003
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awXaGp-KLNI&feature=related
General Wesley Clark/O'Reilly smack-down
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrSvSB6HwG4&feature=related


I'm keeping my fingers crossed...

I just hope the other Clinton supporter is not chosen...
Even Pennsylvanians don't trust him!

Gov. Ed Rendell-PA. Turnpike America-Going-Out of Business Sale:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3311773
Governor Ed Rendell spinning about Florida- ...says they did nothing wrong.
"Morning Joe lady looks stunned. They include the "bramble bush" video. Ed Rendell, that is almost as bad as the time who said to solve the FL and MI problems by saying shoot Howard Dean"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x135849


:kick:

I luv Wes!

:)

Since Clark has been an ardent Hillary supporter, it helpos in that arena besides being ab oon on national security and foreign policy.

interview.

I've been totally turned off at what a shameless promoter Clark has been for "all things Clintonian."

Please, not Wes Clark or Fast Eddy Rendal. :(

If you wish for a retired General Officer on the ticket, consider Anthony Zinni who was against the Iraqi Invasion from the moment of it's inception?

Mike Salinero, "Gen. Zinni Says War With Iraq Is Unwise," Tampa Tribune, 24 August 2002

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/zinni2.htm

Yes, he supports his candidate but compared to others on her team,to my knowledge, he has been calm and professional.

Zinni doesn't have the charisma or name recognition that Clark has.
People are familiar with Clark from his FOX News stint.

Clark is better eye candy. lol

When it comes to Iraq and Iran, I see Obama and the pre-endorsement Clark as generally on the same page. I think Clark did it out of loyalty to the Clintons (and because she certainly looked like the winner, I'm sure he really didn't know Obama very well either).

:thumbsup:

Wes Clark has some baggage from his time as EUCOM CC.

He was actually relieved of command, but since you can't say "We just fired one of our top 5 Generals" it was called a retirement.

Tony Zinni bring everything Wes Clark brings and he has no baggage. He is also an expert on the Middle East after dealing with the heads of states in that region for 4 years as CentCom CC. Also has been a special envoy for the Peace Process and was against the Iraq War.

Also, he suddenly killed the idea of running for the Senate and said he would never run for office.

Must be a reason.

a link showing that endorsement. From the 2004 campaign it was pretty clear he'd voted Democratic for several election cycles.


Still I would prefer Jim Webb for VP.

I believe he until recently at least still calls himself a Republican, though of the sane variety.

Zinni is "fiercely independent" when it comes to political party stances. That's what would make him IMO, an ideal VP.

"He had endorsed Bush and Cheney two years earlier, just after he retired from his last military post, as chief of the U.S. Central Command, which oversees operations in Iraq."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A22922-2003Dec22

:hi:

he meant Clark, as well. I think the subject was edited to name Zinni. Glad that got cleared up.

The guy (Anthony Zinni) is HIGHLY RESPECTED for speaking his mind - and he is a humble genius ... especially when you consider that he's a retired 4 star Marine General. :shrug:

I contains speculation that Zinni might be Kerry's running mate in 2004.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5113717/

General Zinni Bashing Bush Iraqi policy on NIGHTLINE
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/989714/posts

If the freepers HATE him, he must be OK.

Whatever we think of BUSH, his is *STRONG* - leadership and character ... and it's all BAD. So Zinni told the truth there.


Oh and there's THIS:
I'm not sure which planet they live on"
Hawks in the Bush administration may be making deadly miscalculations on Iraq, says Gen. Anthony Zinni, Bush's Middle East envoy.

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2002/10/17/zinni/

Zinni held Rumsfeld and crew accountable for the bad decisions Bush made, leaving Bush unaccountable. Like Hagel, Zinni's stance on the war is admirable, perhaps awe inspiring. Even so, A Republican does not belong on a Democratic ticket.

officers alive today.

Hello? If we are going to TRULY support Obama, we must help moderates in THEIR party: "Republican" is not a dirty word.

I don't instantly hate someone because they happen to be a republican. Back in the 1980s there were a number of folks who were secular leaning republicans who BELIEVED in "the public good" ... republicans fall on a continuum and THEY'RE NOT ALL EVIL.

Actually, he has said he would be available to serve the country again in "elected or appointed" office as needed. So I don't know where you're getting the idea he said he would never run for office.

I'm a huge fan of General Clark!

:)

IMO Clarks a Clintonian loyalist ... a pandering spring butt for power.

Anthony Zinni was against the iraqi invasion FROM THE BEGINNING! He even resigned as an envoy to the Mid-East in 2002 because of his opposition to this horrid invasion.

"Gen. Zinni Says War With Iraq Is Unwise," by Mike Salinero,
Tampa Tribune, 24 August 2002

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/zinni2.htm

Please choose someone else to have this old argument with.

he was shamelessly forwarding the meme, "this is not near over." He's too duplicitous. Hell, I just don't get why you TRUST him?!?

That's the only reason your previously earned place on my Ignore list is now vacant. Can we keep it that way as we are comrades for the time being? Talk to somebody else, please.

:shrug:

Because I am not interested in your lies. Never have been.

I understand that you truly admire Wes Clark BUT we disagree.

No volitional lies here, just my perspective. Have a nice life. :hi:

Reading between the lines on Clark's retirement, it seems that Clark had a habit of running to President Clinton whenever he got something from SecDef Cohen or General Shelton he didn't like.

I think Clark has really been attached to President Clinton. Clark already had a Combatant Command with Southern Command. A Combatant Command is normally your final job and it is extremely rare to get two. Clinton probably had a hand in getting Clark EUCOM and Clark probably exploited that by going around his chain of command while there.

and explain why Clark did not serve his full term as EUCOM CC and why Gen Shelton said what he did.

I'm sure you can find it. The facts are out there...unless of course you don't want to. It's a long story.
One quick point. Shelden under oath denied that was true. He said he just said that in the heat of the election and has apologized. Please check it out.

that Wes Clark did not serve his full three years as EUCOM CC and the reason given, ie Ralston, is clearly being used to cover the real reason why.

If you can provide an explanation, through links, of what happened, I'll defiantly read it and see if it make sense.

Telling someone they are wrong and not providing a support for doesn't do much to change ones mind.

So you can make a wild false charge...and I'm suppose to take my personal time to disprove you? No way!

I stated the facts and then I gave my opinion of what happened.

I cannot find anything that says Gen Shelton took back what he said about Clark. If you can provide that link I would appreciate it.

retracting his remarks.

"Since he made those comments, General Shelton has repeatedly declined to elaborate on them, and on Wednesday he again declined a request for an interview.

General Clark has said General Shelton's comments were personal, not professional. But he, too, has declined to speak further of their relationship.

The evaluations released by the campaign did not cover the period when General Clark was in a senior command position.

Gen. John Shalikashvili, who is retired and who is also a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in an interview Tuesday that he was friends with both Generals Shelton and Clark and did not want to officiate between them. But General Shalikashvili called General Clark an outstanding commander who was ''quick of mind and an extraordinary strategic thinker.''"

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E1DE173EF935A25753C1A9659C8B63

I could not find any articles that say Gen Shelton withdrew his comments.

You seem quite interested in the facts of this case...I wish I could help you. If you want to know... Frenchie Cat could probably find you that information....she's good at that.

Here's what I REMEMBER and checked out...At the World Court trial of Slobodon Milochevich which took 3 years so there is a lot if information...
Clark gave testimony...Slobodon said you couldn't believe Clark because he was untrustworthy or something along those lines because even General Sheldon stated so. So the judge asked Sheldon under Oath if he thought Clark was untrustworthy. He said no that that was said in the heat of a political election and he didn't mean/believe it.

I also seem to remember he apologized to Clark and he wrote about it in his book...but that is a vague memory. Good luck...sorry I can't be of more help.

That's baggage I'm okay with.

I assume you mean Clark and not Zinni.

Zinni served his four year term.

Wes Clark was relieved by SecDef Cohen in July of 1999 under President Clinton.

He was replaced by Gen. Ralston at the end of it and he then retired.

from wiki:

"Clark received another call from General Shelton in July 1999 in which he was told that Secretary Cohen wanted Clark to leave his command in April 2000. Clark was surprised by this, as he saw SACEURs as being expected to serve at least 3 years and often asked to stay on for a 4th, while this date would give him less than 3 years of service at the post.<75> Clark was told that this was necessary because General Joseph Ralston was leaving his post as the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and would need another 4-star command within 60 days or he would be forced to retire."

Clark did not finish his full tour.

Also the reason given for replacing Clark with Ralston is almost unheard of. You don't take away a combatant command because another general needs the billet.

July of 1999 would have been the end of Clark's three-year term as SACEUR, yes. However, he was not "relieved" or fired, as is often claimed. High level commanders, as I understand it are almost never "relieved" and Clark was not "relieved" - in fact, in 2005 when Gen. Byrnes was relieved, "A spokesman said Army officials could find no case of another four-star general being relieved of duty in modern times."

Was Clark pushed out by SecDef Cohen and Gen. Shelton? Unquestionably.

The timeline is this:

July 11, 1997 Sworn in at Brussels

July 1999 asked to retire early in May 2000 (served another ten months)

February 2000 Ralston, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff term ending

May 2, 2000 Change of Command Ceremony in Germany

May 2000 Retired

July 11, 2000 Clark’s tour originally scheduled to end


At the Change of Command Ceremony in Stuttgart-Vaihingen, Germany on May 2, 2000, Cohen said:





This was a politic statement for Cohen to have made, because the whole thing was political. Had Clark been relieved for cause, he would not have been honored with a Change of Command Ceremony nor would he have received the numerous awards and medals he did receive. But more telling, he would not have been left to serve in office from July 1999 to May 2000. He would have been "relieved" at once.

But he was not "relieved." His tour was shortened by two months and he was given notice of that end term date almost a year earlier and the Pentagon leaked that news to the press in order to make sure it happened. He didn't walk off the job, turn in his papers or have a tantrum. He served the term he was given to its end ten months later. He had expected to be given the fourth year extension, that's a fact, and he had certainly earned it. But he had had policy and tactical disagreements with the Pentagon and he was never a yes-man. The Pentagon wanted Ralston and they got him. That's what happened.


The day before the Change of Command Ceremony, Cohen was asked at a press conference about Clark's performance:




These are the things said at these times, I understand, but they are not the things said about somebody relieved for cause.

From your article:

"In a rare move, the Army relieved a four-star general of his command amid allegations that he had an extramarital affair with a civilian, Army officials said yesterday.

Gen. Kevin P. Byrnes, 55, led the Army's Training and Doctrine Command at Fort Monroe, Va., where he supervised the recruitment and academic programs at 33 Army schools, from basic training to the war colleges. Byrnes, who several military sources said had a previously unblemished record, was set to retire in November after 36 years of service."



Byrnes got caught fooling around and the Army couldn't hide that. Also, while TRADOC, is a command, there is a big difference between commanding TRADOC and being the Supreme Allied Commander. You can fire the head of TRADOC and the press will raise an eyebrow. You fire the Supreme Allied Commander the press will go crazy trying to find out why.

Something happened with Clark's time at EUCOM that SecDef Cohen and Gen Shelton weren't happy with. I thought and posted it might have to do with Clark doing an end run around them and going to President Clinton, but after some more research it sounds like something else.

Also the reason Cohen gives for Clark to be "retired" is really, really weak. You don't switch combatant commanders because another four star needs a billet. I'll have to take a look, but I don't think any other combatant commander has ever served less than three years.

Also, David Hackworth also pretty much stated that Clark was fired in his article (see below). Hackworth apparently didn't think highly of Clark, until after he meet him in 2003 and changed his mind and apologized for calling him a "perfumed prince" (I don't want anyone to think I'm posting anti-Clark stuff without mentioning Hackworth did an about face on Clark). His reading of how Clark left EUCOM still stands though:

"DEFENDING AMERICA
David H. Hackworth
August 9, 1999

A PERFUMED PRINCE GETS THE AXE

NATO's General Wesley Clark is the first military leader in our country's recent history who won a war without receiving a Fifth Avenue parade.

Instead of being lionized, he got just what the rest of the U.S. Army has gotten in the last decade: downsized. The Pentagon's spin is, "This is a normal rotation, his tour was just shortened." It was shortened, all right. A review of past NATO skippers shows they had four to five years in the job as opposed to Clark's less than three."
http://www.hackworth.com/9aug99.html


As to your point about how long he continued to serve after the news was linked, I the answer there goes back to the Pentagon and SecDef Cohen not wanting to make it obvious something was up. If he was replaced right away, Cohen would still have the problem of the press digging. Instead the extra time allowed the pentagon to say"Nothing to see here, move along, move along"

:toast:

I think it has to do with his finishing #1 at West Point and he looks like a General. However, when you are in the second most power position in the military and you don't finish your tour, that is a HUGE deal.

That quote by General Shelton would be hell in a Presidential Campaign.

deal about "General Officers" both Good and Bad. :shrug: Have a good one! :hi:

that he wasn't the best guy to work for.

I was told he spent a little too much time with the European nobility and took on some of their airs.

That is just a rumor though. I only bring it up since you've been around General and know what they act like.

Opinions always can and do differ. But I have been around Clark around people too often and too long now to believe for an instant that he has any airs of nobility or anything remotely like that. Wes Clark is genuinely warm, repsectful and approachable. I'm not exactly anyone worth brown nosing by any remotely traditional criteria, but I have always been treated with sincere respect by Wes, and I see that repeated time and time again with people from all walks of life. No doubt Clark can be a hard task master though.

I hesitated to post them, but brought it up because another poster had experience with flag level officers. I was interested to see if this was common.

The Wes is the best.:)

But I also thought his loyalties lay with the Clintons. I'm not so sure this ticket will happen but I would love to see it.

But I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about it. He could be a good fit and he worked hard for the Clintons.

How many districts was it he campaigned in in 2006? Something like 95, I think, and he's been out campaigning for 2008 congressionals. He was a terrific surrogate for Kerry, too. He'd do a good job on the trail for Obama, regardless of Obama's VP choice. But I'd be more surprised if he weren't on the short list than that he is. It is a good fit in too many ways. Obama will pick who he sees best, and there are always so many considerations, but I'm glad he'll consider Wes.

I'd love it.

Many of those who have worked with him claim he's a shameless ass kisser.

Sure, he looks good and is highly intelligent, but he's also "a Clinton Loyalist" and should not be trusted within Obama's inner circle. :shrug:

way you get ahead in the military is to be a shameless ass-kisser. When military people call you that, it means that they're pissed you're better at it than they are.

No one gets stars on their shoulders without kissing a lot of asses.

The truth is that ass kisser normally don't make it that far in the military. How you advance is based on your reputation and performance. If you are a known ass kisser, then your peers will see that you don't advance far.

There are a lot of built in systems that ensure that someone with a crappy reputation but beloved by a senior commander don't get advanced.

Sattler, Zinni, Shelton, Conway, and Mattis are examples of people who achieved their high positions without ass kissing.

Colin Powell

became a general and CJCS under two different POTUS' because he was an ass kisser?

So Clark in the VP spot would be very welcome. It would be like a homecoming as I've said before.

A lot of Clark's 2004 positions mesh well with Obama.

I hope he makes the top three and that the Wes Clark Democrats can start making their case to Sen. Obama.

I was kind of hoping If Hillary is out...I can get off this damn computer and get some work done this summer. If Clark get on the ticket I'll be glued to this place. :(

~

The only thing we have going for us is weapons, and military might. So that's the only thing we use. Somehow that equation has to be changed. I think the world community will have the final say in that, but having someone who is intimately aware of past and present interventions and the inter-relations in that world community, has got to be a plus.

I don't trust him. :nuke:

especially in the VP position. Nasty things can happen to President's when the next in line has a completely different agenda, with a completely different source of power backing them up.

I think he'd be an asset to the ticket and the WH, otherwise.

I think your's is a tad bit tight and might be cutting off you circulation.

And he's about the only one associated with the Clintons who I see as even being remotely capable of putting the best interests of the country, and of the party before the ego of Bill & Hill.

I think it's going to come down to Clark or Richardson, and the one who is not VP will probably be Secretary of State.

mccains military debate

makes a lot of sense.

I'd also like to see Chris Dodd get some of the recognition he deserves; if not on the ticket, maybe as Senate Majority Leader.

But I have a great deal of respect for Wes Clark. Obama/Clark would work for me.

was quite disgusting! He was kissing Hillary's butt so hard that I doubt he will be able to remove his lips! It was really, really disgusting. He could not say one nice thing about Barack. He knows Barack will be the nominee so he should have at least been complimentary to Barack. I would not trust him as VP candidate because he is too loyal to the Clintons. If they told him to do something to mess up Barack's chances he might just do it so that Hillary could run again. I can't believe I could think that about a man that I thought was very honorable in 2004. He might still be honorable but I don't know if I would trust his judgement because he seems more loyal to Clinton than he is to the democratic party. I hope I'm wrong. I still would not trust anyone that is that close to the Clintons.

Turns out he's a diehard Clintonian. :(