Dutch Posted November 22, 2003 Share Posted November 22, 2003 What is the general view of Gen. Clark by all of you. Please.... I want the hippy opinion....(Erik) And the War Monger view...besides me. I am torn...he is against the Iraqi deal...but pro troops (obviously) I think it would be refresching to have a professional soldier at the helm again, but of course I am biast....I encourage name calling, and scandalous information...even if it is about yourself.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted November 22, 2003 Share Posted November 22, 2003 He is, in my own opinion, not much of a leader. His prime concern is what makes Wes Clark look good. He is a liar, he is a cheat, he is a no-good SOB. Wesley Clark makes George W. look like Saint George. Now, I know what you think of little George - so imagine that, if you will. There are not many people in this world I can honestly say I hate - but Wesley Clark is among those proud few. He'd have his own mother flogged in public if he thought it would make him look good. I would say that about him if he were a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or whatever. If you think GW is a liar - WC (I like that - WC - as in water closet - as in toilet) is a professional at it. Falsifying readiness reports, telling his bosses what they want to hear, and generally anything that makes WC look good - even if it means flogging his momma. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted November 22, 2003 Share Posted November 22, 2003 I don't trust Clark, he probably is a liar...but I don't have any proof. GW isn't a liar, he is just an idiot and a pawn who is so dumb he actually believes the shit he spouts. So it doesn't count as a lie, even though the stuff he says is BS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scrambler Posted November 22, 2003 Share Posted November 22, 2003 It's believed that Wesley Clark was involved, though not fully known to what extent, in the assault on the Koresh compound at Waco. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dutch Posted November 22, 2003 Author Share Posted November 22, 2003 Very point blank Trask... There are too few real soldiers that havent become corrupted by politics..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted November 22, 2003 Share Posted November 22, 2003 I really don't know much about the guy. Trask, Why is he a liar and a cheat? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted November 22, 2003 Share Posted November 22, 2003 His previouscommander, General Hugh Shelton, demoted him and stated that Clark is a man with character problems. I'll find the link..... He is a Clinton puppet. Just keeping the seat warm for Hillary in '08. Secret: Bill and Hil' don't want the dem's to win in '04. That would be bad mojo for their ongoing political ambitions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ratboy Posted November 22, 2003 Share Posted November 22, 2003 I'm curious why people thing he's a liar. Anyone have anecdotes and/or stories to share that show it? I really liked him before he started his campaign and really wanted him to run, but his campaign has been a big letdown for me. He's come across as very slick and very in tune with the old Democratic establishment. I like his military credentials and he seems a good leader, he's come across as very moderate on issues and I generally agree with his stance on things, but there's something about him that just seems artificial. Not that that's new in politics. I think what we need is something new, and for my money that's Howard Dean right now. If given a choice between Clark and Bush in the next election, I'd vote for Clark without hesitation, though. My attitude right now is pretty much "anybody but Bush" because I really can't imagine anyone worse. But I'd be happy to vote for Dean, Clark or Kerry. The question is which of these has the support to beat Bush (if any). I think Dean has the best chance so far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted November 22, 2003 Share Posted November 22, 2003 Fairweather said: His previouscommander, General Hugh Shelton, demoted him and stated that Clark is a man with character problems. I'll find the link..... He is a Clinton puppet. Just keeping the seat warm for Hillary in '08. Secret: Bill and Hil' don't want the dem's to win in '04. That would be bad mojo for their ongoing political ambitions. I've just read a story on MSN about how Shelton hates him. It would seem to me that Shelton has not come forward with specifics. Without specifics I tend to think there's a good chance it's like one of these spray war type things we have here on CC.com. Let's here some specific charges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted November 22, 2003 Share Posted November 22, 2003 Also, given our current pres GW and our past president Clinton, what you actually do has nothing to do with the image you maintain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scrambler Posted November 22, 2003 Share Posted November 22, 2003 Concerning Waco: West Point graduate Joseph Mehrten Jr. tells Insight that, "Clark had to have knowledge about the plan because there is no way anyone could have gotten combat vehicles off that base without his OK. The M1A1 Abrams armor is classified 'Secret,' and maybe even 'Top Secret,' and if it was deployed as muscle for something like Waco there would have been National Firearms Act weapons issues. Each of these M1A1 Abrams vehicles is armed with a 125-millimeter cannon, a 50-caliber machine gun and two 30-caliber machine guns, which are all very heavily controlled items, requiring controls much like a chain of legal custody. It is of critical importance that such vehicles could not have been moved for use at Waco without Clark's knowledge." "To follow that order," explains Mehrten, "is to follow a blatantly illegal order of a kind every West Point officer knows is a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. Clark's obligation was to say, 'No, I'm not going to do it.' Look, Clark went to the same institution I did and at West Point we had extensive instruction in military ethics and issues concerning how one avoids obeying an illegal military order. It is drilled into our heads from the earliest days as cadets that the 'I-was-just-following-orders' defense isn't necessarily a good one." ________________________________________ Michael McNulty, an investigative journalist and Oscar nominee for his documentary, Waco: The Rules of Engagement, tells Insight that, "From the standpoint of what went on that operation had military fingerprints all over it. The chain of command being what it is, Clark had some responsibility, but to what degree we really don't know." McNulty takes a deep breath and then says, "My military sources tell me that Clark and his second in command got the communication from then-governor of Texas Ann Richards, who wanted help with Waco. At that point Clark or [Gen. Peter J.] Schoomaker should have asked themselves, 'Religious community? Civilians, they want our tanks?' and hung up the phone. Clark had to be involved at the tactical level, he had to know what the tactical plan was and he'd have to approve it. No one has ever asked these questions of this man. Clark wasn't even asked to testify before the congressional committee investigating the circumstances of Waco. For me the real question is one of character and, because of the cover-up that's gone on with Waco, it could even be a question of criminality. From the get-go, when the assignment came down from III Corps, which is the primary Army unit at Fort Hood and his division, Wesley Clark had the opportunity to say 'Hey, wait a minute folks, we're not gonna give tanks and personnel to the FBI to use on civilians!'" source Decide for yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott_J Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 Dutch said: What is the general view of Gen. Clark by all of you. Please.... I want the hippy opinion....(Erik) And the War Monger view...besides me. I am torn...he is against the Iraqi deal...but pro troops (obviously) I think it would be refresching to have a professional soldier at the helm again, but of course I am biast....I encourage name calling, and scandalous information...even if it is about yourself.... I don't trust anyone but myself and then I don't trust myself sometimes. HA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.