Clark

[Cpt.Caveman]

General Clark had a terrible reputation in military circles. Now that he is retired I have overheard former Pentagon officials call him one of the most self centered individuals alive. Clark does for Clark and for little else.

[jon]

He'll fit right in then.

[nonanon]

Anyone can see that Clark doesn't have the hair to be president. He's also too short. The sweaters are nice and all... at least he doesn't roll up the sleeves.

 

Now that John Kerry... now there's some hair!

[Stonehead]

As an antiwar leader, John Kerry was arrested with hundreds of others after protesting on the green in Lexington, Mass., on May 31, 1971. The Nixon White House identified Kerry as the movement's most effective spokesman. (AP File Photo)

 

 

 

April 28, 1971, 4:33 p.m. President Richard M. Nixon takes a call from his counsel, Charles Colson.

 

"This fellow Kerry that they had on last week," Colson tells the president, referring to a television appearance by John F. Kerry, a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

 

"Yeah," Nixon responds.

 

"He turns out to be really quite a phony," Colson says.

 

"Well, he is sort of a phony, isn't he?" Nixon says.

 

Yes, Colson says in a gossiping vein, telling the president that Kerry stayed at the home of a Georgetown socialite while other protesters slept on the mall.

 

"He was in Vietnam a total of four months," Colson scoffs, without mentioning that Kerry earned three Purple Hearts, a Silver Star, and a Bronze Star, and had also been on an earlier tour. "He's politically ambitious and just looking for an issue."

 

"Yeah."

 

"He came back a hawk and became a dove when he saw the political opportunities," Colson says.

 

"Sure," Nixon responds. "Well, anyway, keep the faith."

 

The tone was sneering. But the secretly recorded dialogue illustrates just how seriously Kerry was viewed by the Nixon White House. Some of these conversations have not been previously publicized, and Kerry said he had never heard them until they were provided by a reporter.

--Source

 

[incubus]

If you look real close you will find that Wesley Clark is really Ross Perot in uniform. He is a huge exercise in make believe. Clark’s behavior is pathologic. Notice how he has been running around since his retirement trying to gain attention from anyone that will notice him. He is all over the map, first with the repubs and now with the dems. He seems to be a child in search of attention....

 

This is not uncommon behavior with retired senior military officers. (and their wives) These guys are so used to being the focus of attention while in the military it is hard for them to adjust back to civilian life where nobody gives a rat’s ass what they think anymore.

 

The dems nominating a “peace loving” General is “deja vu all over again.” Remember Wesley McClellan, "The Young Napoleon?" In 1864, he was the Democrat nominee against Abraham Lincoln. Gen. McClellan graduated from West Point, second in his class. Remember how that turned out.

[Stonehead]

Clark should be running as General Slaughter out of Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove. Reminds me of that General Alexander Haig, when he got on the podium after Reagan got shot and proclaimed that he was in charge.

 

Clark is running as the Democratic candidate with military experience. He debases Kerry's military experience in Vietnam as that of a junior officer compared to Clark's high ranking position of former commander of NATO forces.

 

Why isn't this general serving on several boards of chairmanship for various defense contractors like his contemporaries? Is it because his thirst for power knows no end?

 

He seems to have an intelligent mind but I'm not certain about his judgment. Also, why is it that people tend to identify with a candidate so that when a candidate is criticized the person takes it as personal criticism? Happens all the time with Bush supporters, as if his supporters were actually mental clones of the man.

[Cpt.Caveman]

In some respects Clark might as well be Perot for the Dem party.

 

I have no respect for people like that.

 

Having served (a think you have not) I would expect my knowledge is a little more educated in respects to generals and which ones are piles of shit. I remember some of them vividly. Some were amazingly good to their troops and others were just "yes sir" losers.

[whirlwind]

from what i read on clark he was good to his troops but the upper ranks, such as fellow generals where the ones who had a problem with him because his tacktics were unconventional in war

[jon]

Listen, you aren't voting for the person you like the most, it's the one you dislike the least. From what I've seen (no I wasn't in the military), these former generals badmouth each other all the time, so I'm not suprised. Maybe the troops didn't like him, maybe they just didn't like being in Kosovo. Yes he does have a strong, confident personality, that's what it takes to be first in your class at an academy and being a Rhodes Scholar and to be a leader, not someone who has a bunch of pictures of himself being compared to a fucking chimpanze on the internet.

 

I believe the commander and chief should be someone of significant military background. I'm not talking being in the National Guard or going to Vietnam for a tour, nothing against these people, but people who really knows what it's like to be at war and what is involved in sending troops to war, and know the ins and outs of our military.

 

I like Clark's stances on things like education and health care, things that Bush promised but never delivered on. His agenda isn't based on his past political background or religion. Basically I'm tired of career politicians ruining our country and so I'm going to vote for someone who isn't one.

 

I'm not forcing my view on anyone, I suggest everyone go to the websites of all the candidates and see which one fits their ideologies the best. In my case it's General Clark.

Edited February 3, 2004 by jon

[Stonehead]

A man who makes it as far as Clark did in the military would have to be a consummate politican. He doesn't have all of the canned answers right now but he's a quick study.

 

He should be able to take the heat. That'd earn my respect depending on how he thinks on his feet.

[Rodchester]

"From what I've seen (no I wasn't in the military), these former generals badmouth each other all the time, so I'm not suprised."

 

That is not true at all. It is in fact RARE for generals (even former) to openly criticise each other. (Though Patton did so a few times).

 

Further, the "rank and file" as they say disliked Clark intensely. Clark was referred to as a "ticket-puncher" furthering his carrer on the backs of the enlisted men and women and the Junior Officer Corps. Sure he did a good job in Kosovo, but I'm with Gen. Shelton on this guy. He is nothing more than an opportunist Republican in a Democrat's clothes.

 

"I believe the commander and chief should be someone of significant military background."

 

Like Lincoln, Clinton, Nixon, FDR, Johnson, Carter, Reagan?

 

Need I go on? Few if any US presidents have had signifigant military experience.

 

Clauswich says a political leader can get by without military experience so long as he/she surrounds himself with those with knowledge and experience.

[Alex]

General Clark had a terrible reputation in military circles. Now that he is retired I have overheard former Pentagon officials call him one of the most self centered individuals alive. Clark does for Clark and for little else.

 

Ray, I have heard the same thing said about Clark that you said: within the military he was not respected. I don't know much about him, so can't make any real guesses as to how good a candidate he is. Knowing you would not choose Clark, who would you choose of the other 3 front runners now? Kerry, Dean, or Edwards?

[Rodchester]

Dean is considered a front-runner?

[Alex]

Well, compared to Sharpton and Dennis Kucinic, he is

[jon]

Like Lincoln, Clinton, Nixon, FDR, Johnson, Carter, Reagan?

 

I'm sorry, was this you list of good presidents?

 

Lincoln- Good president yes.

Clinton- Cheated on his wife in Oval Office and then lied about it.

Nixon- Watergate.

Johnson- Vietnam and only became president by default.

FDR- Apparently slept most of the time, but still a good president.

Carter- He did something I'm sure.

Reagan- Couldn't remember his wifes own name let alone where he kept the launch codes.

[HRoark]

Like Lincoln, Clinton, Nixon, FDR, Johnson, Carter, Reagan?

 

I'm sorry, was this you list of good presidents?

 

Lincoln- Good president yes.

Clinton- Cheated on his wife in Oval Office and then lied about it.

Nixon- Watergate.

Johnson- Vietnam and only became president by default.

FDR- Apparently slept most of the time, but still a good president.

Carter- He did something I'm sure.

Reagan- Couldn't remember his wifes own name let alone where he kept the launch codes.

 

No, this was in response to your assertion that a President have military experience in order to send men into combat; none of those men had military experience.

[jon]

Ok so should I list all the military disasters that happened while they were president? I know most of our presidents haven't had significant military background, it' my opinion they should, SO FUCKING GET OVER IT.

[HRoark]

Hey, fuck you; I was just clarifying what Rodchester said. I don't give a fuck if you write in Satan on your ballot, it'll do about as much good as you voting for Clark.

[jon]

Well.....well..... fuck you too!!! Yeah!! Rod game me a list, apparently of presidents that sent people into combat and weren't in the military. With the exception of Lincoln and FDR he also gave me a list of not very effective presidents. So what's the arguement?

 

I get to vote for someone in the primary, and I think it's pretty obvious who I'm voting for. Everyone here votes for someone, and then they choose a winner. If everyone voted for the person they though was going to win instead of who they wanted to be president there wouldn't be much point in voting now there would it.

 

What's that saying about arguing on the internet and the Special Olympics?

[HRoark]

You can find good and bad about either on that list.

 

What's that saying about arguing on the internet and the Special Olympics?

 

Al Gore invented both of them?

[jon]

[David_Parker]

With the exception of Lincoln and FDR he also gave me a list of not very effective presidents. So what's the arguement?

 

My arguement would be whether overall I liked any of these ex-presidents or not, they ALL did something effective. But since we Americans love to live in scandal, we tend to only focus on their faults and forget their accomplishments. Probably all these Presidents did something scandalous, only some got caught and the later ones were at the mercy of a press that dominates the news instantly. If you are so into 20/20 hindsite vision, you will find a lot of good things to say about most of the above mentioned Presidents regardless of Party line. Is your idea of a good president one that you really don't know much about because nothing significant really hapened during his term? I'll bet you can find good things about Grover Clevland, Howard Taft or any other president we never talk about. You can always find what you are looking for if you dig deep enough. Seems too many are always looking for the bad and forget how good or (ugly) they are.

[bunglehead]

Some of the best shit made.

Lookie here!

 

[Rodchester]

With the exception of Lincoln and FDR he also gave me a list of not very effective presidents. So what's the arguement?

 

In a "party" or partisan sense you may call some of them ineffective. But in a historical sense both Clinton and Reagan are generally considered effective. Whether or not one likes the policies does not speak at all to the effectiveness of the man.

 

Carter, while VERY well intentioned, was pretty ineffective, though not for lack of effort.

 

FDR's economic plan was pretty ineffective (though certainly well intentionaed) but his forgin policy was pretty effective. Though as a pressident he was clearly effective.

 

Lincoln aslo had more than his share of troubles, but history has proven him to have been an effective President.

 

Correct me if I’m wrong, LBJ became President after Kennedy was assassinated in 1963. LBJ then easily WON an election in 1964 against Republican Barry Goldwater. Then in 1968 he decided not to run after problems arose. Considering his Great Society legislation and the war in Vietnam, LBJ was effective as a President. Now I am not saying that he made right decisions, only that as a President he was able to formulate policy and execute it, that is being effective. (Personally, LBJ was SO SUCK).

 

Anyway, a non-partisan review of history shows that few Presidents had or needed true military experience. (Ike, Washington, Jackson, Grant, and a few others). Clauswich's statment is as true today as when he made it in the early 1800s.

 

[jon]

Presidents with no military experience:

John Adams

Thomas Jefferson

John Quincy Adams

Martin Van Buren

Grover Cleveland

William Taft

Woodrow Wilson

Warren Harding

Calvin Coolidge

Herbert Hoover

Franklin Roosevelt

Bill Clinton

 

Presidents who were in the military but who saw no action:

James Madison

James Polk

Millard Fillmore

Jimmy Carter