Question about Clark...

[Frangible]

One of the things I keep hearing about Clark is that his retirement as a general was not voluntary and there's theoretically some sort of bad stigma associated with that... can anyone clarify this in more detail for me? Thanks.

[mot78]

1. Go to this site

http://www.clarkmyths.com/

It debunks every anti-Clark charge.

[Capn Sunshine]

9. Even the kitten-eating one?

just curious.

[Myra]

2. I'll take the bait, even though this doesn't sound like a real "question"

But it's so easy to expose this smear.

Because it was planted in the media by ex-General Shelton,
who is now an advisor to John Edwards. It was vague,
and he never explained it or gave details, so there are
no additional details to provide. That's the nature of a smear.

So the answer to your "question" Frangible, is that it's
a standard campaign smear. In this case from the Edwards camp.

[in_cog_ni_to]

7. We also

haven't heard jack from Shelton in months. He just threw that lie out there and let it fly. He's a damn coward because he knows what Wes says is true. Shelton is a liar.

[Frangible]

10. Ah ok, thanks for the clarification

Kinda scary all the infighting going on now, but that's neither here nor there...

[JohnLocke]

11. Sorry, Clark folks.

Us Edwards fans don't endorse that crap.

[maddezmom]

18. I don't hold Edwards responsible for Shelton's comments n/t

[Myra]

20. Oh thank you JohnLocke!

And there are some great things about Edwards, many of
his supporters among them.

But in order to show this smear for what it is,
a politics as usual kinda thing, it's essential to point
out that Shelton does work for Edwards. It's the critical link.

Thanks for your concern.
I'm really glad to hear from you on this.

[Bucky]

17. A short, less pugnacious answer to the question

Clark did leave his post a few months earlier than the normal tenure of service allows, but the matter was not a result of the Kosovo conflict. There may have been a back story of some gamesmanship among Pentagon generals engaged in bureaucratic infighting--certainly the strong personalities it takes to command troops in uniform and prepare them for war will produce interpersonal conflict. But the reason Wes Clark left the post of NATO, SACEUR early was to allow General Joseph Ralston, USAF, to take the position without being forced into retirement.

That's the reason Clinton signed off on Clark's leaving his post early. He was not dismissed in any sense of the word. It seems that Cohen didn't like him personally, but when Clark retired, Cohen had this to say:

"In Gen. Wes Clark, America found a scholar, a soldier and a statesman -- a scholar who understands the forces of history on our time, a soldier of unquestioned courage …, a statesman whose influence has been felt from the Americas where he helped to guide the fight against drug barons, to Dayton, where his counsel helped end the bloodletting in Bosnia.

"No one should ever doubt either your service or your success. Faced with an adversary who manufactured a vicious, humanitarian nightmare, you responded with compassion and speed to relieve human suffering."

. . . . . . Just 8 most posts till #1000! Yee-hawww!!

Send me a DU private message ( ) to become a Teacher for Clark
Teachers for Clark beta site

[in_cog_ni_to]

3. Here's a great article that

gives a great explaination.

<snip>Clark has been open about the fact that he was hurt when his command was cut short. He offered clues about why he was treated so badly in his first book, Waging Modern War: Bosnia, Kosovo, and the Future of Combat, published in 2001, and recollections of highly placed civilians in the Clinton administration confirm what he wrote. Clark displeased the defense secretary, Bill Cohen, and General Hugh Shelton, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, by arguing strenuously that—contrary to Clinton's decision— the option of using ground troops in Kosovo should remain open. But the problem seems to have gone further back. Some top military leaders objected to the idea of the US military fighting a war for humanitarian reasons. (Clark had also favored military action against the genocide in Rwanda.)

Clark's view on Kosovo, shared by Tony Blair and other European leaders, was that Clinton, by stating that ground troops would not be used there —a position Clinton took for domestic political reasons—gave the Serbs a military advantage. Similarly, Clark wasn't allowed to use helicopter gunships for fear that they might be shot down, despite the fact that the helicopters didn't need to fly over Kosovo itself and the helicopters' missiles could have been more precise in hitting targets than bombers flying at 15,000 feet. The argument over whether there should be even contingency planning for the use of NATO ground troops in Kosovo (at the time, it appeared that they would have to fight their way in) caused a serious clash between Clinton and Blair, particularly when they met in April 1999 at the White House residence on the eve of a NATO summit. Clinton's national security adviser, Samuel Berger, argued strongly against contingency planning for ground troops. It would, he said, be controversial domestically and might imply that the air war wasn't working. It was clear that Clinton, who remained largely silent, fully agreed with Berger. A close Clinton associate has told me that "to this day" Clinton regrets that he removed the option of ground troops.

According to three former Clinton aides, when Clinton approved the list of appointments submitted to him by Cohen, including the selection of General Joseph W. Ralston as the new commander of the NATO forces, it wasn't made clear to the President that this would cut Clark's term as the supreme commander by nearly three months. (Of this, Clinton later said at a press conference in Europe, "I had nothing to do with it.") Despite having been treated badly, Clark continued to serve for the following nine months. Clinton was reportedly furious when he realized the mistake that had been made, but he didn't want to go back on it lest he look indecisive, or further alienate military officials, with whom he had been on bad terms since the beginning of his presidency.

To make sure that Clark's dismissal was a fait accompli, the Pentagon immediately leaked the news that he had been fired, thus denying him the dignity of being allowed to announce his own retirement. Several members of the Clinton administration believe that Clark was treated in an extremely unfair, even cruel, manner. This treatment continues. Cohen, who had originally declined to comment, said on CNN on October 15 that "there was friction between General Clark and myself. And, frankly, I think it would be inappropriate for me to comment on his political aspirations. I made a judgment during the time that he was serving as head of NATO, SACEUR. And I felt that the ax, as such, when it fell, spoke for itself."<snip>

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795

[jmaier]

4. Clark folks - Please read.

This thread has been done two death here since November. Instead of responding -- WHY DON'T WE JUST LET IT DIE.

[democratreformed]

second that n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

14. I wouldn't post

If the thread wasn't already at the top of the front page. At this point I will not give a free kick to this question. But if you have a great ready made debunking link post already ready as a reply, it is quick and painless to provide it, just in case someone just found DU for the first time and is just tuning in. Could happen, ya' never know.

But please anyone who honestly hasn't been through this before, realize thet this "question" has been raised dozens of times here, usually not with the best of intentions, and not with the most sincere motivations. Don't prolong this discussion, go off and do the indicated research.

[Jack_Dawson]

5. Please

That sounded a wee bit disingenuous. Methinks you already know the story and are trying to stir the pot.

[maddezmom]

8. agree, the other thread just went to page 2

so now it's time to bring it up again. :crazy:

[Frangible]

12. It was an honest question

Jeeze.

[democratreformed]

16. Hopefully,

you can find it in your heart to forgive those of us who have answered this question no less than a thousand times collectively.

[Frangible]

21. My apologies

Didn't realize this was such a hot issue here... I did a bit of looking but not enough I guess as I couldn't find anything on it, and just wanted to better educate myself about the candidates. I'm going to run back to the Lounge now... :scared:

[maddezmom]

22. sorry just a wee bit touchy

seeing how this was just covered yesterday and it was on the 2 page. :pals:

[wyldwolf]

6. Here is the story

We've all heard the story by now. A few weeks back, Gen. Hugh Shelton, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was at a forum in California where he was asked, "What do you think of Gen. Wesley Clark, and would you support him as a presidential candidate?"

"I've known Wes for a long time. I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. I'm not going to say whether I'm a Republican or a Democrat. I'll just say Wes won't get my vote." Shelton replied.

There are two problems with that statment. The first is unless Shelton reveals what those "integrity and character issues" are, the charges are meaningless and they show a lack of integrity unto themselves. Afterall, how can Wesley Clark possibly rebutt them if he doesn't know what the issues are? This is like someone telling you on your wedding day, "I wouldn't marry him/her if I were you... I'm not going to say why... just trust me..." Huh? How does one respond to that?

The second problem is the assertion that Clark came out of Europe early based on the mysterious and vague charges of "integrity and character" issues. In all actuality, Clark was relieved of duty based on personal vendettas carried by General Hugh Shelton and Admiral Leighton (Snuffy) Smith. It was Shelton who called Clark to inform him that his nato assignment would end early. (According to Waging Modern War, Shelton would not even show Clark the courtesy of extending the phone call a few minutes to work out a face-saving exit.) President Clinton privately told Clark, "I had nothing to do with it." http://www.farcaster.com/mhonarchive/hauserreport/msg00467.html

So what drove General Shelton to the decision to recall a very successful General from the field after executing a very successful war?

He directly crossed Admiral Leighton Smith, the four-star commander of Mediterranean nato forces. Although nato demanded a full Serb withdrawal from the besieged city of Sarajevo, Smith urged that a brief bombing pause in early September be extended indefinitely, since, as he explained to Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, he thought the United States had no business intervening. But Clark, then still a three-star, insisted in a heated telephone call that the bombing should continue as planned. As Holbrooke writes in To End A War, "I could tell from the noises emanating from Clark's cell phone that he was being scolded by a very angry, very senior American naval commander." Smith--who quickly alerted his superiors to Clark's insolence--had the inclinations of nato policymakers on his side; after all, heads of state had neglected Bosnia as long as was politically tolerable. But Clark was right, and he won: The bombing resumed and caused the Bosnian Serbs to withdraw from Sarajevo within two weeks of Clark's clash with Smith. That November, the warring parties met at Dayton to negotiate a peace accord. Clark was soon afterward awarded his fourth star--despite ferocious resistance from the Army, which would have preferred his retirement. http://www.farcaster.com/mhonarchive/hauserreport/msg00467.html

During the above-mention events, President Clinton seethed, privately calling Smith insubordinate, and eventually forcing the admiral to resume action. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/books/2001/0109.thompson.html

So, we see, Clark defied Admiral Smith, won Clinton's backing, and resumed the campaign. The intervention ended less than two weeks later.

So here's the setup. Clark defied Admiral Smith. Smith alerted his superiors to Clark's "insolence" (but apparantly not Bill Clinton, who agreed with Clark and disagreed with Smith.) Those superiors were most likely Richard Cohen and General Shelton.

Shelton, Smith, and Cohen were angry. Not only had they been defied, but they were proven wrong and were not backed by their Commander in Chief.

They fought Clark being awared his Fourth star - wanting him retired instead. They had been out manuervered by Wesley Clark and Clark won the Kosovo intervention. Embarassing to be sure.

I don't know how thick Admiral Leighton W. Smith and General Shelton were during the Kosovo conflict, before it, or after it, but they have both been guest speakers at the Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce.

http://www.uky.edu/RGS/Patterson/faculty.htm

I would suspect their association goes back a bit further.

As for Clark and his "character issues," he "risked his career to confront the uniformed reluctance to use force in defense of human rights."

Clark was disliked (even hated?) by the upper Pentagon brass because...

1. Such liberal/progressive views like humanitarian missions and nation building for the military made the Pentagon uneasy...

Despite his credentials as a warrior - 34 years in the Army, including a Silver Star, two Bronze Stars and a Purple Heart earned in Vietnam - {Clark} argues that the U.S. military must learn how to perform such nontraditional functions as peacekeeping and even nation-building, because that's what it will be doing in the 21st century, like it or not. And, since it's no small task to turn gung-ho soldiers into order-keeping policers, it's all the more urgent that the entire military start rethinking its doctrine immediately.

Paradigm-shifting views such as these did not make Clark popular with his superiors at the Pentagon, including former Secretary of Defense William Cohen.

http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&pubID=528

2. Wesley Clark welcomes homosexuals in the military

I'm not sure that I'd be in favor of policy. I supported that policy. That was a policy that was given. I don't think it works. It works better in some circumstances than it does in others. But essentially we've got a lot of gay people in the armed forces, always have had, always will have. And I think that, you know, we should welcome people that want to serve. - MSNBC

Former NATO supreme commander Wesley Clark says it is time for the ban on gays in the military to be lifted. - gayPASG


3. Clark was/is too intelligent for the military "culture."

...General Barry McCaffrey told the Washington Post: "This is no insult to army culture ... but he was way too bright, way too articulate, way too good looking and perceived to be way too wired to fit in with our culture."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1044318,00.html

I would say these sound like integrity and character issues I admire.

More...

After prosecuting NATO's first war by uniting its 19 countries and defeating the Yugoslav Army with no alliance casualties, the four-star general had ruffled enough feathers at the Pentagon that his career abruptly ended.

"Wes could not possibly be a better leader," Taylor said. "I really respect Wes in a very special way for his brilliance. But he's also a man of real character and high personal values."

Any problem Clark had with higher-ups in the Pentagon was due to "professional jealousy" by officials who had trouble with a highly intelligent man who made his case with solid evidence and debated vigorously, Taylor said.

"The guy, when he starts doing something, is exhaustively focused on achieving the mission," said retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, who has known Clark since the two taught at West Point decades ago. He preceded Clark as commander of U.S. Southern Command.

The tension with Washington stemmed partly from the failure of bureaucrats to give Clark resources he needed as the commander on the scene, Grange said.

During and after the conflict there was friction between Clark and his superiors, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Hugh Shelton and Defense Secretary William Cohen, apparently over Clark's high-profile persona and his willingness to challenge them.

At the root of this conflict, Taylor said, was jealousy of a "superstar" by Clark's superiors at the Pentagon. "Shelton and Cohen didn't like Wes being direct with them, arguing his case," Taylor said. "They wanted someone they could tell what to do."

more...

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/News/Nation/AB925B9C76D6B82686256DBC00375519?OpenDocument&Headline=Clark\'s+rise+in+military+impressed+and+rankled+observers

and more...

U.S. News Online
Outlook 8/9/99
the real reason for Clark's ouster may be that the famously political general was impolitic. Pentagon insiders say Clark's frequent and public complaint that politicians had tied his hands during the Kosovo war irked his boss, Defense Secretary William Cohen. Cohen reportedly also was none too pleased that Clark's aides called him "Senator Cohen," a mocking reference to his past as an elected official. The bottom line, says one Pentagon official: "You don't piss off your boss and get away with it-

1999 UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
No wonder these generals and admirals in what once was called the War Department got rid of the one genuine military thinker and hero we have, Gen. Wesley K. Clark. What did he think he was doing, insisting upon winning?

The simple truth right now is that nobody says that Clark was wrong. In fact, the respected German Gen. Klaus Naumann, just-retired head of the NATO military committee, told a group of us here recently, in his review of the still-unresolved conflict, that "the reluctance to use overwhelming force allowed Slobodan Milosevic to calculate his risks. ... I would press harder for visible preparations and visible planning."

But it was the "go-slow" guys, the "they'll give in with a just little more punishment" chaps (in fact, the very same mentality that gave us Vietnam!), the ones who would rewrite all of the dictums of von Clausewitz and Sun Tzu about the need to strike hard, fast and unrelentingly, who were unquestionably and provably wrong -- and whose political caution cost tens of thousands of lives and came close to losing the war for NATO.

So who goes? Wesley Clark!


Levin Statement on Departure of General Wesley Clark
July 28, 1999
WASHINGTON Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., issued the following statement today following the announcement that General Wesley Clark would step down as NATO supreme commander in April, 2000:

"I have known and worked with General Wes Clark for many years. He is an outstanding military officer. We all owe him a debt of gratitude for his tremendous leadership of NATO's military forces during the recent Kosovo conflict. I look forward to working closely with General Clark through the end of his term as SACEUR."


By: EDWARD N. LUTTWAK
Published in the LA Times August 6, 1999
Edward N. Luttwak is a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington

Defeated generals are sent home in disgrace, but it is most unusual to dismiss victorious ones. Whatever the future may hold for Kosovo--and it looks rather grim at present--there is no doubt that NATO's war against Serbia ended in victory. Nor is it in doubt that its military commander, Gen. Wesley K. Clark, was very much the victorious general of that war.

NewsWeek
By John Barry and Christopher Dickey,
Aug. 9, 1999

Gen. Wesley Clark, supreme Allied Commander in Europe, waged and won NATO's campaign for Kosovo without losing a single soldier in action. For the U.S. military, the victory was uniquely—historically—bloodless. Last week Clark learned it was also thankless.

In a midnight call from Washington, Clark was told he'd be relieved of his command at NATO next April, a few months earlier than he'd anticipated. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Hugh Shelton, presented the decision as a simple matter of giving the post to another deserving officer. Clark, who got the call in the middle of a quick trip to the Baltic republics, was caught off balance. He'd seen Shelton in the United States just the week before. Not a word had been breathed of his replacement. According to one source privy to the conversation, Clark told Shelton the move would be read as a vote of no-confidence in his leadership.

Shelton, brisk and businesslike, said there was no way around it. His replacement—Air Force Gen. Joseph Ralston, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff—would be forced by law to retire if he weren't given a new slot by April. Clark wasn't buying it. In two conversations that night and again the next day, sources say, he argued that his replacement would be a blow to U.S. efforts to reshape NATO. Shelton wasn't moved. Clark, the 54-year-old warrior, was going to have to step aside for Ralston, the 55-year-old Washington insider.

there's more articles from Wash Post/Dana Priestly, Seattle times, etc...
http://wesleyclark.h1.ru/departure.htm

[Frangible]

13. Great info

Thanks.

[Capn Sunshine]

15. wow. Imagine if Dean did something that required that long explanation

"apologist" does not really cover this dissertation. You could goe for your spin-doctorate with it.

[Bucky]

19. interesting differences between your response and Frangible's (#13)

It's the difference between class and crass. Your behavior is a good example of why it'll be difficult for us to unite after the nomination. Frangible's is an example of why it'll be easy. So which side do you want to be on in that equation?

. . . . . . Just 7 most posts till #1000! Yee-hawww!!

Send me a DU private message ( ) to become a Teacher for Clark
Teachers for Clark beta site

[wyldwolf]

23. We'll never know... it's all sealed up in his secret records

[CivilRightsNow]

24. Here are some links for you

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles8/DVNS_Wesley-Clark.htm

[wyldwolf]

25. Ah, Dissident Voice...

Now that he is free of Washington, Al Gore feels invigorated. Not that if he had been elected, America would have acted monumentally different than George W. Bush since 2000; but surely it is comforting for us to think so.

----

Not many diehards argue the Democrats are really progressive anyway. That’s the beauty when arguing semantics with a bemused Dem. Even Dean, a media labeled antiwar candidate, doesn’t pass the lefty piss test. He’s a neoliberal Zionist with a fancy for the racist death penalty. A Gore endorsement will only solidify Dean as an establishment candidate, who is willing to work from the inside out. No big surprise.

---

In any case, progressives must question whether supporting an alleged law-breaker at this stage in the Primaries, is a good idea. Supporters of Dean must realize the more their candidate attempts to conceal his past, the harder it’s going to be for him to sell his present. America certainly does not need another administration where cover-ups and deception are commonplace.

---

As Governor of Vermont, Howard Dean openly claimed that the legal system unfairly benefited criminal defendants over prosecutors. He even took measures to cut federal grant money aimed at helping mentally disabled defendants--as well as appointing state judges who were willing to undermine the Bill of Rights. In a 1997 interview with the Vermont News Bureau, Howard Dean admitted his desire to expedite the judicial process by using such justices to "quickly convict guilty criminals." He wanted individuals that would deem "common sense more important than legal technicalities." Constitutional protections (legal technicalities) apparently undermine Dean's yearning for speedy trials.

more...

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/_vti_bin/shtml.exe/DV-Search.htm

[in_cog_ni_to]

26. I like this one better...from dissidentvoice.

Dean remarked that, “We ought to look at affirmative action programs based not on race, but on class." The effect of Sharpton’s words will be put to the test during the Primary elections in South Carolina, where heavily black Democratic districts will take to the polls. Sharpton claims those Primaries will be a turning point in the race for the Presidency.<snip>

<snip>
In a recent statement released by the organization, Judicial Watch quoted a letter that Vermont State Archivist Greg Sanford sent to the state’s Governor’s Council in 2002. In that note Sanford claimed that “ambition” is not an ample reason to block access to Government documents. He also pointed out that Vermont’s Open Record Laws (V.S.A. § 315) clearly oppose such actions. As the law itself states: “It is in the public interest to enable any person to review and criticize decisions even though such examination may cause inconvenience and embarrassment.”



What is Dean covering up? Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch believes Dean is obviously hiding something. “Dean’s personal political ambitions and apparent obsession with keeping his public record secret are not consistent with Vermont law,” Fitton says “nor are they compatible with principles of transparency and accountability in government.”



Although Judicial Watch is a pronounced conservative organization, they are not partisan in their litigation. Last year the group led the effort in attempting to force the Vice President’s office to release all information they possessed on Cheney’s Energy Task Force.

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles9/Frank_Dean-Sharpton-Judicial.htm

[CivilRightsNow]

27. Heh.. Im not a Dean supporter either..

I think both links should be considered.

[moz4prez]

28. "bad stigma"

isn't stigma bad enough as it is??