Wasn't he at Ft. Hood where the 17 pieces of artillary were dispatched from which were used at Waco per Reno Waco's request?
Sofia wrote:Clark has a frightening, bad military record.
Link? Or just YO?
Brand X wrote:Wasn't he at Ft. Hood where the 17 pieces of artillary were dispatched from which were used at Waco per Reno Waco's request?
Rumor? Hearsay? Link?
I would imagine you could do some convincing if you can prove what you say...
I was just about to post, I have read up on it and he was at Ft. Hood, but there are no documents mentioning his name or eye witnesses who say he was ever at Waco. Then again two top brass from Ft. Hood went to Washington on the matter who are yet to be identified. I'm sure he will be questioned about this on his way to the White House.
Ecerpt from what may be a pro Clark site.
Clark was not present at Waco, nor did he plan, direct or authorize it. While observers from Delta Force were present, no elements of the First Cavalry were in operational control. The events of April 19th, 1993 were based on ineptitude of a number of FBI tactical agents, who repeatedly used ham-handed negotiating techniques, and possibly, a desire for glory hunting by those leading the siege. Many of the people involved in Waco were involved in previous questionable actions, including one sniper who was involved with Ruby Ridge in 1992, and who may have fired sniper rounds during the siege.
The record of Waco stands in stark contrast to the documented style of negotiations during Dayton and during Kosovo - clearly these operations were not conducted by the same people. Wes Clark has been adamant on a number of occasions that military hardware and personnel should not be used in law enforcement situations, they are too blunt an instrument. Waco stands in sharp contrast to the tactical doctrine of using minimum force that he taught prior to being a commander at Ft. Hood, and which he espoused afterwards as Southern Commander and then SACEUR.
While it is hard to prove a negative absent the government releasing logs of General Clark's wear abouts during this period, no reliable witness has placed him on the scene, nor is he mentioned in any documentation which has been released to the public.
Full story
Even if he was at Ft Hood at the time, how does that make him a part of Waco?
I guess the republicans must be worried. The usual mud slinging has begun.
Along with the economy stupid I would add issues stupid.
Oops. PDiddie--
I answered you on the Dem Contenders thread. Timber has the relevent info, which I base my opinion of Clark, on page 76 of that thread. I read his links.
Here is one.
Isn't it interesting that we are already seeing the evidence of this here on A2K? From the link above in the Conason article:
Quote:The campaign of rumor, innuendo and attacks against Wesley Clark will get extremely vicious. It will make the attacks on John McCain during the South Carolina GOP primary look tame in comparison.
Among the smears that will be launched on Clark are:
1) That he's just a front for Hillary and Bill Clinton. Mostly, he will be portrayed (sub rosa, and especially on talk radio) as Hillary's Presidential stalking horse. There will be rumors flying that he would entertain asking her to join the ticket as his VP.
2) That he's an unstable hothead who "almost started World War III." This line of attack has already been raised, ironically, by Katrina Vanden Heuvel on the pages of
The Nation. That incident was less aggressive and hotheaded than it seemed. From
CNN.com:
Quote:Pentagon and NATO sources told CNN that Clark ordered Jackson, the commander of NATO ground forces in Kosovo, to dispatch helicopters to take control of Pristina's airport before the Russians arrived June 12.
Jackson reportedly favored a less confrontational approach and was slow to relay Clark's orders. As a result, Apache helicopters were unable to reach the airport because of bad weather.
After the Russians took control of one end of the airport, Pentagon sources say Clark ordered Jackson to move British tanks onto the runway to prevent Russia from flying in reinforcements.
This time, Jackson delayed while he sought political guidance from London. Clark also appealed to political leaders in Washington for support, the U.S. magazine Newsweek reported. Clark's orders were never carried out. "I'm not going to start World War III for you," Jackson is quoted in Newsweek as telling Clark after the incident.
Pentagon officials told CNN that while NATO members are under the command of the supreme allied commander, they also have the right to refuse orders not in their national interest. NATO's 19 members operate by consensus and any one country can veto a decision.
Pentagon officials said that the British government wanted to avoid a military confrontation over what was essentially a diplomatic dispute with the Russians.
The airport standoff was ultimately resolved when NATO and Moscow, a traditional ally of the Serbs, agreed that the Russians would not have their own peacekeeping sector in Kosovo. Instead, Russian peacekeepers were dispatched to the American, French and British sectors of the province.
3) That he was involved in the Waco disaster. Clark commanded the 1st Cavalry Division out of Fort Hood, Texas at the time of the Waco siege. Gun nuts and militia wackos will go bananas over this allegation.
4) They will repeat the smear perpetuated by George Will and the
Weekly Standard that Wesley Clark lied about being contacted by the White House to hype the Iraq-9/11 connection.
5) They will try and downgrade his military service, which will be hard to do.
6) They will, probably in the "confederate" South, bring up his Jewish ancestry.
7) That he did not get along with his colleagues in the military. This is an effort to portray him as arrogant and aloof. Unable to work with people, etc. In other words, they will portray him as another Douglas MacArthur.
It's unlikely that George W. Bush or most national Republicans will bring up some of these things directly. But you can bet that talk radio and the internet will be spreading this stuff like wildfire. I also wouldn't rule out "sympathetic" groups taking out radio ads or doing push polls with these attacks.
Wes Clarks bio
09-16) 15:08 PDT (AP) --
NAME: Wesley Kanne Clark.
AGE-BIRTH DATE: 58, Dec. 23, 1944, Chicago.
EDUCATION: Bachelor's degree, West Point, 1966; Oxford, masters in philosophy, politics and economics, 1968; U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, masters in military science, 1975.
EXPERIENCE: Infantry officer and company commander, Vietnam, 1969-70; social science instructor and assistant professor, West Point, 1971-74; White House fellow, Office of Management and Budget, 1975-76; Army operations officer in Europe, 1976-78; assistant executive officer to the Supreme Allied Commander, Brussels, 1978-79; battalion commander, Fort Carson, Colo., 1980-82; chief of Army studies group, office of the chief of staff, 1983-84; commander at the National Training Center and 4th Infantry Division, 1984-88; director, battle command training program, 1988-89; commanding general, National Training Center, 1989-91; deputy chief of staff at U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, 1991-92; commanding general, 1st Cavalry Division, Ford Hood, Texas, 1992-94; director for strategic plans and policy, Joint Staff, 1994-96; commander, Southern Command, 1996-97; Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, 1997-2000; managing director of the brokerage firm Stephens Group Inc. in Little Rock, Ark., 2000-2002; military analyst, CNN, 2002; chairman and CEO, Wesley K. Clark & Associates, 2002-present.
FAMILY: Wife, Gertrude; son Wesley.
QUOTE: "I'm concerned about the direction of the country. The policies need serious work. I just don't see the strategy. I just don't see the vision."
Commentary > The Monitor's View
from the September 18, 2003 edition
Why Clark Adds to Campaign
Gen. Wesley Clark's entry into the 2004 Democratic presidential-nomination race will strengthen Democrats' ability to critique the Bush administration's national security policies. It may also raise the level of debate over the war on terrorism. And it may draw new attention to the Democrats' nominating contest, which has yet to seize the public imagination and is currently overshadowed by California's political drama. President Bush's pursuit of the war on terrorism has raised several issues: What kind of military does the United States need to meet the threats of terrorism and the proliferation of dangerous weapons? Is the administration pursuing the right strategy? Does the US have enough troops to do the job? What's the best way to gain other countries' cooperation?
Several candidates have built their campaigns around opposition to the war in Iraq - Sen. Bob Graham of Florida, Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, and most notably former Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont. But General Clark, with his military background, brings credibility to his war opposition that others will find hard to match.
The Bush administration may be pursuing the right course. But even if it is, the election should provide a reality check - causing the president to dig deep to justify his policies before the voters ratify or reject them.
Up to now, Democrats' comments on the administration's national- security approach have been long on criticism and short on alternative solutions. It's to be hoped that Clark's entry into the race will cause all the candidates to be more specific about what they would do differently. It's all well and good to say that the US must bring more nations into the effort to rebuild Iraq - but just what would the Democrats do that the president isn't doing already? What would they do, for example, about France's demand for immediate Iraqi self-government?
Clark has set himself a tough challenge. He entered the race late. He must quickly build an organization and raise enough money to compete with heavyweights such as Governor Dean and Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts. He must develop and sell his positions on domestic issues.
The Rhodes scholar-West Pointer is a smart man. An Arkansas native, he's already collected a brain trust that includes many veterans of the Clinton White House. The Democratic race just got a lot more interesting. That's good for the country
Can you imagine a debate between Clark and Bush
Clark would prune the Bush into one of those topiary animals. Which one? Take your choice.
I do think Clark will have trouble if he's clearly underwritten by the DN/LC.
But the simple fact is, a lot of people just don't trust his ability" as a commander.
While his strategic analysis is "almost infallible," his command solutions tended to be problematic, even "goofy," the general said, "and he pushed them even when they weren't going to work."
The general said Clark "needs to win, right down to the core of his fiber," which tends to make him "highly manipulative." "There are an awful lot of people," added another retired four-star, who also requested anonymity, "who believe Wes will tell anybody what they want to hear and tell somebody the exact opposite five minutes later. The people who have worked closely with him are the least complimentary, because he can be very abrasive, very domineering. And part of what you saw when he was relieved of command was all of the broken glass and broken china within the European alliance and the [U.S.] European Command." MSNBC
i don't like Clark, no sound reasoning leads me to this conclusion, kinda like Lieberman i just dont care for either of them. I am sure that all you fine well read folks have tons of reasons why you favor this or that candidate but i don't. I like Kucinich but will most likely vote for Dean.
Sophia wrote:
"There are an awful lot of people," added another retired four-star, who also requested anonymity, "who believe Wes will tell anybody what they want to hear and tell somebody the exact opposite five minutes later"
Sounds as though he's a natural politician.
Au 1929- I do beleive that, in the next couple of weeks, you will hear a great deal about the fact that Wesley Clark bungled his leadership role in Kosovo and was directly responsible for the deaths of 2,000 Serbian civilians who were bombed by our air force.
He will, I am sure, have to explain that failure before he begins to critique Iraq.
Italgato wrote:Au 1929- I do beleive that, in the next couple of weeks, you will hear a great deal about the fact that Wesley Clark bungled his leadership role in Kosovo and was directly responsible for the deaths of 2,000 Serbian civilians who were bombed by our air force.
He will, I am sure, have to explain that failure before he begins to critique Iraq.
Yes, indeed.
This, and why no US-American soldier was killed 1999 in Kosovo.
You are right- Walter Hinteler- One of our brave men is not worth 2,000 of those Serbs. Why, we didn't even have to get our hands dirty when we dropped all of those bombs from very high altitudes.
And, so we hit a couple of hospitals and Catholic Churhes-We had to be careful of the Mosques tho!
Mapleleaf had expressed a desire, some time ago on another thread, to know who the team players for the various candidates are. Here's some of the men and women behind Wesley Clark:
Quote:Clark is surrounding himself with key operatives from the Clinton-Gore White House and campaigns. Among those expected to play key roles are Eli J. Segal, a former Clinton administration official who was chairman of Clinton's 1992 campaign; Donnie Fowler, former vice president Al Gore's 2000 field director; Ron Klain, a strategist for Gore; and Mark Fabiani, a communications specialist for Clinton and Gore. Bruce Lindsey, a close Clinton friend and a lawyer in the Clinton White House, and Mickey Kantor, who played a key role in the Clinton-Gore campaign and was Clinton's commerce secretary, will also be helping Clark.
Wa Po