# Wesley Clark **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 9, 2003, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wesley-clark/200529 "2003-09-09T14:37:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Mambo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a587f6/32.png) [@Mambo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mambo)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wesley-clark/200529/61 "2003-09-17T03:19:30Z")
During the Bill Maher interview, Clark said some word which was the “word of the day.” A George W. Bush doll (with Bush in a flight suit) parachuted down. It was Clark’s prize. Clark held the doll and said, “You know, a lot of men and women died in this suit.” That was all he said. He attacked Bush implicitly while making a very respectful comment. I think he has the political skill to go toe-to-toe with Bush. ---
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wesley-clark/200529/62 "2003-09-17T04:18:06Z")
The “almost started WWIII” charge was made by a man who was an officer in the British army unit that took part in Bloody Sunday and later participated in the coverup. To this day, that particular British officer has pretty much tried to say that Bloody Sunday was no big deal. I wouldn’t take his word on this matter. ---
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wesley-clark/200529/63 "2003-09-17T04:20:29Z")
More on Bloody Sunday: > [@](#): > > On July 3rd, the Republican News reported “Lord Saville is currently considering a request from lawyers for the families that General Mike Jackson be recalled to the inquiry for further questioning after serious discrepancies between his account of Bloody Sunday and that of Major Edward Loden, Command of Support Company, emerged during the latters evidence at the end of June. These discrepancies, argue the lawyers, strongly suggest that Jackson was involved in fabricating evidence in order to justify the killings on Bloody Sunday.” > > Jackson, if the document is correct, drew up lists of people to be shot, which is consistent with the extreme accuracy of the killing which took place - single bullet to the head shots. Jackson repeatedly denied - for 30 years - any decision to draw the IRA into a gun battle. The target list shows why this is probably true, there were already “targets”. ([http://www.theclarksphere.com/archives/000347.html#000347](http://www.theclarksphere.com/archives/000347.html#000347)) Note that this is from a very Clark partisan site, so keep that in mind. ---
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wesley-clark/200529/64 "2003-09-17T04:21:44Z")
One more tidbit: > [@](#): > > It is Jackson’s word that is at the root of all of these stories, no one has any other documentation, and all of them require people ignoring two inconvenient facts: it was Secretary General Solana who gave the Activation Order (ACTORD) for Clark to proceed - Clark could not have ordered deployment without it, and Jackson would not have needed to take matters to higher levels if Clark did not have authorization - and the plan that was put in place was, substantially Clark’s. The last problem with stories attempting to attack Clark’s judgment is that it was he who held the line on sectorizing Kosovo, which made the Russian presence constructive. The rest of the article looks pretty good to me. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wesley-clark/200529/65 "2003-09-17T06:04:37Z")
I think that Clark can beat George Bush and reunify the country. I also think it is amusing that he is a Rhodes Scholar from Arkansas. For so many years now we have looked at Presidential candidates and asked, “Is this the best we can do?” It has been disheartening. Clark has made me sit up and take notice as no one has in forty years. I, too, am considering volunteering for his campaign. I need to find out a little more first and not be so swept away by his intellect, accomplishments, charisma, distinguished career, military know-how, international experience… ---
**Author:** ![syncrolecyne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f08c70/32.png) [@syncrolecyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/syncrolecyne)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wesley-clark/200529/66 "2003-09-17T06:54:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by vibrotronica \* > \*\*Howard Dean. John Dean was one of Nixon’s lawyers. \*\* Well we have a John Kerry, John Edwards, and now a Johnny Come-Lately, but I do know (during those rare moments of lucidity) that his name is _Howard_. I know its unfair, but a Democrat has a lot more to prove than a Republican. Unfortuneatly it takes a 4 star General, Rhodes Scholar, West Point graduate who was number one in his class, combat veteran seriously wounded in Vietnam, and who led NATO in a military campaign to go up against a fellow who has a rather conspicuous vacuum in the middle his own military record. I just know the Republicans are joing to rail on Clark’s fumbles in the Kossovo campaign (which is looking better and better in hindsight), but that should get the ‘liberal’ media to look into what the hell Bush was doing in the National Guard. The Republicans are the party of “defense” and “national security” and the Democrats should feel lucky that a piece of brass like this is actually on their side. ---
**Author:** ![corndog\_man](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea666f/32.png) [@corndog\_man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/corndog_man)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wesley-clark/200529/67 "2003-09-17T12:21:11Z")
The dude who is running for Vice President is John Edwards, not Wesley Clark. So, we might have two guys running for VP in the Democratic party next year. The reason The General is running is because Team Clinton wants him to. Team Clinton does not like Dean at all, because Dean is seen as a threat to the leadership of the Democratic Party and Team Clinton wants to run Hillary in 2008. I don’t understand the logic, though. If Dean loses in 2004 (He will because he is too liberal and batty as hell), the fight in 2008 will be between Hillary (shudder) and Al Gore (who I don’t like much, but got bent over and screwed in 2000). I would think Hillary and Gore would WANT Bush to win in 2004. I would if I was Gore and would go as far as to say some positive things about him a month before the election, and quietly vote for the man on election day. ---
**Author:** ![tomyoung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7bcc69/32.png) [@tomyoung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomyoung)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wesley-clark/200529/68 "2003-09-17T13:40:12Z")
Just to clarify the WWIII thing, Clark addresses it in his book and even uses the Jackson quote himself, then goes on to discuss the situation at great length. So it’s hardly a charge he’s unprepared for. In his words, from p395 of Waging Modern War: > [@](#): > > This could be a defining moment for the future of NATO. Would we or would we not be able to conduct our own peacekeeping missions? Would Russia be co-equal with NATO in this operation? Would Russia get its way by deception and bluff or by negotiation and compromise? Would we have an effective operation or another weak U.N.-type force? Blocking the bridges to the Pristina airfield was a tactical decision that Jackson disagreed with, and Clark was overruled by his higher-ups. I don’t see the controversy. **Corndog:** the logic is simple. It may be impossible for you to believe, but it is, I think, true: the Clintons want a Democrat to win in 2004 because they think it would be good for the country. (I think it’s also a distinct possibility that she will want to be Clark’s VP as well – she would probably only ever have a shot at the presidency if she were already VP, IMHO.) ---
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wesley-clark/200529/69 "2003-09-17T15:53:59Z")
I doubt that the Clintons want anything because “they think it would be good for the country”. They would want it because it would benefit them or their party. Why else would carpetbagger Hillary have run in New York? Had she been an honest human being, she would have run in Arkansas. ---
**Author:** ![rsa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/839c29/32.png) [@rsa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rsa)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wesley-clark/200529/70 "2003-09-17T16:49:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dogface \* > Had she been an honest human being, she would have run in Arkansas. Kind of like Texan Dick Cheney claiming Wyoming as his residence to side step the 12th Amendment. Back to the OP, the official announcement in Little Rock should start any minute now. Stay tuned… ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wesley-clark/200529/71 "2003-09-17T17:13:14Z")
[It’s official: Clark’s running](http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/17/elec04.prez.clark/index.html) ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wesley-clark/200529/72 "2003-09-17T17:34:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dogface \* > I doubt that the Clintons want anything because “they think it would be good for the country”. They would want it because it would benefit them or their party. Why, are liberals incapable of loving their country? I guess if you don’t wrap yourself in the flag, that means you don’t care about America. :rolleyes: Oddly enough, most people are a mixture of a bunch of characteristics. I’m sure Bush and his crowd believe tax cuts, the war in Iraq, dispensing with environmental protections, etc., are good for the country. I’m also sure that Bush is a very ambitious man - why else would he decide to run for President after one term as governor of a state where the guv has little power, and before that, a career of unadulterated failure in the oil biz, plus a somewhat more successful one as glorified handshaker for a baseball team? To say that Bush’s qualifications were modest is like pointing out that the Grand Canyon is long and deep. Think ambition and self-promotion might’ve had something to do with why he ran? I’m sure Bill and Hillary were/are ambitious too. But that doesn’t mean they don’t also frequently want what’s good for America. And they probably became Democrats because they believed that the Democratic vision for America was better for America than the GOP vision for America. > [@](#): > > Why else would carpetbagger Hillary have run in New York? Had she been an honest human being, she would have run in Arkansas. Oh, come now: Hillary’s about as Southern as I am. ---
**Author:** ![My\_Darn\_Snake\_Legs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f14d63/32.png) [@My\_Darn\_Snake\_Legs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/My_Darn_Snake_Legs)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wesley-clark/200529/73 "2003-09-17T17:45:15Z")
Ok, so Clark looks like a viable candidate in terms of respect and intelligence. But what does he have to say about domestic issues? These are the ones that are really important to _me._ I don’t really give a flying fig about good foreign policy if he is going to push for a bunch of bills and such that I am opposed to on a personal level. Anyone have a cite for what he wants to do to our society? ---
**Author:** ![rsa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/839c29/32.png) [@rsa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rsa)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wesley-clark/200529/74 "2003-09-17T18:04:18Z")
**Snake Legs** , during his announcement speech Clark said that he would soon be making speeches on the economy and national security in the coming weeks. In the meantime, you can start here to get an idea of some of his domestic positions (culled from various sources by the Draft Wesley Clark campaign): [http://www.draftwesleyclark.com/on\_the\_issues.htm](http://www.draftwesleyclark.com/on_the_issues.htm) Also keep an eye on Clark’s official webite: [http://www.americansforclark.com](http://www.americansforclark.com) ---
**Author:** ![Sterra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8c91f0/32.png) [@Sterra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sterra)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wesley-clark/200529/75 "2003-09-17T18:22:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by corndog man \* > \*\*The reason The General is running is because Team Clinton wants him to. Team Clinton does not like Dean at all, because Dean is seen as a threat to the leadership of the Democratic Party and Team Clinton wants to run Hillary in 2008. > > I don’t understand the logic, though. If Dean loses in 2004 (He will because he is too liberal and batty as hell), the fight in 2008 will be between Hillary (shudder) and Al Gore (who I don’t like much, but got bent over and screwed in 2000). > > I would think Hillary and Gore would WANT Bush to win in 2004. I would if I was Gore and would go as far as to say some positive things about him a month before the election, and quietly vote for the man on election day. \*\* See, the thing where you are messing up is you are listening to rightwing sources that just want to make up a whole bunch of lies. Clinton actually praised Dean at the same time he praised Wesley Clark. If Gore wanted to run for president he would do it now. Hillary isn’t going to run now and it is very unlikely that she would run in 2008. If she wanted to go after the presidency she would have ran for governor. ---
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wesley-clark/200529/76 "2003-09-17T18:24:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RTFirefly \* > \*\*Why, are liberals incapable of loving their country? I guess if you don’t wrap yourself in the flag, that means you don’t care about America. :rolleyes: Hillary Clinton is on the side of Hillary Clinton. Likewise, I’m not certain she’s connect with the same reality as the rest of us, given how easily she can live in a fantasy world where her husband is 100% faithful and any and all tales of him boinking a cute lil thang at work were nothing but fabrications by a “vast right-wing conspiracy”. Likewise, her blatant politicking has shown that her real concern for this country is about as strong and braod as is Dick Cheney’s. Now, please quote SPECIFICALLY where I stated that one must wrap oneself in the flag to love this country. ---
**Author:** ![rsa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/839c29/32.png) [@rsa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rsa)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wesley-clark/200529/77 "2003-09-17T18:40:16Z")
**Dogface** , rather than continue to hijack this thread, perhaps you could open another thread in GD or the Pit. If you do, please provide a cite that supports that Hillary believed that Bill was 100% faithful. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![ShibbOleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@ShibbOleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShibbOleth)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wesley-clark/200529/78 "2003-09-17T18:42:00Z")
Personally I think that most politicians, either side of the aisle, are egotistical/delusional enough to think that they are good for America, and can rationalize away their ambitions as part of what makes them good for America. ---
**Author:** ![My\_Darn\_Snake\_Legs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f14d63/32.png) [@My\_Darn\_Snake\_Legs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/My_Darn_Snake_Legs)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wesley-clark/200529/79 "2003-09-17T20:57:45Z")
Well, **rsa** I read through that first link and it was much as I feared. I liked the straightforwardness of Dean and I think that the General would be respectable. Unfortunately, I don’t agree with him on any issue that is listed. ☹ Why can’t we have a candidate who is Republican and not Bush? Or a Democrat who is not out to kill babies and restrict freedoms? \ ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wesley-clark/200529/80 "2003-09-17T21:21:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by My Darn Snake Legs \* > **Why can’t we have a candidate who is Republican and not Bush? Or a Democrat who is not out to kill babies and restrict freedoms?** As someone who voted a mostly D slate in yesterday’s primary, I object to your desire to take away my right to baby-killin’. I love killin’ babies. Give me a baby, and I’ll kill it. You can even tell me how I kill it: strangling, stabbing, drowning, running over it with a lawn mower, tossin’ it into the polar bear pen, whatever. Don’t matter how the killin’ gets done, as long as I’m the one doin’ the killin’. As a proud American lib’ruhl, I just couldn’t live without the regular baby killin’, and it seems to me that _you’re_ the one who wants to restrict freedoms. Oh, and by the way, :rolleyes:. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wesley-clark/200529.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wesley-clark/200529.md?page=5)