# Who Still Supports Wesley Clark? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 11, 2003, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-still-supports-wesley-clark/212549 "2003-11-11T04:35:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2003, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-still-supports-wesley-clark/212549/21 "2003-11-12T01:55:15Z")
I don’t know what to make of Shelton’s comments, but if I were a Democrat choosing a candidate, they would worry me greatly. When a general officer says that another officer was removed from a command for character and integrity reasons, that makes me sit up and take notice. Unfortunately, we don’t have any details, so it’s hard to pass judgement. But then Tommy Franks adds a vociferous, “No way would I vote for that man”, and that really worries me, because my ‘read’ on Franks is that he’s the ultimate straight shooter and stand-up guy, and he wouldn’t offer an opinion like that unless he really felt strongly about it. And let’s not forget the controversy over Pristina airport during the Kosovo campaign - When the Russians (ostensibly allies) occupied that airport, Clark ordered an airborne attack on the airport. That led to British General Mike Jackson refusing the order, saying, “I will not start WWIII for you.” Clark then tried to go around him and order one of his American subordinates to attack the airport with Apache helicopters, and that order was also refused. The conflict when all the way into the highest levels of the British and U.S. governments, and Clark was overruled. Thank goodness. But this does not bode well for either the man’s judgement or character. Pilots under his command also complained that Clark forced them to fly too high - this avoided them being shot down, but resulted in much high civilian casualties because the bombing wasn’t precise. Finally, Clark has done a complete flip-flop on the war and the President. Before the Iraq war, he sounded pretty much supportive of it. He certainly never aired any of these grave misgivings he claims he had all along. Even as late as April of this year he had said, “George Bush should be proud of his resolve in the face of doubt,” and said on several occasions that I can recall that the U.S., once having built its forces up in the Gulf, simply had to pull the trigger because there was no turning back. Couple that with his extremely positive remarks about Bush after the election, and it seems to me that Clark is a Democrat against the war today for only one reason - because that’s the only way to get to the White House. If it were a Democrat in power and a Republican nomination that was open, Clark would be running as a conservative. Whatever gets him into power. That’s my take on the guy, anyway. And people who want power that badly should never attain it. ---
**Author:** ![China\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2003, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-still-supports-wesley-clark/212549/22 "2003-11-12T02:21:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > \*\*And people who want power that badly should never attain it. \*\* Every person running for President wants power “that badly.” It ain’t a character flaw, it’s a prerequisite for getting involved in such a campaign. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2003, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-still-supports-wesley-clark/212549/23 "2003-11-12T02:39:57Z")
Sam: You may enjoy this article by Elizabeth Drew: > **[Waiting for the General](https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2003/11/20/waiting-for-the-general/)** > > The mystery at the center of the contest for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination is whether a late-entering candidate with no direct experience A couple of points: Shelton made a slam/smear on Clark’s integrity, then refused to substantiate it. This does not reflect well on Shelton, IMHO. There were also some vociferous disagreements among the brass about the War in Kosovo: > [@](#): > > 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. …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. None of this is conclusive, of course. Drew is a sufficiently sophisticated analyst not to overstate her case. ---
**Author:** ![Sterra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8c91f0/32.png) [@Sterra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sterra)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2003, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-still-supports-wesley-clark/212549/24 "2003-11-12T03:00:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > \*\*But then Tommy Franks adds a vociferous, “No way would I vote for that man”, and that really worries me, because my ‘read’ on Franks is that he’s the ultimate straight shooter and stand-up guy, and he wouldn’t offer an opinion like that unless he really felt strongly about it. > \*\* The “ultimate straight shooter”. What do you base this on? The last I saw of him after Bush said bring it on he said bring it on in order to back Bush up over his bring it on comment and then resigned. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2003, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-still-supports-wesley-clark/212549/25 "2003-11-12T03:21:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Shodan \* > Clark’s career stalled when he met with Ratko Mladic, who masterminded the massacre of Muslim civilians at Srebernica. The State Department warned Clark not to go to Mladic’s headquarters, since Mladic is an indicted war criminal (he is still at large). Clark did it anyway, and they exchanged gifts and drank together. > > This was in 1994. And in 2003, you decided to lie in pursuit of slamming a Democrat. Not that this year is different from any other year in that regard, I’m sure. So just for grins, let’s count the lies. Just the ones I noticed offhand and can easily document, mind you. Additional fabrications are entirely possible. 1. Mladic was indicted in [1995](http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/kar-ii950724e.htm). 2. Given the lie in Item 1, it would be completely impossible for the State Department to have “warned Clark not to go to Mladic’s headquarters, since Mladic is an indicted war criminal.” 3. The Srebrenica massacre was in [1995](http://www.pbs.org/wnet/cryfromthegrave/), which is quite obviously _after_ the meeting you’re lying about. 4. (Lie by omission.) Clark didn’t just up and decide to “go to Mladic’s headquarters.” The United States government was in direct negotiations with the Serbian government, including Slobodan Milosevic and Ratko Mladic. Clark was sent to the region as a diplomat, not as the commander of an army. So, does anybody want to guess what the source for this lie is? Yep, you guessed it: [World Net Daily](http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34725) (“No Charge So Spurious, No Fabrication Retracted”), by way of The Traitor Who Exposes Undercover CIA Agents, [Robert Novack](http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20030922.shtml). It is also noteworthy that there isn’t one single solitary source anywhere on the record for the proposition that Clark was told not to meet with Mladic. None. Go on, try to find one. All you’ll get is Novack’s assertion and the brain-dead conservative blogosphere parrroting it. Lies, lies, lies, lies, lies. And weapons of mass destruction. ---
**Author:** ![hansel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/6bbea6/32.png) [@hansel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hansel)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2003, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-still-supports-wesley-clark/212549/26 "2003-11-12T04:09:50Z")
**Sam** , seriously: how can you take Shelton’s comments seriously when he makes allegations that he refuses to substantiate? ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2003, 11:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-still-supports-wesley-clark/212549/27 "2003-11-12T11:12:17Z")
Sam, you must have gotten your war coverage from Fox. If you’d just taken a few minutes to watch CNN instead you would have seen Wes Clark there, critiquing the war plan in Iraq _as the war was happening_. Now given that Franks was at least nominally in charge of that war plan, does it really surprise you that Franks might not be too fond of Clark? This whole thread is a disingenuous, **december** -esque shot at [poisoning the well](http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html) against Clark. Nice try, **Sam** , but nobody’s buying. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2003, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-still-supports-wesley-clark/212549/28 "2003-11-12T11:46:41Z")
Can’t wiat for **Sam’s** thread on **Dean**. No doubt it’ll be at least as flattering as this one. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2003, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-still-supports-wesley-clark/212549/29 "2003-11-12T12:47:12Z")
> [@](#): > > It is also noteworthy that there isn’t one single solitary source anywhere on the record for the proposition that Clark was told not to meet with Mladic. None. Go on, try to find one. All you’ll get is Novack’s assertion and the brain-dead conservative blogosphere parrroting it. OK, how about a left-wing source? ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2003, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-still-supports-wesley-clark/212549/30 "2003-11-12T12:59:26Z")
No need to be coy. Produce it. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2003, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-still-supports-wesley-clark/212549/31 "2003-11-12T13:01:20Z")
Sorry - hit submit instead of preview. The left-wing source is [here.](http://www.progressive.org/nov03/conn1103.html) And the war crimes alleged to have been committed by Mladic started in 1992, [according to the UN.](http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/kar-ii950724e.htm) Although you are correct. Mladic was not an indicted war criminal when Clark met, drank, and exchanged gifts with him. He was a suspected war criminal, subsequent to the meeting with Clark allegedly committed even more horrific war crimes, and is now indicted. I can’t tell from your post if you are disputing that the meeting took place. If so, [here is an MS-NBC cite,](http://www.msnbc.com/news/969047.asp?0cl=cR&cp1=1) and some further information about Clark. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2003, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-still-supports-wesley-clark/212549/32 "2003-11-12T13:06:12Z")
Oooh, a left-wing columnist repeating the same unsubstantiated charge. Gosh, that _totally_ makes the State Department thing not a lie. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2003, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-still-supports-wesley-clark/212549/33 "2003-11-12T13:19:14Z")
OK, how about the New York freaking Times on October 15, 2003? It is in the archives, and I am not spending $2.95 on it, but the teaser reads… > [@](#): > > In one incident in 1994, General Clark posed with Ratko Mladic, the Bosnian-Serb general accused of slaughtering hundreds of civilians. General Clark had been advised by the State Department not to meet with him, but he did anyway… So the left-wingers say it, the right-wingers say it, and the Gray Lady says it. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2003, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-still-supports-wesley-clark/212549/34 "2003-11-12T13:30:03Z")
Where’s the source, Shodan? Where’s the State Department memo saying “Don’t meet with Mladic, Wes”? Where’s the State Department on the record saying “We told him not to do that”? Why the hell wasn’t he busted down to private for meeting with a war criminal in supposed direct contravention of his orders? It’s not like the mainstream press hasn’t uncritically repeated the lies of the Republican press on more than one occasion, you know. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2003, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-still-supports-wesley-clark/212549/35 "2003-11-12T13:50:31Z")
The Washington Post reported State Department officials telling Clark not to meet with suspected war criminals (October 26, 1994, and again the next day), or are they part of the vast, right-wing conspiracy too? So you won’t believe the right-wing, you won’t believe the left-wing, you won’t believe “the mainstream press” - what do you want, a note from God? It happened. Not even Clark disputes that it happened. Hell, there is a photo showing that it happened. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2003, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-still-supports-wesley-clark/212549/36 "2003-11-12T13:56:54Z")
I am not swayed by the negative opinions of a couple of Clark’s fellow generals, especially the one whose innuendo seems designed to hint at unspeakable things. I continue to have negative impressions about Clark based on the ease of his switcheroos on issues/ideology, and the general (sorry) feeling that never having held elective office is a big negative when it comes to holding the top office of them all. Heroes riding in on horseback make me uneasy. The hangup about how smart he is also comes off as bizarre. JFK and Lyndon Johnson were by all accounts highly intelligent men, and that didn’t stop them from getting us mired in a war that cost far more lives than the Iraq campaign ever will. I know the G.O.P. strategy\* is to wallop whichever Democratic candidate’s head appears, however briefly, to be sticking up above the pack - but seriously the party can do a lot better than Clark. \*or maybe even the Clinton strategy. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2003, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-still-supports-wesley-clark/212549/37 "2003-11-12T14:41:09Z")
Quit changing the bloody subject, **Shodan**. I have not disputed that the meeting between Clark and Mladic occurred. I am questioning your unsubstantiated claim that “[t]he State Department warned Clark not to go to Mladic’s headquarters.” By the way, now would be a good time for you to retract the four enumerated lies I identified and documented above. And of course, I missed a fifth one, which should have been pretty obvious: 1. Clark’s career did not “stall” after the 1994 meeting with Mladic. He served as Director for Strategic Plans and Policy of the Joint Chiefs until 1996. Then he was tapped as commander of the U.S. Southern Command until July 1997, whereupon he became commander-in-chief of NATO. ---
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2003, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-still-supports-wesley-clark/212549/38 "2003-11-12T15:19:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > \*\*The question isn’t whether he is smart. The question is whether or not he has the character to be President. \*\* He’s not a drunk, a coke fiend, or a coward and deserter from military duty. He has far better character than our current president. ---
**Author:** ![minega](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@minega](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minega)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2003, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-still-supports-wesley-clark/212549/39 "2003-11-12T15:43:34Z")
The fact that he favored military action in my country (Rwanda) is enough to give him my vote. Go Wes! ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2003, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-still-supports-wesley-clark/212549/40 "2003-11-12T16:01:27Z")
> [@](#): > > I am questioning your unsubstantiated claim that “[t]he State Department warned Clark not to go to Mladic’s headquarters.” > [@](#): > > The Washington Post reported State Department officials telling Clark not to meet with suspected war criminals (October 26, 1994, and again the next day)… Regards, Shodan [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-still-supports-wesley-clark/212549.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-still-supports-wesley-clark/212549.md?page=3)