SF: Wes Clark still thinking about running

C

Cypress

Well-known member
SF,

I heard General Clark on Air America yesterday. He hasn't ruled out running for prez. Hes' thinking about it.

Personally, I think he's sitting on his ass too long. It's too late to get in, unless the fundamental dynamics of the race change.
 
It is still pretty early, anything could happen. A total unknown or unexpected could win the whole tamale.
 
I certainly hope he does. I do not think it is too late at this point. There isn't a candidate who has distinguished his/herself to the point of drawing broad support that could carry over to the general election. He could enter in October and still have plenty of time. It may actually be a good strategy as at that point he would be fresh... while the others will have taken hatchets to each other by then.

I still think you are correct though in that he won't enter the race with Hitlary in there... but I hope I am wrong. If he runs he would have my vote. Or, if he doesn't run as a Dem.... Perhaps a Bloomberg/Clark independent ticket... hmmm...
 
Superfreak said:
I certainly hope he does.
I still think you are correct though in that he won't enter the race with Hitlary in there... but I hope I am wrong. If he runs he would have my vote. Or, if he doesn't run as a Dem.... Perhaps a Bloomberg/Clark independent ticket... hmmm...
Click to expand...

That sounds really interesting. As I said before, I've always admired and respected Wes Clark. I hope he does, too.
 
Sure he would...

Superfreak said:
I think he would be a very effective leader, especially in this very polarized time.
Click to expand...


He could appoint Madeline Halfbright as Sercreatry of State again...'Back to the USSR' opp's I mean 'Back to the UNNN'! Where are the Beattles when ya need em'
 
Last edited:
Wesley Clark .. please go away.

He hasn't stepped out or distinguished himself since his last ill-fated run when he at least had some chance.

On Iraq he has switched back and forth between an antiwar stance to celebrating the U.S. "victory" and praising Bush and Blair.

On Saddam and WMD, Clark said, "The credibility of the United States is on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with us.... The U.N. has got to come in and belly up to the bar on this. But the president of the United States has put his credibility on the line, too. And so this is the time that these nations around the world, and the United Nations, are going to have to look at this evidence and decide who they line up with."

WHAT?

He also said the Saddam has WMD "Absolutely" and "those weapons will be found."

After the fall of Baghdad, Clark said, "Liberation is at hand. Liberation-- the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions."

WHAT?

Clark predicted that after the war, "Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western standards of human rights." George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair "should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt." "Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced." "Let's have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue."

WHAT? WHAT? WHAT?

He also had this to say, "The campaign in Iraq illustrates the continuing progress of military technology and tactics, but if there is a single overriding lesson it must be this: American military power, especially when buttressed by Britain's, is virtually unchallengeable today. Take us on? Don't try! And that's not hubris, it's just plain fact."

WHAT?

This is a man who talks glowingly of "great military victories" and who seems to think someone is calling his name whenever there's a presidential election.

Perhaps someone can explain WHY America needs Wesley Clark because I connot think of a single reason why we should elect a prowar/antiwar general who didn't have the intelligence to see through the fraud of Iraq.
 
blackascoal said:
Wesley Clark .. please go away.

He hasn't stepped out or distinguished himself since his last ill-fated run when he at least had some chance.

On Iraq he has switched back and forth between an antiwar stance to celebrating the U.S. "victory" and praising Bush and Blair.

On Saddam and WMD, Clark said, "The credibility of the United States is on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with us.... The U.N. has got to come in and belly up to the bar on this. But the president of the United States has put his credibility on the line, too. And so this is the time that these nations around the world, and the United Nations, are going to have to look at this evidence and decide who they line up with."

WHAT?

He also said the Saddam has WMD "Absolutely" and "those weapons will be found."

After the fall of Baghdad, Clark said, "Liberation is at hand. Liberation-- the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions."

WHAT?

Clark predicted that after the war, "Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western standards of human rights." George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair "should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt." "Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced." "Let's have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue."

WHAT? WHAT? WHAT?

He also had this to say, "The campaign in Iraq illustrates the continuing progress of military technology and tactics, but if there is a single overriding lesson it must be this: American military power, especially when buttressed by Britain's, is virtually unchallengeable today. Take us on? Don't try! And that's not hubris, it's just plain fact."

WHAT?

This is a man who talks glowingly of "great military victories" and who seems to think someone is calling his name whenever there's a presidential election.

Perhaps someone can explain WHY America needs Wesley Clark because I connot think of a single reason why we should elect a prowar/antiwar general who didn't have the intelligence to see through the fraud of Iraq.
Click to expand...

Out of the choices we have, who are you leaning towards in the primaries, if anyone?
 
Clark was assigned a position in the 1st Infantry Division and flew to Vietnam on May 21, 1969 during the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. He worked as a staff officer, collecting data and helping in operations planning, and was awarded the Bronze Star for his work with the staff. Clark was then given command of A Company, 1st Battalion, 16th Infantry of the 1st Infantry Division in January 1970. In February, only one month into his command, he was shot four times by a Viet Cong soldier with an AK-47. The wounded Clark shouted orders to his men, who counterattacked and defeated the Viet Cong force. Clark had injuries to his right shoulder, right hand, right hip, and right leg, and was sent to Valley Forge Army Hospital in Phoenixville, Pennsylvania to recuperate. He was awarded the Silver Star for his actions during the encounter
 
blackascoal said:
Wesley Clark .. please go away.

He hasn't stepped out or distinguished himself since his last ill-fated run when he at least had some chance.

On Iraq he has switched back and forth between an antiwar stance to celebrating the U.S. "victory" and praising Bush and Blair.

On Saddam and WMD, Clark said, "The credibility of the United States is on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with us.... The U.N. has got to come in and belly up to the bar on this. But the president of the United States has put his credibility on the line, too. And so this is the time that these nations around the world, and the United Nations, are going to have to look at this evidence and decide who they line up with."

WHAT?

He also said the Saddam has WMD "Absolutely" and "those weapons will be found."

After the fall of Baghdad, Clark said, "Liberation is at hand. Liberation-- the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions."

WHAT?

Clark predicted that after the war, "Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western standards of human rights." George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair "should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt." "Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced." "Let's have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue."

WHAT? WHAT? WHAT?

He also had this to say, "The campaign in Iraq illustrates the continuing progress of military technology and tactics, but if there is a single overriding lesson it must be this: American military power, especially when buttressed by Britain's, is virtually unchallengeable today. Take us on? Don't try! And that's not hubris, it's just plain fact."

WHAT?

This is a man who talks glowingly of "great military victories" and who seems to think someone is calling his name whenever there's a presidential election.

Perhaps someone can explain WHY America needs Wesley Clark because I connot think of a single reason why we should elect a prowar/antiwar general who didn't have the intelligence to see through the fraud of Iraq.
Click to expand...


First, Wes Clark recognized this war was a mistake, before John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson, or Joe Biden.

Compared to the 2004 Dem presidential candidates, he was way ahead of all of them, except Howard Dean...and, I guess Al Sharpton.

Second, with all due respect, I'm suspicious of the quotes you provide. For example, you posted the sentence:

"Liberation is at hand. Liberation — the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. "

So I checked google. This one sentence, is taken completely out of context, the way you posted it.

In the full article that contains that quote, Wes Clark warns that this "ain't over yet". Celebrating "victory" could be premature, and he goes on to say that America's image lies in tatters because of this war. Taken as a whole, this piece Clark wrote, was a cautionary tale against celebrating premature victory, and for bemoaning the loss of american prestige and moral authority as a result of the war:


WES CLARK: "Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled. Liberation is at hand. Liberation — the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. Already the scent of victory is in the air."

Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph.

In the first place, the final military success needs to be assured. Whatever caused the sudden collapse in Iraq, there are still reports of resistance in Baghdad. The regime’s last defenders may fade away, but likely not without a fight. And to the north, the cities of Tikrit, Kirkuk and Mosul are still occupied by forces that once were loyal to the regime. It may take some armed persuasion for them to lay down their arms. And finally, the Baath party and other security services remain to be identified and disarmed.

snip

As for the diplomacy, the best that can be said is that strong convictions often carry a high price. Despite the virtually tireless energy of their Foreign Offices, Britain and the US have probably never been so isolated in recent times. Diplomacy got us into this campaign but didn’t pull together the kind of unity of purpose that marked the first Gulf War. Relationships, institutions and issues have virtually all been mortgaged to success in changing the regime in Baghdad. And in the Islamic world the war has been seen in a far different light than in the US and Britain. Much of the world saw this as a war of aggression. They were stunned by the implacable determination to use force, as well as by the sudden and lopsided outcome.

Is this victory? Certainly the soldiers and generals can claim success. And surely, for the Iraqis there is a new-found sense of freedom. But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven’t yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm
Click to expand...


He's rightly proud of the performance of the men and women of the military who went in and took bagdad. Why not be proud of them? Clark is a career military man, who's known as a great advocate for the enlisted personal. But, this piece war far more prescient, and cautionary than the way you presented. And since this is a piece from April 10, 2003, it actually makes Clark look remarkably prescient - in comparison to many others. Recall most Americans were high fiving each other, and taking a victory lap in early April 2003.


Since this one quote was presented completely out of context, it makes me suspicious of the other quotes you provide.

And I mean that respectfully. I'm sure you just pulled the quotes off some website, that didn't provide the whole speech or context.
 
Last edited:
Yes this all happened...

Desh said:
Clark was assigned a position in the 1st Infantry Division and flew to Vietnam on May 21, 1969 during the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. He worked as a staff officer, collecting data and helping in operations planning, and was awarded the Bronze Star for his work with the staff. Clark was then given command of A Company, 1st Battalion, 16th Infantry of the 1st Infantry Division in January 1970. In February, only one month into his command, he was shot four times by a Viet Cong soldier with an AK-47. The wounded Clark shouted orders to his men, who counterattacked and defeated the Viet Cong force. Clark had injuries to his right shoulder, right hand, right hip, and right leg, and was sent to Valley Forge Army Hospital in Phoenixville, Pennsylvania to recuperate. He was awarded the Silver Star for his actions during the encounter
Click to expand...

He was a decent Lt...but alas he became a lousy General...he became a career soldier and caved into the 'political agenda'...not too uncommon! His handleing of the Bosnia crisis was deplorable...using UN/Nato markings on US aircraft to do Madeline Halfbrights bidding was a very bad decision...imho!
 
The mission seemed to work out pretty well to me?

Tell me how any of this compromised the mission?
 
He/We...

Desh said:
The mission seemed to work out pretty well to me?

Tell me how any of this compromised the mission?
Click to expand...



took out the wrong enemy...Islam is now flurishing in the Region once again as in the past 'Ottoman Empire'...God I truly wish people studied and understood History..it seems to have taken the back seat in schools and college nowdays...we are doomed to repeat history since we fail to study it...end of story!
 
Hey fool explain how he took out the wrong enemy?

He took out a brutal dictator.

BTW he did what he was ordered to do , he didnt make the foreign policy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top