Is Gen. Wesley Clark a liar, a murderer, and an opportunist?

[Composed Thinker]

That seems to be the impression of some on this board. Why?

[Pepperbelly]

1. Some people have few scruples in attacking those ...

who, for some reason, they don't like. Some of the stuff upon which they rely is laughably flimsy, similar to gop stuff about BC. Very thin gruel and actually, in my view, slanderous.

[Composed Thinker]

7. Can you explain, in detail, this whole mess?

This might seem like too big of a favor, but can you explain the whole mess people are talking about with the Russians, British, and Clark with Kosovo? In detail, too, if you can.

[Pepperbelly]

11. i'll do the best I can ...

As the war in Kosvo wound down and Milo conceded what he was required to concede, the Russians, who had been brokering the deal, decided to dispatch a contingent of 200 troops to the Pristina airport. When Clark got wind of it, because NATO feared that the Russian scheme would be to sector the area into a Serbian north and an Albanian south and create even more problems, ordered Jackson to dispatch 500 troops to the airport to secure it before the Russians arrived.

So it was to be a race. Sounds like a movie. Except, Jackson and Clark had been arguing bitterly throughout. They argued again. Jackson didn't want to go to the airport for whatever reasons and made the remark about WWIII in the heat of their argument.

The Russians got there first and Clark had to fix it by getting countries between Russia and Yugoslavia to forbid Russia from using their air space to transport additional troops. Thus, NATO ended up controlling the entire K-9 force including what Russians were finally included.

[Composed Thinker]

14. Thanks

[ShaneGR]

2. Some are anti-war, no matter what

Seriously, they just won't accept any kind of war, regardless of the reason or the end-game. For example, I was in favor of Gulf War 1, Kosovo, and Afghanistan but vehemently opposed to Iraq for obvious reasons. I thought Gulf War 1 and Kosovo went well and especially with Kosovo, despite some problems, ended up very well with zero US casualties and a Serbia free from Milosevic.

Some here would throw around comments like murderer about me.

[Stephanie]

3. Your thread titles belong on the FR.

What's the deal?

[Composed Thinker]

6. Not at all.

FR scares me to no end. I figured that if I came out with an eye-catching title, more people would respond. That's all.

[maxsolomon]

4. that won't disqualify him from the presidency

<half-hearted chuckle>

[Wonk]

5. Got a link or two?

on edit: answered my own question.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=109812&mesg_id=109861&page=

Why didn't you just reply in that other thread instead of starting this one?

[imhotep]

8. because its the truth

I know from personal experience in the military.

[Composed Thinker]

10. Go on

[imhotep]

12. I would

but it wont change anyone's opinion.
"Anyone but Bush" is great within the clique of extreme partisans, but in the real world it is a disaster of a strategy.

[Composed Thinker]

13. Which candidate do you like?

[robbedvoter]

17. See his previous post: bush, obviously.

[WilliamPitt]

28. You would

but you can't. As usual.

[robbedvoter]

9. Dems are attacked from left and right - Rove's orders

Anyone with a decent shot at unseating the Chimp will be attacked everywhere.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. Rove's Antecedents

came up with shit like the Reichstag Fire.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

16. Democrats on National Security

There is a perception among the base of the Democratic Party that National Defense/Security is a bad thing and is irrelavent. I have a problem with this mentality and that is that it is important to defend your country. This issue does not belong to the Republican Party. The Democrats should take Bush on this issue because he has FAILED us!!! He has done nothing about Saudi Arabia and he has let the Taliban retake Afganistan!!!

Wesley Clark and Bob Graham have demonstrated a great alternative to Bushco!

It's about time the Democrats stop acting like this and take security issues seriously!!!
As an opponent of the Iraq War I must say that unfortunatly, sometimes we need war. War should be the last resort however. If we are attacked we must fight to protect ourselves. I do have a problem with "pre-empitve" military action.

[Pepperbelly]

21. very true ...

Bush is totally incompetent in this area just as he is in all areas. This issue should certainly not be ceded to these bastards and remember this: in 1960, JFK took national security right the hell away from Nixon with the "Missile Gap" which was imaginary.

[Composed Thinker]

23. Wesley Clark in particular

He'd be able to hammer home a message that nobody else could, even decorated veterans like Sen. Kerry.

[saoirse]

18. Answer: No, no, and no

He's an extremely intelligent man who superbly led NATO's first major war. The "World War III" flap is pure nonsense, the same sort of thing the neo-con artists said (and still say!) about Clinton. General Clark is also a target of some Serbian expatriates who hate him because he so effectively stopped the Serbian orgy of rape, ethnic cleansing, and territorial aggression. And did so with no, or very few, Allied casualties.

I guess there are some that think that anyone who engages in war is a murderer, and they are of course entitled to their opinion. That said, we wouldn't be a country at all if we hadn't waged war against the British crown. So if you call General Clark a murderer, I guess you have to say the same thing about Washington, Lincoln, and so forth. I'm sure General Clark would have no problem being in that sort of company.

I have no idea where the liar accusation comes from. Anyone who makes that claim better have some evidence to back it up - otherwise their claims can be dismissed as nothing more than slander.

Is General Clark an opportunist? Couldn't the same charge be made against anyone who runs for office? I don't think anything about General Clark suggests he's an opportunist - quite the contrary. This is a man who was shot three or four times in Vietnam, fighting a war most Americans opposed. He did this while many of the chickenhawks in the current misadministration did whatever they could to avoid going to Vietnam.

I believe General Clark sees this country being destroyed by greed and corruption, and wants to help put a stop to it. Running for president is one way he may be able to do this. If that makes him an opportunist, then I wish we had millions more like him.

[Composed Thinker]

24. Very well said

And like I said, I was just trying to clarify a few things, not prove anything. You seem to be pretty knowledgeable about stuff, so I thank you.

[WoodrowFan]

35. Standing O

Hear Hear!! (Pumps arm and makes that whoop whoop noise)

[dfong63]

19. a better question is,

is he a democrat?

[Composed Thinker]

25. The answer seems to be yes

[Democat]

20. Some on the left hate all military, they will hate Clark

There is nothing we can do to make the extremists happy short of disbanding the military. It is not going to happen.

[Composed Thinker]

27. But are they enough to kill the Democrats with Clark on the ticket?

[Pastiche423]

29. Kill the Democrats?

What does that mean? No one wants to kill Democrats. I'm supporting the best Democrat!

Btw, he let on that he was a Democrat decades ago.

[Composed Thinker]

30. I meant, would Clark's inclusion on the ticket kill the Dems' chances?

[Pastiche423]

31. No

It probably wouldn't faze them.

[Composed Thinker]

32. I guess the first step is having him run

[molly]

36. Are these people pro-gun?

I haven't been able to determine that.

[CookieD]

22. I thought he was a Rhodes Scholar.

:o

[Composed Thinker]

26. He is

He was also knighted.

[newyawker99]

33. Hi CookieDemocrat!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

34. Like

Sir Paul McCartney

I like him even more