It's just me, the infamous FrenchieCat dropping in
and I hope that you are all well.
I don't mean to be showing up on your doorstep uninvited, but I found the conversation here fascinating, and so I thought that I'd chance to respond and attempt to provide some quick answers from a "Clarkie's" point of view.
I know that I'm known for writing Clark "books", but I'll try not to (hey!).
In reading this thread, and reading your comment last JohnKleeb, let me say that I don't think that politics is the only way a person can make a stand in life and let it be known. Politics cannot be the sole measure of a man or woman....even for one who runs for our highest office. I think in the end, it is the person, as much as the issues that tends to win elections.
Clark's early retirement story should have given some a notion of what this self made man stood for. If you don't know that story, then yes, it could be hard to understand that when Wes believes in something, he doesn't hesitate in putting his reputation, his career, and his future on the line. He has done it before, and he will do it again.
Here are some of the ways that he could be judged, regardless of the fact that he has never won an election or voted in the halls for congress:
Wes advocated for intervention in Rwanda, and in fact was one of the few.(see Samantha Power's quote on this in her Pulitzer Award winning book; A problem from Hell).
Wes also advocated for intervention in Kosovo to stop genocide, and then insisted that there should be a plan for low altitude apache helicopter massive bombing and the use of ground troops because he felt that the gradual high altitude bombing would create more casualties than was required. The Clinton Republican Defense Dept. was not interested in minimizing civilian casualties, and Clinton was literally in fear of using Ground troops which could have increased the chance of U.S. Casualties.
The point is that the administration was willing (although somewhat reluctant) to get involved in Kosovo, but once they did, hampered the way that the mission was carried out because they cared more about the politics of it all, then the actual mission. Clark was not given the proper military hardware that he requested, and did the best with what he was granted, which as we know, was damn good.
Wes Clark was retired early because he gained no friends in American politics calling for a war on humanitarian grounds, and then having the audacity to even consider endangering any U.S. Troop for the purpose of saving additional civilian lives. Clark actually made a few enemies at the pentagon (Cohen, Shelton & Ralston), because he called them on their priorities. That's what his first book, Waging Modern Wars details.
In the end, Clark carried out the mission that was given to him, and made everyone around him look good. It is true, to this day, that he understands that the approx 500 civilian deaths that occurred on his watch during the 79 days of bombing didn't all have to die, but he did what he could to minimize that....and he earned early retirement for it.
Read the Unappreciated General
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A51403-2000May1¬Found=trueand "Waiting for the General" (see paragraph 14 for Kosovo/retirement info)
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795Clark also showed what he stood for by vocally supporting Affirmative Action --Did he have to?
http://www.freep.com/voices/columnists/eclark24_20031024.htmHe Testified against the Iraq war before both houses of congress, and even got dismissed from his gig at CNN because he got more political than CNN wanted their generals to be -- But did he have to?
http://www.davidwissing.com/index.php/680http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9522 Further, Wes defended Michael Moore on National TV when it wasn't the "in" thing to do. Was that truly necessary?
http://blogs.salon.com/0002255/2003/09/15.htmlHe went on defend MM's right to call Bush a deserter, although politically, he might have been better not having done it.
and stood for getting rid of the "Don't ask, Don't tell" rule in the military, while getting his photo snapped for the infamous magazine, the Advocate.
http://www.aegis.com/news/wb/2004/WB040109.htmlhttp://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/workschool/p/WesleyClark.htmhttp://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/special/president/issues/index.clark.htmlI could certainly go on, because there are many ways in which Wes Clark has let it be known exactly where he stood on very important issues....although he didn't always have to.
In my opinion, what supporters have for Wes Clark is respect and admiration for the passion that he has demonstrated in doing what's right when he could, regardless of the consequences. Clark has been consistent on this, when one truly reviews his history.
http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2003/030801_mfe_clark_1.htmlSometimes, its hard for supporters of others to really do objective research about someone they don't really support, and that is human and understandable. However, I think that John Kerry, having been our Democratic candidate last year, did get that benefit.
Well I believe that Wes Clark deserves the same benefit.
Hope my "book" wasn't too long, and I am sorry if it was.....
It's just the passion in me. :hi: