General No Principles

Through his entry into the 2004 presidential race on the Democrat side, retired Army General Wesley Clark foiled my plan to refer to the other nine Democrat candidates as the Nazgûl.

I had been putting off talking about nine wraiths Democrat candidates for three reasons: 1) I won’t be voting for any of them, 2) we’re up to our eyeballs in stories and opinions about them in all forms of media, and 3) with the possible exception of Senator Joseph Lieberman, all of them just seemed too ridiculous to waste too much time over.

However, then there were ten. General Clark’s candidacy garnered my interest for one reason: a Democrat general is harder to find than a Republican black chick. So I decided to do a little Internet research on the good general.

The things that came up were frightening. One dominant personal characteristic in General Clark is decidedly un-general like: he’s a whiner.

"The White House actually back in February apparently tried to get me knocked off CNN and they wanted to do this because they were afraid that I would raise issues with their conduct of the war," Clark told Newsradio 620 KTAR. "Apparently they called CNN. I don't have all the proof on this because they didn't call me. I've only heard rumors about it."

CNN had no immediate comment on the general's allegations. White House officials told Fox News that they are "adamant" that they "never tried to get Wesley Clark kicked off the air in any way, shape or form." Beyond that, the White House "won't respond to rumors."

It’s pathetic to see a grown man show his girly tendencies in public. But there’s more:

After Al Qaeda attacked America, retired Gen. Wes Clark thought the Bush administration would invite him to join its team. After all, he’d been NATO commander, he knew how to build military coalitions and the investment firm he now worked for had strong Bush ties. But when GOP friends inquired, they were told: forget it.

WORD WAS THAT Karl Rove, the president’s political mastermind, had blocked the idea. Clark was furious. Last January, at a conference in Switzerland, he happened to chat with two prominent Republicans, Colorado Gov. Bill Owens and Marc Holtzman, now president of the University of Denver. “I would have been a Republican,” Clark told them, “if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls.” Soon thereafter, in fact, Clark quit his day job and began seriously planning to enter the presidential race—as a Democrat. Messaging NEWSWEEK by BlackBerry, Clark late last week insisted the remark was a “humorous tweak.” The two others said it was anything but. “He went into detail about his grievances,” Holtzman said. “Clark wasn’t joking. We were really shocked.”

General Clark picks his political affiliation by the party that kisses his ass the most? Interesting. I suppose that it didn’t occur to him that Bush and company might have had more pressing things to do at the time, like catching enemy combatants, waging one war and planning for another. Currying favor with a narcissistic retired general might have seemed a bit frivolous, considering that we had just been attacked. Maybe it’s just me.

So what if Karl Rove did block the idea of bringing Clark on board? Principle is the operative word here. Of course, expecting most politicians to have principles is foolhardy at best. But General Clark doesn’t even seem to be good at pretending that he has them.

He does seem good at publicly crying about people that don’t like him. This was a general?

Could you imagine how such a man would react to the type of ego-bruising, hysterical criticism that President Bush has had to put up with over the past two and a half years?

I was vaguely aware that the general had been the NATO commander in the nineties and that he had been relieved of his command earlier than is the norm. (For a commander of any rank, being booted out of a position spells career death; if he/she has enough time, he/she is “cordially invited” to retire. However, a four-star general in such a position doesn’t have much to fret over, except his/her ego.)

But I didn’t know the details surrounding the general’s retirement.

After reading this, however, one wonders if a hypothetical President Clark should be allowed near the “doomsday” button.

"I'm not going to start the Third World War for you," the British general was reported to have told General Clark after refusing his orders to send assault troops and helicopters into Pristina airport to block the Russian forces.

The clash, in which the British Government backed General Jackson, and the American Government did not support General Clark, surfaced just days after the Nato commander had been abruptly told in a midnight call that he would be replaced next April.

Trouble between the generals started immediately after the air war had ended and General Jackson had been made commander on the ground in Kosovo. Talks on Russia's role had broken down in Moscow and 200 Russian troops entered Pristina at 1.30am on June 12.

According to Newsweek, General Clark was so anxious
to stop the Russians from stealing a march to Pristina airport that he ordered an airborne assault by British and French troops to take the field. But General Jackson
would not carry out General Clark's orders, not believing that an assault was necessary.

General Clark was not mollified. He asked Admiral James
Ellis, the American in charge of Nato's Southern Command, to order helicopters to land on the runways at Pristina so that Russian Ilyushin transports could not land. This time Admiral Ellis balked, saying General Jackson would not like it. The Ilyushins were in fact blocked by the intervention of American officials who persuaded Hungary to deny overflight rights to the Russians.

This is the best that the Democrat Party has to offer? I can’t even laugh at it. It’s too frightening to consider that democrats may be so numerous that they’d elect this man as the leader of the free world.

Note: The general has a blog! Well, it’s not really his; it’s run by some folks who want General Clark to be the POTUS.

Comments

[Marty]

Juliette!

I just now posted a "he's a whiner" post, too, in my blog! I've been following him since he announced and noticed that he has no principles (well, none beyond What's-In-It-For-Me? Syndrome) and is a big ol' baby.

I do like, however, that he has become a nice hand grenade thrown into the Dem wannabe crowd.

[baldilocks]

Dang you're quick!

Great minds think alike. I'll go check out what you have to say.

[Diane K]

Sgt Stryker(http://www.sgtstryker.com/
has just started a running commentary of Gen. Clark. Perhaps you can find something more over there. Otherwise let me say I think you may certainly be on the right track.

[walter]

"So I decided to do a little Internet research on the good general."

Your post is one of the reasons real journalists don't use the internet as their sole source. A little more research and you could find most of what you bring up has been debunked. But that's not the point, is it? Go ahead, vote for that pathetic "man" currently in the White House. If he wins again, we deserve to lose our Republic and are unworthy of holding on to the fine legacy of the founding fathers.

[baldilocks]

Walter:

A pleasure to see you, as always.

A little more research and you could find most of what you bring up has been debunked. Please enlighten us. Where have the items that I brought up been debunked? Show me the evidence, you've done it before or attempted to at any rate. Though I didn't buy your interpretation of events, I still respected you for presenting your argument.

However, this sort of thing is beneath you: But that's not the point, is it? Go ahead, vote for that pathetic "man" currently in the White House. If he wins again, we deserve to lose our Republic and are unworthy of holding on to the fine legacy of the founding fathers.

Almost hysterical ranting. Not even I do that on my absolute worst days of the month.

[baldilocks]

Oh and one more thing: who here claimed to be a "real journalist?"

I'm just here bitching. Don't like it, go read a "real journalist." Maureen Dowd works for the New York Times, doesn't she? What about Mark Morford? They might be more to your liking, being "real journalists" and all. They have all those "superior sources" at their very finger tips ready to wield them ever justly and always correctly.

Whatever.

[Dean Esmay]

If the info on Clark has been "debunked," I'd certainly like to see it. Although, if it's not on the internet (and therefore easily accessible to people around the world), if it's only in some print source somewhere, why would people be expected to have seen it?

And sine when is MSNBC an unreliable, illegitimate source just because it's on the internet, anyway?

[Another Dave]

Now that we have ten, instead of the "Nine Wraiths" what do we call them now? The Ten Little Idiots? I didn't get the VRWC memo on that one... ;-)

[shell]

I'm with you Dean. Debunkers who don't publish their work online can't expect much exposure.

[Another Dave]

And of course my contact info was wrong... ;(

[boloboffin]

Debunking the Wesley Clark myths:

The most important is the WW3 meme. Are you aware that several days later Clark and Jackson together sent troops to the Pristina Airport, exactly the action that should have started WW3? Nothing happened, which is exactly what would have happened if troops had been sent when Clark ordered it.

http://antidotal.blogspot.com/2003_09_14_antidotal_archive.html#106364517252030920

The whiner thing is your interpretation. Clark's reporting what he heard floating around the newsroom. I don't recall any tears in his eyes or a whiny tone of voice when he said this. Yes, I actually watched him say it. The intent of the remark is that there is no love lost between Clark and this administration.

And finally the Karl Rove joke. People use humor to deflect their genuine anger all the time. Clark saw an opportunity, in the face of 9/11, to use his skills to help his country. And he was turned down flat for political reasons. Bush wasn't interested in building a coalition. He wanted to take down Saddam, and sharing credit would dim his spotlight .

The Republicans are unfit to govern.

The General has reported for duty.

[Breaker]

Your "what if" speculation is not convincing. Clark was part of a botched job and a bad scene with the British.

I followed Clark's decisions in most Kosovo matters with interest at the time. I remember that Clark was clearly a Clinton general. As for the Rove comment - Clark never called Rove.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/152tuawi.asp

Just a bit of Clintonian prevarication. Enough said.

[King of Fools]

So the debunking evidence is an opinion piece...from a liberal blog? Is this supposed to be convincing? I'm very open to looking at evidence which exonerates Mr. Clark - but I'm not seeing any.

Not that this is the biggest issue for Wesley anyways...he has taken more positions in the last week than a weather vane in a hurricane.

[baldilocks]

boloboffin:The whiner thing is your interpretation. I said as much on Dean's blog and gave it context: most military men and women find such behavior abhorrent.

As for your link, it's another blog, as KoF said; yet another interpretation of events. You'll notice that I don't use blogs to attempt to back up a given opinion, for reasons that should be obvious. More in a later post.

[boloboffin]

Yes, my link is to another blog, another interpretation of events. It's the larger number of events that figure into the interpretation that I am calling to your attention.

The events I mention, the actual sending of NATO troops to the Pristina Airport, which was a decision that both Jackson (the WW3 accuser) and Clark (the erstwhile WW3 starter) agreed upon, while open to interpretation, are not deniable by impugning the source of your learning about them. The facts remain that the very action that Jackson accuses Clark of trying to start WW3 with, that action was undertaken by NATO forces and WW3 was somehow averted.

The WW3 statement itself is an interpretation, one proven wrong in light of subsequent events.

Don't want to read Antidotal - fine! Read the sources of his information.

http://www.iht.com/IHT/DIPLO/99/jf061999.html

Like Jane's Defence better?

http://www.janes.com/defence/news/kosovo/jdw990721_01_n.shtml

The second incident came as NATO forces were about to enter Kosovo to establish its peacekeeping operation. Russia managed to steal NATO's thunder by moving several hundred Russian troops, who had been serving as part of the Stabilisation Force (SFOR) in Bosnia into Kosovo, establishing themselves at the main airport in Pristina.

The dash to Pristina seemed a clever ruse, creating a bargaining position out of nothing. But in the end Russia lacked the funds and spare military capacity to follow it up. Within a short time, NATO forces surrounded the airport and took up positions throughout the province, thus smothering the Russians with condescension. KFOR personnel eventually became the Russians' only supplier of water.

Not a lot of WW3 going on there...

[Gina]

From everything I've read about General Clark, I don't think having him in the White House is a very good idea. Of course, I feel that way about the other 9 Demoronic candidates also.

Also, the debunking evidence just doesn't hold up. Looking forward to hearing more!

[baldilocks]

Your invalid assumptions give me a better picture of you, boloboffin. I just got through with Antidotal's opinion, the IHT link and just finished my answering post. However, I will peruse the Janes link you have thoughtfully provided before I post.

[boloboffin]

Good. That which doesn't kill me makes me stronger. I'll freely admit being a neophyte to blogging, and also to being charmed by the sweet baby picture in the corner. I hope I'm not coming off as rude.

[baldilocks]

Hah! My nefarious plan is working! (Charm 'em with the rug-rat me.)

Dissension makes for better reasoning skills. I thank you.

[boloboffin]

PS for Breaker: The first paragraph of the Newsweek article says this: "But when GOP friends inquired, they were told: forget it." IOW, Clark had some feelers out and he was rebuffed. Can he, in a joke, claim those phone calls to be his, since they were made in his behalf? I don't see why not.

Since the White House is so happy to seach phone records for reporters, I wonder if they can look for some records of Rove being on the phone with Bob Novak on or about July 14?

[Gina]

Umm...ok, bolobo (hereaftever bobo)...what are you driving at?

I've visited your site and the sites you provided with your ?links?.

Bobo, do you really THINK?

IMHO, you don't. I feel sorry for you. And I speak as a life-long Democrat.

Now I don't know what I am. But I do know one thing.....

Given the current Demoronic nominees, I'm going Bush.

[Lana]

I don't know much about Clark so far because it appears even he hasn't been able to "find himself". For heaven's sake, if he doesn't know what he thinks day to day how on earth are we supposed to figure it out??

I did read this opinion article by Ralph Peters who actually served with the man. I think that would carry some weight. Just add it to the mix and bake at 350 for 10 minutes.

[boloboffin]

Gina, you have a great talent for ad hominem attacks.

Lana: I see your opinion piece and raise youone from David Hackworth. Hack never served with Clark, but he did take a few swipes at him during Kosovo, and now admits that he was wrong about that.

Do I see that Ralph Peter's book on the Iraq conflict is hitting the bookstores about the same time as Clark's book on the Iraq conflict? How about that...

badlilocks: I'm sorry I brought another opinion piece onto your site. I was provoked.

[Breaker]

boloboffin: What I remember most about General Clark is his CNN commentary on the War in Iraq. He was wrong almost all the time and he took political swipes at President Bush, Secretary Rumsfeld and General Franks - at a time he was presented by CNN as a neutral but informed observer of events and at a time that we were in a hot shooting war. (We are still at war - it's just not as hot.) For me, that is enough to cement my opinion of General Clark as a wrongheaded Democratic Party shill - well now he is has come out of the closet. If you liked Clinton and Albright, then you will like Clark and you and I will never agree. I do not like Clinton or Albright either personnally or professionally and I do not like Clark. The ethics and policies of all three stink. It's not for me to extend baldilock's comments further with detailed back up.

[walter]

Not hysteria, just the truth.

Didn't you mean a "real journalist" like Safire or George Will?

[baldilocks]

Walter: Yes.

[John Dunshee]

I'm a retired Army sergeant, I never served under Clark, but what I have heard from his former superiors and subordinates certainly paint him as an egotistical, micro-manager who will screw over anyone he needs to in order to advance himself.

Unfortunately this is not entirely uncommon in the officer ranks. There is an term for officers like Clark around the better mannered part of the Army. They are Courtney Massengales, named for the slick general in the novel "Once an Eagle". It is not a flattering reference.