No, I think Franks was a wonderful commander. He performed superbly in both Afganistan and Iraq. As a matter of fact, I don't believe there is a single post on this board vilifying Franks and his role in Iraq.

Probably my only beef with him is when replying to the President (sic) after being asked what he thought about Rumsfeld's war plans, he said (paraphrased), "Sir, I think what my Secretary of Defense thinks. What he thought yesterday, and anything he'll think in the future."

My opposition to war is when it's done unilaterally against the better judgement of the global populace. When I'm lied to in order to support the justification for war. When it's used as an offensive invasion in the name of colonization rather than the defense of this nation.

Sacrificing American lives for a misguided ideologue is criminal.

Clinton's General

By Jed Babbin
Published 9/16/2003 12:04:00 AM


Is a Howard Dean-Wesley Clark ticket the Dem dream team for '04? The two have met, and Dean has publicly asked Clark to join the race, if not yet his ticket. Clark is about to announce that he will run for president, and an alliance with Dean seems illogical. Why would a four-star general who is banking on his military record want to link up with a man like Dean who has the needle pegged on the whackometer? All you need to know is that Clark -- whatever else he may be -- is a member of Team Clinton.

It's redundant to say more to prove Howard Dean's unfitness for the presidency than he has already said himself. His vitriolic attacks on President Bush are not just McGovernism, they are Michael Mooreism. In a recent Dem gabfest, he said that we shouldn't take sides in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. He sticks to the line that the Iraq campaign has made us less secure, not more, and was a diversion from the war against terrorism. He would beg the U.N. for 50,000 foreign troops to join ours in Iraq. If we elect Dean, we might as well hand the keys to the Oval Office to Kofi Annan and eliminate the middle man. Maybe they would start renting out the Lincoln Bedroom again.

Dean is too shrewd a pol to think that he could win in '04 with "hate Bush" as his only claim to office. That's why he is pushing the former NATO commander to run for president. In Dean's mind, Clark would be a perfect balance to him as a #2 on the Dean ticket. But Dean should know where the General's loyalties lie, and they're not with him. Clark is, above all else, a member in good standing of Team Clinton. Which means Dean is toast if Clark can have any say in it. And he will.

For months, Clark has been teasing the media about his possible candidacy, but hasn't gotten past that Dan Quayle-like deer in the headlights look he gets every time he's asked an unexpected question. We know he's for "reproductive rights," against private ownership of assault weapons, and was strongly against the Iraq campaign. There is precious little else we know about the man. Because he may announce his candidacy as soon as tomorrow, it's time to learn more.

When I mentioned to a few sources that I was interested in Clark, I began receiving what soon became a flood of e-mails all of which said that Clark was a faux-soldier, a pretty face, the General from Central Casting, and not too smart. The other common theme was that as a commander, he knew little about how to fight, and had to be bailed out of bad decisions almost every day. Some of that is true. Most of it is not.

People who know him assure me Clark is brilliant, and his personal courage is unquestionable. Another Rhodes Scholar from Arkansas, Clark was first in his 1966 class at West Point. He won a Silver Star in Vietnam, which is only a couple of steps down from the Medal of Honor. He's an intense man with a tremendous work ethic. One senior Air Force officer guessed that Clark must have not gotten more than four or five hours of sleep during the Kosovo campaign. That's the good Clark.

The other Clark is the Friend of Bill, a man with a Jimmy Carter-like personality. Clark is a micro-manager of the worst sort. He distrusts his subordinates and injects himself into little decisions so much that he loses track of the big picture. He trusts his superiors even less. That's what got him fired from NATO.

Ever since Clark and Lil' Billy got together (which apparently happened in 1968, in their overlapping months at Oxford) Clark has been a FOB. Years later, when the army had made Clark a two-star, it had no future plans for him. But the Clintons did, and put him in line for three- and four-star jobs, culminating in the NATO command.

Clark and his wife are good friends with the Clintons, but that didn't save him from being fired from the SACEUR -- Supreme Allied Commander, Europe job. Clark was fired not by the Clintons, but by then Defense Secretary Bill Cohen. Clark got cross-wise with Cohen for routinely going to Clinton around both Cohen and then-Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Hugh Shelton. He did this all the time both indirectly -- through his pal Madeleine the Short -- and directly on the phone and in person with Clinton. Clark was such a publicity hound, that Cohen once ordered a subordinate, "Tell Clark to get his f#$%^&g face off television." Cohen, no small ego himself, thought Clark was hogging the camera.

Clark was fired because of his overweening ego and because he -- like so many others -- misjudged Clinton. He might have thought he could get away with what he was doing going around Cohen and Shelton, that Lil' Billy would protect him. So Clark was fired and to no one's surprise (except perhaps Clark's) Clinton didn't protect him. Now, the Clintons are using Clark again.

Clark wants the presidential nomination and the Clinton team -- who never act without clear orders from Billy and Hilly -- are lining up to get it for him, or at least use him to deny it to Dean. According to U.S. News & World Report's "Washington Whispers" by Paul Bedard, "Many of Clark's team in waiting are Clintonistas, like the former president's handyman Bruce Lindsey, scandal spokesman Mark Fabiani, and maybe even ex-Deputy Chief of Staff Harold Ickes, who's close to New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton." With a team like that behind him, Clark isn't aiming to play second banana. (Unless Hillary runs in '04, which is pretty unlikely. A Clinton-Clark ticket? I wonder how many ashtrays the general has had tossed at his head?)

As I said a couple of weeks ago, the Clintons are fighting against the Dean candidacy because they recognize that if Dean is nominated -- and goes down like McGovern did -- it will take a decade or more for America to again take the Dems seriously. That would mean Hillary would never make it back to Pennsylvania Avenue. Clark's job is to keep the Dems from following Dean off the McGovernik cliff. But how will he do that, given his positions?

Clark isn't clear on that many issues, and he may yet cleave to the center. But Clark is pro-abortion, against the Bush tax cuts, and opposed to the expansion of law enforcement powers in the "PATRIOT Act." Clark opposed the Iraq campaign, and has said again and again that the Iraq campaign was an "elective" war and that "we went into Iraq under false pretenses." He thinks we now have to "establish legitimacy" by getting the U.N.'s full endorsement (which means turning Iraq over to Kofi, Dominique, and the rest of the U.N. clown show). No wonder he gets along so well with Madeleine.

Clarks' solution to the war on terrorism is pure Clintonism. About a month after 9-11, Clark gave a speech in which he said, "Our best protection is not going to build a wall around America. It's not going to be to create a missile-defense impenetrable shield. It's going to be, instead, to create a community of common values and shared responsibilities and shared interests in which nations and people get along. That really is ultimately the only protection." Or he can lead the world in a chorus of "Kumbaya."

Clark will leap over the sure-losers among the Dem candidates by sundown on the day he announces. According to a CNN poll, he would be #5 of ten immediately. He'd be ahead of the Breck Girl, Al, Carol (even with her NOW endorsement) and Dennis the Menace but behind Kerry, Lieberman, Gephardt and Dean. Still, I don't see how it's possible for a military man who isn't a proven die-hard leftie to get the Fonda-McGovern party's nomination.

Clark won't want to run as anyone's Number Two Boy, far less any likely loser such as Dean. But that's the catch. After gaining credibility in a primary run, Clark would be established as a national political figure in a way he will never be otherwise. Simply to keep his prominence, he might take a #2 slot at the Demo convention, especially if they make a big publicity splash drafting him. And if he is someone's #2, and they lose, it leaves him in competition with Miz Hillary in '08.

Which is the point the Clintons lose control over Clark. He is enough of his own man to want the prize, and not settle twice for second place. What Clark doesn't realize that he won't -- ever -- become such a luminary that the Hollywoodenhead fundraising stars and the others the Dems rely on will defect from Hillary to him. Forget it, general. They'll use you and suck air out of your bubble whenever it pleases them. Sooner or later -- and I bet sooner -- Clark will join the rest of those who have been used and discarded by the Clintons.

SQ,

Other than a NFR post, why would you even want to drag me into this? If the post does not interest you, simply move on. It is that easy. Kinda like watching TV- change the channel!

The integrity of the board is just fine..

Since you asked.... I'll do whatever it takes to make sure you, I and future sportspersons have a spot to fish and fish to catch! I do not plan on taking up knitting any time soon!
However, I'll decide what is best... I don't need to be influenced.

**** oh dear. Actually a board like this is to get away from the BS of every day living. I understand the ignore the post idea, but can't this kind of stuff go to boards that give a ****? Someone always needs to go off

Actually golfer this is good humor to some of us. Kinda like our own reality gig.

Grandpa- whats wrong with cheaper beer?

Do tell us about GW's distinguished military career, grandpa. Tell us about his credentials.

glowball, there is definetly better head than steelhead. You have a credibilty issue...

I thin NFR's are perfectly fine in this forum, as talking about fishing ONLY can get dull at times.
Discussions such as these allow everyone in this community a chance to air their thoughts, as it should be. I personally could care less about political forums or the like, and have never even looked one up.

So everyone just deal with it, smile and be happy that you found this forum in the first place. I know you have gained from it one way or another.
Does an NFR here and there really spoil the overall quality of the content here....really?

Message deleted. Decided it was inappropriate.

Ok this is a fishing board so I will bite this time...

Most of the time I don’t do this but… this one seems pretty easy… Clark for President in 2004?

** So let’s ask who is asking and indorsing him to run?

“… Clark, 58, has aggressively recruited staff in the last week. His earliest allies would be from former President Clinton's Arkansas-based political network, including former White House aide Bruce Lindsey, though not all will have formal campaign roles. …” http://newslink.nandomedia.com/NandoTimes/politics/election/president/story/999393p-7018269c.html

** But wasn’t it the same people that fired him for his constant disrespect and lack of following orders?

“… So, NATO continued with a limp air campaign that was inadequate to stopping Milosevic's ethnic-cleansing campaign, that appalled other members of the military brass who thought Clark had helped drag the U.S. into a near-fiasco, and that led to such ill-feeling toward Clark in the Pentagon that he was fired at war's end, launching his career as a TV pundit. …” http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry082603.asp

** And why would the Clinton’s (and staff) support the Clark to run in 2004?

“Wesley Clark: The new Howard Dean?
The former Vermont governor is the front-runner, but some Democratic insiders wonder if the retired general has a better chance of beating Bush. …” http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/09/17/clark/index_np.html

NOTE: It say a “better chance” not that he can or will beat Bush

** Hillary will not run in 2004 – Statement.

“…Hillary and Bill Clinton, responding to growing speculation, advised a longtime Iowa supporter this week that under no conditions would the senator run for president in 2004. …” http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak14.html

So here is how I see it…

This is a perfect example of the “faint to draw in move”! So the Ms. Clinton says there is no way that she will run in 2004 and then several days later they and their staff support and endorse a man they had fired several years ago. Then the Democrats say that maybe Clark has a better chance than Dean. Hmmm

So, in this election year with all the fighting and name calling and splitting of the party that will happen and the Democrats will be lost fainting back… and then POW in comes the upper cut! The Party will need a strong willed, seasoned, charismatic candidate as a Savior to save the day, the Party and Nation in 2008! So who could that be??? Senator Hillary Clinton…

Seems like a well thought out plan? But that is just my simple view…

Now it is time for a beer and a light hearted sitcom...

Nothing wrong with cheaper beer...Since I stopped drinking it the price has climbed a bit ...

Dan and harley...How did we leap from Wesley Clarke's military background to making fun of George Bush again? My point was that you and others with similar views seem to trash the military and war when it is convenient and share the opposite view when it is convenient. Wesley Clarke was in charge of much the same killing during the Clinton war in Bosnia and Kosovo as that which you condemn so nobly in the Iraq war. Are you boys being transparently partisan? Or just plain foolish?

I often wonder if these heated arguements do not intimidate potential contributers i.e members.There are alot of people out there new to the amount of information that is avalable here on some of these boards.They have not had the chance to see what you all think about fishing line or god forbid the old hook argument.The simple things we take for granted.hell they have not even figured out wht a z-lip is and that can be a fun lesson!

I know this was the first bb that I ever participated on and was very timid at first.[Bleeeeep!] back then it was gooose fish jesus and auntyM that would put you in your place if you got out of line Remember those days Erik

Anyways I wonder if these off topic brow beatings should not be kept in a seperate boxing ring where a new poster can choose to go the [Bleeeeep!] beat out of him after he has cut his teeth asking what some of you consider stupid questions.

I just remember first finding this bb and how exited I was to be able to interact with people that love to fish as much as me.I remember being afraid of looking stupid or pissing somebody off.I don't think that with the present climate I would of joined.I am not saying that these arguements are good or bad,just not what people are looking for when they come looking.

Rhodes scholar, top in his class, four star general and former NATO commander. On paper he is porbably the most intelligent presidential candidate we've ever had.
Kosovo is not comparable to Iraq. At Kosovo we had the worlds blessing.
As far as his position on fishing....I doubt it's a high priority unlike the current administration which has a top priority of environmental regulation roll back and exempting entire industries from environmental law and whom wants to de-list salmon from ESA based upon a couple years of good returns.

no UN resolution in Kosovo...rewriting history a bit there Stlhead? Lots of civilian casualties too....oooooo

NATO-led war in Kosovo. Memory failing you grandpa?

You go right ahead and find where I have EVER bashed the military............ever.

I'll bash Bush again because he is so bashable. His so-called military service is a disgrace.

Downriggin,

You totally misunderstood my post. I guess it was poorly written.

1) I was admitting to participating in a NFR topic (where to go...)

2) Aunty M was saying that this topic about the pres candidate was FR cuz politicians influence our rights. Responding to that, I said, "OK then, what is his stand?". It had nothing to do with you.

Are we OK now?

I agree with you in reference to my post on Bush. I removed the post because I realized it was inappropriate and lowered myself to the level of those that mention Clinton everytime Bush's policy is questioned. I was tired and used poor judgement.

One thing you will never see me do is speak ill of the military. Why bite the hand that feeds me?

A soldier does what he/she is told, they follow orders - be them right or wrong. It's the administration giving those orders that I take extreme issue with.

I'm not opposed to the Afgan war; there's a rational reason for being there. I'm opposed to the Iraqi war and the people that put us there.

DanS please tell me about your demo Clintons military career because all that comes to mind is
AWAL

One one account, I have to agree with Slabquest...

..these threads do often deteriorate into something other than what they were intended for....

My intent was to discuss/bash a new candidate, not drag the same old names through the mud again.

General Clark would, at the very least, add some military credibility to what is always a weak point for the Dems.

Not only that, but his bent for a strong, fully maned and ready military is more in line with my own personal feelings on the subject, one place where I have typically deviated from the 'party line'...