Clarks Entry Frightens GOP - Cynthia Tucker

[RichV]

Nice piece today:


http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/tucker/index.html

What happens to President Bush's pseudo-machismo now that a real general has entered the race?

For months now, the prospect of running against Gen. Wesley Clark has been gnawing at GOP strategists, haunting their otherwise pleasant reveries about a bulldozer re-election campaign. They know it took a marketing genius like Karl Rove to sell President Bush as a commanding military leader. Without Rove's Madison Avenue strategy (and the cooperation of a fawning press), Bush, who neglected his duty when he was in the National Guard, would be less Top Gun and more Stop! Run!

<snip>

[mddemo]

1. clark for president

Once again from my earlier post, this guy scares me sh&tless.

This is one guy i will never vote for, I was in the British army contingent that this lunatic ordered to attack the russians at Pristina Airport. If it hadnt of been for General Sir Michael Jackson (a great commander and soldier, who told clark that he wasnt about to start WW3 for him) refusing the order my company would of been the one who started WW3. The Russians now admit they had thousands of airborne troops ready to go to support the unit at the airport, this thing would of escalated beyond belief very quickly. Clark for President no way.

New US citizen, voter and democrat.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[liberalhistorian]

12. I believe he is being honest.

If I'm proven wrong, I'll gladly admit it, but I have heard this before about Clark in both USA Today and my own paper, the Plain Dealer (in Cleveland). I think it's something that needs to be faced and to be looked into, because if it's true, the wingnuts could really crucify him for it.

[Snoopy2]

3. The same General Michael Jackson

who was second in command during bloody sunday in Ireland? The same general who his troops have called him "Darth Vader" and the "Prince of Darkness"???

[mddemo]

5. general jackson

lol i hate to break your bubble but both of those are terms of endearment. Look at all the Great British generals, they all had names as such, the reason hes called the prince of darkness is because of his looks, hes not a handsome man, but rather like dracula, and the vader reference is his low rasping voice, that freezes you to the spot when you displease him. But all in all hes a soldiers soldier, and ive yet to meet anybody who served under him who wouldnt again. nemo me impune laccessit.

[RichV]

6. Hey Skywalker

Sit vis vobiscum.

[mddemo]

7. skywalker

now youve lost me mate, the nemo me impune laccessit, is the motto of the Scottish Division, thats the extent of my latin, :)

[Kahuna]

8. Yeah right.

:eyes:

[mddemo]

9. right

yup thats exactly right, whether you like Sir Jackson or not, his orders stopped our force from confronting the Russians. As ive said before our orders were to robustly occupy the airport and robustly defend ourselves. Hell even the average squaddie was amazed at our orders. The officers were apoleptic, they and we knew exactly what they meant.

[southern democrat]

10. We really appericate your general for stopping WWIII

thats the least you could do after we bailed you blokes out of WWI and WWII

[mddemo]

11. WW1 and WW2

And you think we have forgotten that, i still remember stories from my parents of the food supplies that were shipped into my home city (Glasgow), my uncles talked of retreating at dunkirk and then fighting with the yanks across Europe with fondness, One of the main reasons that the BRitish people supported the Iraq war etc was the debt we feel we have to america, rightly or wrongly. Every November 11th we remember your fallen as well as ours. Some regiments of the British army still have old glory as one of their flags in memorial to the Yanks who fought and died that we might remain free. For all our differences we look apon you as being our best friends and cousins.

[mddemo]

13. WW1 and WW2

And you think we have forgotten that, i still remember stories from my parents of the food supplies that were shipped into my home city (Glasgow), my uncles talked of retreating at dunkirk and then fighting with the yanks across Europe with fondness, One of the main reasons that the BRitish people supported the Iraq war etc was the debt we feel we have to america, rightly or wrongly. Every November 11th we remember your fallen as well as ours. Some regiments of the British army still have old glory as one of their flags in memorial to the Yanks who fought and died that we might remain free. For all our differences we look apon you as being our best friends and cousins.

[FullCountNotRecount]

14. Clark respects NATO. Would Franks and Bush have?

This "might have started WWIII" is wearing thin. No one holds it against Reagan when he said "the bombing begins in ()minutes".

[RichV]

15. This WW III

stuff is all just dumb. It's based on one comment in the heat of the moment by a single general who defied orders agreed upon by layers and layers of military and civilian brass. Nobody can seriously believe a large conflict would have been allowed to escalate from two allied forces (those of NATO and Russia) squabbling over who gets to control a strategic airport for a short while. I don't care whether you served for Jackson, Clark, Patton, or U.S. Grant, you can't possibly believe that the entire civilized world would have let this incident escalate into world war. That's just ludicrous, no matter what your feelings toward Clark, Clinton, Cohen, Blair, Jackson, Putin, or any other character in that episode. You don't have to agree with the strategy perhaps, but please don't buy into such overblown conjecture.

[mddemo]

16. WW3

In the same way someone who was across town dimisses an incident or fight as being nothing you dismiss this incident as nothing, being there was completely different, i watched the russians prepare, i prepared, both sides were getting ready to fight. The Russians made it very clear we were not going to be given entry and our orders were to occupy the airport, to a man we all knew what was about to happen, i have no idea what the ramifications would of been, but i can tell you that at that point there was gonna be some shooting and a lot of casualties. Once again there was sufficent evidence that Clark went to far hence his removal from the command structure of NATO.

[RichV]

17. Sorry

but I don't buy it. Whether you were there or not. If you were on the ground you still can't provide an accurate view of what was going on at higher levels. I don't care how many dirty looks or naughty words were exchanged from afar. No way in hell the leaders on either side would be that stupid. The Russians in the early 90s would have nothing to gain in starting a single battle or an all-out war with NATO. At this point post-communist Russia was still in its infancy and knew darn well it had neither the resources nor will to do something like that, particularly over a single strategic position in a war that was essentially over. The WW III rhetoric is ridiculous.

Have to amend my earlier post, although I forgot until now. I had Putin in the cast of characters, and it was actually Yeltsin. Forgot this was so long ago.

[VolcanoJen]

18. Clark's versions of events are different, of course.

It's been hashed and rehashed all over DU, but I think it's important to understand Clark's version as well as Jackson's.

In a PBS interview on the topic, Clark stated that he was surprised by Jackson's statement, and Gen. Guthrie's defense of Jackson's position, as Clark says the order to block the runways was suggested by and came down from Washington. When Clark phones Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. Shelton for clarification, Shelton said, ""I did have a conversation with Guthrie. I knew you were getting this order. Guthrie and I agreed we don't want a confrontation but I do support you."

In the interview, Clark went on to tell Shelton that he had a policy problem.

You can read a transcription of the PBS article here, about a quarter of the way down the page:

http://www.theclarksphere.com/archives/000347.html#000347

(this will likely be attacked by anti-Clark folks as coming from a pro-Clark site, but I'm only interested in directing you and others to the PBS transcription on that site)

After reading this issue over and over, I've come to the conclusion that if anyone wanted to "start WWIII," it was the Pentagon, at the time, and not Clark. I realize others see it differently, but that's my take.

[disgruntella]

19. Thanks, may I also add...

... if someone who opposed Clark's actions accused him of being "ready to start WWIII", this is not equivalent to Clark as some demonic force plotting WWIII. Unless WWIII was actually started on that day with Jackson, and to my knowledge it wasn't ;), what we have here is a difference of opinion between generals.

Now, who else could be accused of pushing for "WWIII" lately? Hmmm... rhymes with "Push"....

[disgruntella]

20. "WWIII" accusations aside, this is an excellent editorial

Shows how Clark entering the race, even if his campaign does eventually fail, changes "the calculus of the presidential campaign." Also brings up the challenges Clark will face (without writing him off).