Is Wesley Clark really "pro gays in the military"?

[sfecap]

He never really seems to actually answer a question, does he? Ever?

From MTP 6/15/03:

MR. RUSSERT: In the brief you talked about combating discrimination. Many people would point to the military’s policy on gays as being discriminatory. Are you in favor of “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the military?

GEN. CLARK: I’m not sure that I’d be in favor of that policy. I supported that policy. That was a policy that was given. I don’t think it works. It works better in some circumstances than it does in others. But essentially we’ve got a lot of gay people in the armed forces, always have had, always will have. And I think that, you know, we should welcome people that want to serve. But we also have to maintain consistent standards of discipline; we have to have effective units.
So I think that’s an issue that the leaders in the armed forces are going to have to work with and resolve.
I do think that the sort of temperature of the issue has changed over the decade. People were much more irate about this issue in the early ’90s than I found in the late ’90s, for whatever reason, younger people coming in. It just didn’t seem to be the same emotional hot button issue by ’98, ’99, that it had been in ’92, ’93.

MR. RUSSERT: So you have no problem having openly gay Americans serve in the military as long as they abided by the same code of conduct that heterosexuals abided by?

(Ed. Here's a non answer to a direct question...)

GEN. CLARK: Well, the British have a system that—they put this in the British system. They call it— they said, “Don’t ask, don’t misbehave.” I think the leaders in the armed forces will look at that some day. But I have to tell you, also, we have got a lot of other issues on the plate for the United States armed forces, and this is one among many. And the men and women charged with those responsibilities need to look at those issues. But this is only one issue.

(Ed. Answer the question, General...)

MR. RUSSERT: But it’s an important one to many Americans. Parameters, which is a journal published by the U.S. Army War College Quarterly, has an article by Professor Aaron Belkan of the University of California. He says that 24 countries now have gays in the military, most of our NATO partners. Would you allow American troops to serve in joint exercises with NATO partners that had gays in the military?

GEN. CLARK: They already are. And they served together in Kosovo and in Bosnia and so forth.

MR. RUSSERT: That being the point, should the United States not allow openly gay people to serve in the military?

(Ed. Another non answer to a direct question....)

GEN. CLARK: Well, I think we need to charge the men and women responsible for the armed forces to come forward with that answer. I think that has to come from them based on what we need for the armed forces, as well as, you know, their concerns about society as a whole.

MR. RUSSERT: But you’d look at changing the policy?

GEN. CLARK: Absolutely.


Well, Gee, General...you won't answer a simple question, but you'd "look at" changing the policy? Quibbling is a major honor offense at West Point...what is it? Do you have an opinion or not? Why won't you answer the question? Simply and definitively?

[lebkuchen]

1. His comments are realistic...

....especially this last sentence. Soldiers in Iraq who are writing letters of complaint about the tour are being excoriated by US citizens and other military members for "whining. If they don't like the tour, don't reenlist." Somebody has to fill those ranks. Even Bush will go to gays before the draft.

***********************************************************

Gays in the Military: "But essentially we’ve got a lot of gay people in the armed forces, always have had, always will have. And I think that, you know, we should welcome people that want to serve." Meet The Press

[blm]

13. Yes...he always was for it.

That's how I first heard about him in the early 90s.

[carpetbagger]

2. It sounds pretty straightforward to me.

His opinion is that gays should be able to serve openly in the military. He cited the British example. In the UK, gay men and women can serve openly in the military. There are strict rules prohibiting sexual activity between two members of a unit, but these rules apply equally.

You seem to disagree with his method. It's a pretty common way of doing things in the military, the "you know what to do, I trust you to come up with the right answer" method. It's an order that doesn't sound like an order, but it's an order nonetheless.

[sfecap]

3. Except he isn't IN the military, now...

and he was asked a direct question and dissembled instead of answering it.

A simple "Yes. I support a policy of gays openly serving in the military" would suffice.

Simple, straightforward, concise.

The methodology of policy change can be explained or debated later. Gen. Clark seem to have a habit of not ever answering a question directly.

It's disconcerting.

[tameszu]

4. The other NATO countries who integrated their militaries,

mostly did it from within the military, as Clark described. That is, the politicians pushed, then the militaries went and came up with policies on their own. Like anything else, you want to have it coming from within.

You should go find and read the RAND report on this.

[sfecap]

5. I understand how it gets done...

What I want to hear is his opinion directly and without obfuscation as a candidate for the Presidency.

Simple. Direct. Clear.

[tameszu]

10. You do?

Then why don't you understand his answer?

He doesn't support the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and wants the military to come up with a solution for themselves. But he does not want to dictate the policy they would have. Just as the political leadership of many of the other NATO nations that came up with their integrationist policies did not.

That is directly and clearly and pellucidly what he said. And I hope simple enough for you.

[zekeson]

16. How about this?

Gays in the Military: "But essentially we’ve got a lot of gay people in the armed forces, always have had, always will have. And I think that, you know, we should welcome people that want to serve."

from the draftwesleyclark.com website

on edit I removed a statement that said you had not included this in your original post. Sorry, I did not read thoroughly. That said, this statement seems to be indicative of a guy that understands Gays in the military aren't even a real issue.

[carpetbagger]

7. But it's a hypothetical regarding him as Commander-in-Chief.

He said he'd try to do it in cooperation with the military. After the problems Clinton had in 1993, and with the lack of problems Blair had in the late 1990's, it's a reasonable approach.

[VoteClark]

6. Less confusing than Dean's policy

He is for gay's having equal rights, but not marriage. Huh? Is marriage not a right? Then he says it is a religious issue and the state should stay out of Marriage. Well, what if a gay person gets married at church. Does he not support freedom of religion? His policy doesn't sound straight forward.

He should simply say," I support equal right for gays, and if they want to get married instead of a civil union they should find a church that supports gay marriage."

He sounds like he is tip toeing around the issue.


:kick:
J4Clark

[sfecap]

8. LOL...nice try.

You really do grasp at straws.

Shouldn't you be researching past Presidents military service?

[VoteClark]

9. Me, LOL

No, you should be explaining what equal rights for gays, with out the same rights means. I have already studied all the President. I know they all served in at least a state Militia. Peirce, served in the Mexican War, which was stated he didn't serve.

:kick:
J4Clark

[Egnever]

11. HAHA!

" I support equal right for gays, and if they want to get married instead of a civil union they should find a church that supports gay marriage."

Thats what he said

I see you got it clear as a bell :)

And no marriage is not a right

[blm]

12. When John Kerry first advocated for gays to serve openly in the military

in the 80s, Clark was for it. Not many politicians were brave enough to back Kerry up when he was working for that goal, even when it became an issue in 93. How many came forward? They hid behind Don't Ask, Don't Tell and court rulings, but, never stuck their own necks out to fight the fight that needed to be fought.

[TakebackAmerica]

14. Simple and Smart Idea.

His stance is very smart.

It's an aknowledgement that gays are in the army and that gays should be able to stay.

Nothing revoultionary.

Most Americans agree if a gay man is serving America well abroad, he shouldn't be yanked back to America just because of his sexual prefrence.

[DrFunkenstein]

15. The Ugly Secret in the American Armed Forces

Military Rape

Women in the U.S. armed services are increasingly at danger -- not from foreign terrorists, but from men in the U.S. armed services.

The deaths of four Army wives in six weeks this summer at Fort Bragg, N.C., allegedly at the hands of their soldier husbands, might be an aberration. But the number of rapes, sexual assaults and sexual harassment against women soldiers in the military has reached the level of an epidemic, according to Terri Spahr Nelson of Oxford, Ohio.

"It is estimated that two-thirds of female service members experience unwanted, uninvited sexual behavior in the military," she writes.

Sexual harassment by servicemen is not a new problem. In the 1990s the Tailhook scandal -- in which drunken Navy pilots formed a kind of sexual molestation gauntlet -- and widespread sexual abuse reported at the Aberdeen Proving Ground brought the issue national attention and promises of reform.

But the problem has not gone away. Indeed, there's reason to believe it's gotten worse in recent years, according to Nelson.

A 1995 study by the Defense Department found 47 percent of women had received "unwanted sexual attention."

Nor are women the only American soldiers being victimized by their comrades in arms. The same study found 30 percent of men in the armed forces also had received "unwanted sexual attention."

That attention isn't limited to the ass-pinching and boys-will-be-boys humor celebrated by popular shows such as M*A*S*H. In just one year, the Defense Department found, large numbers of American troops were attacked -- by fellow American troops.

"Specifically, 9 percent of women in the Marines, 8 percent of women in the Army, 6 percent of women in the Navy and 4 percent of women in the Air Force and Coast Guard were victims of rape or attempted rape in one year alone," Nelson writes.

But even worse, when women report attacks by fellow soldiers, the official response by military authorities is often less than supportive. When prosecution does result, almost all the accused perpetrators walk away free.

"Another startling fact is that over 95 percent of the accused rapists in the Navy and Marines in 1992 were found not guilty of the alleged rapes and not convicted of the crimes," Nelson writes.

http://www.citybeat.com/2002-08-22/news2.shtml

[TakebackAmerica]

17. An open letter to every Howard Dean Supporter

If Clark dosen't run I will knock every door, call everybody I can to Elect Howard Dean, but now just isn't the right time

Clark can and WILL beat Bush.

The Sad reality is that Clark can't win the primaries.

PLEASE Support General Clark, Please.

Let's not have a bloody Primary.
That's just what Rove is counting on.

So I ask every Deanie to vote Clark/Dean in 04.

In 2012 I will work hard to elect Vice President Dean, President.

Than Dean can work the same magic that has inspired millions!

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

18. Tell you what

IF Clark does run, I promise that I will research him as much as I have all of the candidates, and if I like him the best I will give him all of the energy I now give Dean plus another 100%.