Wesley Clark: Turnaround Expert, Exactly What This Country Needs

[DoveTurnedHawk]

There was an excellent profile on General Clark in the NYT over the weekend. My favorite paragraph was this:

By and large, the jobs General Clark got in the Army were fix-it jobs, turnaround jobs where he often replaced fired officers. He worked on shattered morale, on developing an all-volunteer army, on ways to reduce casualties from friendly fire. If you did jobs like these well, you bred resentment. His performance reviews were extravagant in their praise. He bred resentment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/23/politics/campaigns/23CLAR.html

In addition to explaining, in an easy and understandable manner, exactly WHY he's been the target of vicious criticism from a few generals during this campaign, I think it also gets to the heart of what he offers.

General Clark is a "turnaround" expert. He takes dire problems and he solves them. That is EXACTLY what this country needs right now. We need a "turnaround" expert for our foreign policy. We need a "turnaround" expert for our domestic policy. We need a "turnaround" expert for our broken, corrupt, polarized political system.

We need General Clark.

DTH

[drfemoe]

1. Turnaround?

Seems he turns around on a lot of things ... "Mary, Help!"


Months before the invasion, Clark's opinion piece in Time magazine (10/14/02) was aptly headlined "Let's Wait to Attack," a counter-argument to another piece headlined "No, Let's Not Waste Any Time." Before the war, Clark was concerned that the U.S. had an insufficient number of troops, a faulty battle strategy and a lack of international support.

As time wore on, Clark's reservations seemed to give way. Clark explained on CNN (1/21/03) that if he had been in charge, "I probably wouldn't have made the moves that got us to this point. But just assuming that we're here at this point, then I think that the president is going to have to move ahead, despite the fact that the allies have reservations." As he later elaborated (CNN, 2/5/03): "The credibility of the United States is on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with us.... The U.N. has got to come in and belly up to the bar on this. But the president of the United States has put his credibility on the line, too. And so this is the time that these nations around the world, and the United Nations, are going to have to look at this evidence and decide who they line up with."

On the question of Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, Clark seemed remarkably confident of their existence. Clark told CNN's Miles O'Brien that Saddam Hussein "does have weapons of mass destruction." When O'Brien asked, "And you could say that categorically?" Clark was resolute: "Absolutely" (1/18/03). When CNN's Zahn (4/2/03) asked if he had any doubts about finding the weapons, Clark responded: "I think they will be found. There's so much intelligence on this."

After the fall of Baghdad, any remaining qualms Clark had about the wisdom of the war seemed to evaporate. "Liberation is at hand. Liberation-- the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions," Clark wrote in a London Times column (4/10/03). "Already the scent of victory is in the air." Though he had been critical of Pentagon tactics, Clark was exuberant about the results of "a lean plan, using only about a third of the ground combat power of the Gulf War. If the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they certainly made the right call."
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html

[DoveTurnedHawk]

2. Yawn

I predicted someone would use that double entendre within five posts. It's just so obvious.

Who do you support? Because odds are whoever it is has flip-flopped much worse than Clark ever has.

DTH

[xultar]

3. OK, let me school ya just a lil bit

By the way you left sooo mush stuff out! You forgot to mention in your rant that Chimpy & Co had him FIRED from CNN cuz he was criticising the war and the pentagon and the administration.
Your post
On the question of Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, Clark seemed remarkably confident of their existence. Clark told CNN's Miles O'Brien that Saddam Hussein "does have weapons of mass destruction." When O'Brien asked, "And you could say that categorically?" Clark was resolute: "Absolutely" (1/18/03). When CNN's Zahn (4/2/03) asked if he had any doubts about finding the weapons, Clark responded: "I think they will be found. There's so much intelligence on this."

CLARK has discussed this in many of his apperances. He was privy to the same doctored Bullshit intelligence reports that the BUSH Administration cooked up. So understandably in hind site he said (paraphrasing), hey I saw the same intelligence they saw. I didn't know they doctored it I didn't know they were lying to the American people.

Your post
Months before the invasion, Clark's opinion piece in Time magazine (10/14/02) was aptly headlined "Let's Wait to Attack," a counter-argument to another piece headlined "No, Let's Not Waste Any Time." Before the war, Clark was concerned that the U.S. had an insufficient number of troops, a faulty battle strategy and a lack of international support.

Again, he's talked about this. Remember Bush's Administration was having us buy plastic sheeting and duct tape cuse Saddam and the terrorist were an imediate threat. We all thought things were about to happen. In hind site they inflated the threats and risks.

Basically I think you see where I'm headed. Puhleezzzz, everybody, find some new stuff. What I'm going to start doing is breaking into my bookmarks and start posting As stated with links.

I ask you please find some new stuff cuz this stuff is getting old. I mean this horse is beaten pass ground chuck, we're on our way to paste.

[Tom Rinaldo]

7. Were you disappointed that the U,S . didn't get it's but kicked in iraq?

Honestly, deep down inside, once the war started, were you rooting against the U.S. forces taking down Hussein easily? I'm not talking about the wisdom of invading Iraq in the first place. My question is, were you hoping Bush would learn a lesson in Iraq by having the war go poorly for him? Would it have made you feel happier to see Rumsfeld squirming trying to explain major U.S. casualties and lack of progress advancing on the Iraq capital than it did for you to see some Iraq citizens jubulent that the dictator that had terrorized them for years had been deposed? Clark was critical of the build up to the war, the pretences used to justify it, the disrespect for the need for strong international backing. Clark was concerned that the proper post war planning was not being done to anticipate a success strategy in the wake of a military victory against Hussein's forces. Clark thought the full battle phase went well and he clearly preferred that to it going poorly.

Back to my question, would you rather the Americans had struggled with poor planning and high casualties after the invasion commenced? By the way, I assumed that Iraq had at least some WMD also. So did the French and Russians and Germans. The debate was mostly over whether or not robust inspections were the best way to deal with the situation, and whether or not there was any immenent threat to the U.S or the world from them. Only the top officials in the U.S. and British governments could claim to have seen all of the available information on the presence of WMD, and they claimed there was proof. It was hard for anyone else to disprove that when they did not have access to the same information. Clark didn't, so he couldn't, but he said that he did not believe Iraq posed an imenent threat to the U.S., and he has been proven right on that.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

8. Another Excellent Post by Tom Rinaldo

You are becoming one of my favorite posters. :-)

DTH

[CWebster]

14. The wisdom of invading Iraq in the first place does matter

It overwhelmingly matters otherwise everything else wouldn't be an issue. There was no case for us to invade, the entire thing was manufactured and sold to the US public who wasn't enthusiastic about it without international or UN participation. The public was then coralled with the "support the troops" meme. The sentiment here at DU was overwhelmingly against the invasion and many of us participated in the anti-war protests, along with the millions around the world.

Why is it that 15,000 or more Iraqis can be killed in an illegal and unjust and unprovoked war, and because there are so few US casualities in comparison, it is considered a success? It is a crime against humanity.

[xultar]

16. You're right but Clark didn't have anything to do with that so

again you're off point.

[Tom Rinaldo]

24. Never said it doesn't matter

Of course it matters, big big time. I believe Clark opposed going into that war, and yes that is still a debate some feel is open but I think both sides of that debate have been laid out frequently at DU and elswhere and I have nothing new to add to that debate now. We may disagree on that, I think Clark was an early opponent of invading Iraq without the proof, need, and international support etc. My point was very simple, would you have preferred the U.S. forces got their butts kicked onece the war had started? I only raised that question because in my mind it is a really stupid attack on Clark to note that he was happy to see the troops suceed and Hussein's statue come down.

Honestly, I think that an intellectually sound argument can be made for rooting against the U.S, forces during that invasion. Many in the Arab world certainly felt that way. They wanted the U.S. to learn a lesson in Iraq which would then make Bush unable to further pursue his interventionist agenda. Some would say the world would be a safer place had 12,000 American soldiers died during the Iraq invasion. Is that your position? I doubt very much however if you will get any of the 9 Democrats running for President to admit that that was their position. If anyone thinks it was wrong for Clark to be pleased that the Army accomplished it's initial goal without a lot of Americans having to die to do so, I'm sure he would plead guilty as charged. Somehow I don't find that shocking, and I don't think that view is restricted to military men.

[Larkspur]

4. Dean has a record of turning deficits into surpluses in the civilian

world and has won a tough re-election battle against a well funded Repuke. Clark doesn't have that experience.

[returnable]

5. What's Dean got to do with the article posted?

But if you want to play the experience game, we can compare Clark's international and foreign relations resume to the Doctor's :hi:

[xultar]

6. But can you translate the experience of running a small state to

managing foreign policy diplomacy? Managing stuff between Vermont and Canada doesn't count.

Clark has run operations that have had budgets bigger than Vermont. Let us not forget he didn't lose one American Soldier. Clark has military experience. Our country is @ war. Dean doesn't have that experience.

[Donna Zen]

9. 89 countries

and a quarter of the world's military. Actually, he had head of status. And....he was running a war against Slobo at the same time.

[FrenchieCat]

11. 600,000 Vermonters.....

and you believe they all loved Dean?

There are that many inhabitants in San Francisco for pete's sake!

There are that many Puerto Ricans in New York.......

What a sad commentary......within a Clark thread!

Where's Dean Foreign policy experience, is what I'd like to know.....is it going to be his VP?

can't we just vote the nomination for the one that did.....
as opposed to the one that will have to confer with the one that did?

.......so sad, so sad!

[xultar]

18. No, Dean can't be Veep cuz he doesn't have the experience...

I think HRC would lock it up.

[FrenchieCat]

19. Well, here's what Clark has done....

NTY - 1997 article FOREIGN DESK: Clinton Picks Army General to Head NATO
General Clark was commander of the Southern Command, which oversees American military activities in all of Latin America except Mexico and the Caribbean

General Clark who helped broker the 1995 peace settlement in Bosnia was nominated today by President Clinton to take command of NATO and all American forces in Europe.

''Apart from Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, NATO is the most important uniformed assignment we've got,'' a senior Pentagon official said. ''Wes Clark has the soldierly skills and the diplomatic skills that make him right for NATO.''

General Clark is widely considered to be more scholarly and politically wise than most of his peers in uniform. He rose quickly through the military after graduating first in his class from the United States Military Academy at West Point in 1966.
http://frenchiecat.forclark.com/story/2003/11/23/203932/69

[KittyWampus]

32. Dean Has A Record Of Turning Around 180 On Alot Of Issues

And although many Dean supporters try to rationalize that- it is an unfortunate fact.

Wonder how many positions Dean will turn around on AGAIN in the sad event he should get the nomination and miraculously managed to get elected....

[1songbird]

10. He wouldn't have been a four star general if he didn't have skills

[Larkspur]

17. He's flunking the political campaign test so far

Not as bad as Kerry, Gephardt, and Edwards, but Clark lost his media hyped momentum to his own carelessness and is having trouble connecting with voters in the early primary states.

If Clark was such a genius, he should have been sailing way ahead of everyone from the time he entered to know, but what has happened -- he pulled out of Iowa, losing the AFSCME endorsement, is in single digits in NH, has slim leads in some western states, but Dean, if he's not in the lead, is poised to take it in the West. The South may be Clark's comfort zone now, but Dean is an assertive campaigner, the likes of which Clark and the other Dem candidates have never seen, and I won't be surprised that once Dean concentrates more on the South, he'll pick up in the polls there.

[xultar]

20. He's been without a campaign manager until today. I'd say that

he's done a damn good job with his campaign since he didn't have a manager since October.

so...what were you saying...he's running his own campaign and campaigning and he's still keeping up with his NATO business. Sounds like presidents work to me.

[1songbird]

30. You know we can all criticize but Clark is gaining momentum

and Dean has a very real problem in the South that he probably won't overcome. I grew up in that part of the country and believe you me they are not feeling Dean. If Dean gets the nomination I will vote for him, but I won't delude myself into thinking that he is going to win. Obviously you've been drinkning the purple koolaid.

[ArkDem]

12. He is the best

republican canidate. That is for SURE.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

13. Yawn

Chalk up another for the ol' Ignore list.

Clark is more liberal than Dean. Sorry he doesn't pass your bizarre purity test.

DTH

[ArkDem]

35. Can't we all just get along?

.

[CWebster]

15. damn straight!

Yes sir.

[ArkDem]

21. My feelings are hurt,

what should I do?

[CWebster]

23. Because of DTH?

ignore isn't a bad option. ;-)

[SaintLouisBlues]

26. Then do it.

Ignore DTH, and quick cluttering up his posts with RW talking points.

[Rowdyboy]

27. Really! Ignore is a great suggestion.

But that would be the adult thing to do so it'll never happen.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

28. God, I So WISH They Would Ignore Me

I have no idea who the other person you're talking to is, because I already have a couple of people that seem to be posting here on Ignore. But the haters just can't resist coming into positive Clark threads and spewing their hateful negativity.

I would LOVE it if they Ignored me. But they just can't resist. I love it. It really exposes them for who they are.

DTH

[SaintLouisBlues]

29. The usual suspects

The guy who says ignore you, but never ignores you, that you have on ignore, was just taken off my ignore.

Ignore that.

[CWebster]

31. What a marvelous solution

You can put us on ignore and we can put you on ignore. You can hoot and holler on your candidate's pep rallies, but you better stay off others and better not start threads to bash others or make critical remarks in threads about others.

Understood?

See what a big, happy unified party we are?

[SaintLouisBlues]

33. Then do it.

You need to take your own advice.

[CWebster]

34. So do you

that's the deal.

No attacks on Dean. No threads started to attack Dean. No trespassing on other candidate's cheerleading threads. As soon as you live up to it, we will live up to it.

[SaintLouisBlues]

36. I have been doing it. You have not.

You advocate putting DTH on ignore, yet hound his every thread with WR talking points.

[FrenchieCat]

22. Let's see Dean's list of accomplishment for

the state which has a smaller population than San Francisco....

When these Dean lovers at any cost continue to insist that Clark is a Republican...maybe they are running out of trible!

I will continue with Clark's achievements.......

http://frenchiecat.forclark.com/story/2003/11/23/203932/69
NYT FOREIGN DESK: Clinton Picks Army General to Head NATO

General Clark is widely considered to be more scholarly and politically wise than most of his peers in uniform. He rose quickly through the military after graduating first in his class from the United States Military Academy at West Point in 1966.

He is a veteran of the Vietnam War, in which he was awarded the Silver and Bronze Stars. He received his fourth star as a general in June at the age of 51 -- young for that rank.

He speaks Russian, which may be of use as NATO attempts to reassure Moscow about the imminent expansion of the Western military alliance. Russia has protested NATO's expected invitation to three former Warsaw Pact members -- the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland -- to join the alliance later this year.

General Clark also has an intimate knowledge of the situation in Bosnia, where American-led NATO peacekeeping troops have been stationed since December 1995. He was the senior military officer on the American delegation that forced the combatants in Bosnia to the bargaining table in Dayton, Ohio, and hammered out the peace agreement.

The NATO post would bring General Clark's involvement in the Bosnian peace process full circle, since he would be expected to oversee the American military withdrawal from Bosnia. The Pentagon has insisted that the American participation in the peacekeeping operation in Bosnia will end next June no matter what the consequences.

[QC]

25. You people need to come up with some new smears.

Even good ones lose their impact when repeated thousands of times over a period of months, and that one wasn't very good to start with.