Run, Sir Clark, Run...

by teejay 95 Replies latest social current

• 

  SixofNine

  Gen. Clark is one layed-back 4-star.When the opposition places a label on him it should be Commander In Chief!

  J. W. Carroll

  Sp/5 E-5

  Reg. Army

  Seagrove, NC

  1955-1962

  My respect for the General was ignited when I read a quote from a speech given at Seton Hall, presumably after 9/11. "You will determine whether rage or reason guides the United States in the struggle to come. You will choose whether we are known for revenge or compassion. You will choose whether we, too, will kill in the name of God, or whether in His name, we can find a higher civilization and a better means of settling our differences"-- General Wesley Clark, Seton Hall address
  
  From that moment on, I really started listening. In my heart I KNOW that he president we have all prayed for.
  

  Michael D, Collins, SSG
  USA/Infantry
  Aurora, CO
  1968-1971

  The reconstruction of Irag puts too much of a burden on the American taxpayer. I want a president who can work with the international community to spread the reconstruction expense around. After the way the Bush Machine treated the UN in their march to war, I don't blame the international community refusing to work with them now. I believe Clark has the experience and intelligence to realize the importance of working with the international community and the UN in this modern area of globalization.

  Paul Wagemann
  SSgt,US Air National Guard
  Chicago, IL
  1996-present

  As a former airborne infantryman and junior NCO I understand full well General Clark's insistence upon leadership accountability. I was taught that the mission was the highest priority, then the welfare of my troops, and lastly, my own needs. George Bush has never been held accountable for his myriad failures in life, including his failure to serve his country during war. This, I believe, is a reflection of the value system at the heart of his personal and professional history and why he became so popular so quickly with the GOP establishment. He is the son of privilege whose understanding of work is to hustle money for himself and his friends at the expense of the public. The Ballpark in Arlington, constructed with public money-sales taxes-for the private profit of a privileged few is a perfect example. Now he is doing to the people of this country, especially our young soldiers, what he has always done with impunity: screwing us all. It is time for a reckoning. I believe Wesley Clark would make a fine champion in our fight to take our country back from the greedheads who care only about themselves and their friends and damn the public and notions of responsibility to community. Run, Wesley, Run!!

  Michael Welsh
  (E-5), US Army
  Fairbanks, Alaska
  1970-72

  We have all, at one time or another, voted for "the lesser of two evils."

  As I write this, a few days after the General's announcement, I am utterly delighted to see a candidate for President who is neither a "lesser" or an "evil." Unfortunately the RAT BASTARD currently occupying the Oval Office is BOTH. Shrub stole the election, sold out our brave men and women in uniform and mismanaged both the economy and our nation's relations with other countries...THROWING AWAY ALL THE GLOBAL GOODWILL ENGENDERED BY THE TRAGEDY OF 90.11.01 IN THE NAME OF A COWBOY MACHISMO THAT IS BLEEDING OUR MILITARY DRY!

  I was not old enough to serve in the Vietnam Era, but I have read often of that conflict's effects on our military. SHRUB'S WORKING TO BRING BACK THESE DAYS THANKS TO THE IRAQ WAR.

  Rich Ostorero

  Rank - PO3, USN

  City ? Sacramento, CA

  1977-79

  - I served under GEN Clark in Operation Allied Freedom. I was astounded by how humble he was. Although he outranked everyone there, he still seemed to care about the little man. I am thrilled that we have a solid candidate who cares about the military sincerely, and not just as a muscle.

  Floyd C. Guyton Jr

  Rank ? SSG, US Army

  City ? Fayetteville, NC

  1997-present
• 

  pettygrudger

  For Everyone that automatically assumes Clarks a decent enough candidate - why? I haven't heard or read enough of the man and his foreign policy ideas or domestic solutions to decide whether he's qualified or not.

  There's not doubt that I am NOT happy with the way Bush has conducted his business while in office, and I wish to make that change too.

  But, what we are going to need is a candidate that can lead this country out of the mire on a lot of fronts - domestic & foreign.

  Don't care what they're saying about our economy - its in the trash & has been since Clinton's last 2 years of office. Manufacturing jobs are gone - and they aint' coming back under the spend crazy administrations we've had. Technology jobs - going, going.........

  Neither Republicans nor Democrats are for "small government" anymore....and that's a shame. The more I research, the more I realize that although I don't necessarily agree w/Bush's actions, I'm beginning to see the bigger picture as well in all this. 9/11 was in the makings long before Bush took office. It no longer matters who is. There are alot of people in the world that hate our guts, and have since long before the Bush boys. Bush seems to be the one that's willing to bring this ugly cyst to a head & let it explode, hopefully to bring it to some conclusion.

  I truly haven't seen any candidate yet that's going to get my vote. Actually, as it sits right now, before I've heard Clark, I'm almost willing to allow Bush to remain in office, to hopefully have the strength & balls its going to take to clean up some ugly messes on alot of fronts. At least then Colin Powell would still be around - and that man has my upmost respect & admiration.
• 

  SixofNine

  strength & balls

  It takes alot more than strength and balls. But if that's all it takes, you, pettygrudger will without doubt be voting for Wesley Clark over GW Bush. There is just no contest in the strength and balls dept.
• 

  pettygrudger

  Of course its gonna take more than strenght & balls six - its also gonna take alot of real solutions this time around, on a lot of different fronts (foreign & domestic).

  I KNOW I wouldn't be happy with Hillary Clintons ideas of solutions - she's way to liberal for what the next term is gonna need to get our country turned around. And I have a feeling if Clark runs, HIllary's either gonna be his V.P., or worse yet, being able to pull alot of chains "behind the scenes". That spells DOOM for our country at this point in time.
• 

  teenyuck

  Great post pettyg.....
• 

  SixofNine

  More good stuff from the General. I like this guy because he communicates, he writes articles, he does interviews. Sure, he'll have to back off on that now that his hat is actually in the ring, but he has spent the last several years communicating. Just go try and find an article that George Bush has written.
  

  How cool will it be to have a president give a speech, and know that he actually wrote the damn thing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ??

  This is excerpted from a Rolling Stone interview:

  When you were in the Army, you had a lot of contact with various White House staffs. Did you ever have any dealings with some of the people who now serve in the Bush administration?

  When I was a thirty-year-old Army major, I was sent to Washington, where they put me in the Ford White House. This was 1974. Nixon had just resigned. They said, "How would you like to be staff secretary to this executive committee -- it'll have Henry Kissinger," who was then secretary of state; James Schlesinger, the secretary of defense; the director of the CIA and the counsel to the president. Well, for someone who'd just come to Washington, you can imagine how I felt. Pretty impressive, right? What I discovered was that the White House was full of paranoia and suspicion -- a real Watergate mentality. I'd bring something up, and they'd say, "Wes, if you ask a question like that, you can't work here." The reason the White House was that way was not only because of Watergate but because of the two guys in charge: Donald Rumsfeld, who was Gerald Ford's chief of staff, and Dick Cheney, who was his assistant.

  Today you've got the same people in there running things, trying to close down access to government. Rumsfeld and Cheney are patriotic men, and I know they are doing the best they can. It's just that I disagree with them. I don't believe that government is made better by secrecy and restraint. It's made better by transparency, by being open and honest. If you're right, you're right. If not, you take your licks.

  What would you do in Iraq now that we're there?

  What we're going to have to do is change the regional dynamic. I know this is hard for some people to understand, but if you threaten people, you make them mad. And if you make them mad, then they want to fight you. That's the way the world works. If what we want is to persuade countries in that region that the democratization of Iraq is not a threat, we should not be out there saying, "Your day will come!" What do you expect them to do?

  I found out in the military that we weren't the only ones who had robust men with too much testosterone. We weren't the only ones who had smart guys. We weren't the only army who could speak of duty, sacrifice and courage. I also found out that if you want a fight, you're gonna fight -- in a bar in Colorado, or in the Middle East. Of course, that makes some people in the administration happy.

  You are someone who has spent almost all of his adult life in the military. The culture of the Army is obviously quite different from civilian culture. How will you translate military values into the civilian realm? You have to get people working. In the Army there are two kinds of recruits. You get the A-minus or B-plus student from a rural high school in the South who comes from a pretty good family background but who doesn't have enough money to go to college. Or you get the C student from the South who kicks around for a while looking for a job and meets a nice girl. He wants to get married, but he realizes, "Hey, I could work at 7-Eleven or Kmart, but I won't have health insurance, I won't have the ability to really take care of my family, I won't have a future ahead of me." He just staggers into an Army recruiting office, and a good sergeant puts a hammerlock on him and says, "Son, let me tell you how well we can treat you in the United States Army." You have to take those two groups of people and you have to bring them along, because everybody who's going to be a sergeant-major starts out as a private. Everybody who's going to be a general starts out as a lieutenant. And the only way to do it is by developing individual potential. So my wife and I spent our entire thirty-three years of marriage in the U.S. Army helping soldiers and young officers with families. We worked on improving schools, housing, health care, transportation, post safety, what brands were carried in the commissary, where you get flowers -- we ran the whole gamut, and we really believed in that. When I came out, though, I discovered that many people in this country don't quite get it. In this country, for some reason, we don't help every American be all they can be. We're leaving people behind. The president is urging Congress to grant him wider powers to wage war on terrorism at home. Come on, give us a break. The Patriot Act, all 1,200 pages of it, was passed without any serious congressional discussion. There was no public accountability, and now he wants more? What does he think this country is? We shouldn't do anything with the Patriot Act until it's unwrapped. I'd like to see what violations of privacy it entails, and whether those violations are in any way justified by their preventing terrorism in this country. And we need to do it now before we take another step forward and pay for that. Is it disloyal for a retired general to criticize the president during a time of war? Look, I'm not going to let Tom DeLay or Dick Cheney or those guys who've never served in uniform take away from the right of men and women who served honorably in this country's armed forces to criticize policy. If soldiers' lives are at stake, the time to criticize the policy is now, not when it's over. I think the height of patriotism is to speak out. Even in wartime in a democracy, you need a democracy. You need people with the courage to stand up and voice their opposition without being labeled unpatriotic. I've always thought that the height of loyalty is to ask questions and help sort things out. ...and more: Let's talk about issues beyond the war. What's your position on the environment? People are going to look back in 100 years and ask, "What did you leave behind in this country?" We will leave two legacies. The first is the Constitution, which implements the will of the majority while protecting the minority. The second is the environment. And if you want to protect it, you've got to start now. Unfortunately, this administration has rolled back the legacy we will leave for our children and our grandchildren. I believe in clean air. They believe in letting power plants modernize without pollution controls. I believe in clean water and preserving wetlands. They believe "shit happens." (lol, I love it!) I don't believe in opening up old-growth forests for logging in the name of fire prevention. How would you decrease our reliance on oil imported from the Middle East? The easy, conventional way is to raise the price of gasoline. But I don't want that. That's a regressive tax -- the people who pay it the most are the people who can afford it the least. There's people in my part of the country, in Arkansas, who are traveling sixty miles a day for a minimum-wage job. If you raise the price of gas to three dollars a gallon, they can't pay that. They're trying to save everything they can right now. The president talks a lot about hydrogen being the fuel of the future, but where are you going to get your hydrogen from? You're probably going to get it out of natural gas -- and a lot of that natural gas is going to come from the Middle East. So I'd raise average-mileage performance on automobiles. That's something we can do right now that will decrease our oil dependence - but it's something the administration has dragged its feet on.
• 

  pettygrudger

  So I'd raise average-mileage performance on automobiles. That's something we can do right now that will decrease our oil dependence - but it's something the administration has dragged its feet on.

  Now there's 1 idea for problem solving I saw in the entire article -

  Okay, I heard him list alot of the problems that everyone knows exists, especially in the middle east. Don't hear alot of solutions here, especially in light of our economic crisis (and don't tell me its not a crisis situation). The above "solution" actually causes more problems than it helps.

  Where's the domestic solutions - real solutions, real agenda's.

  Foreign policy - A "council" for Isreal & Palestine? Give me a break - we've had "councils" going on now since at least 1968 - aint' working.

  I don't agree with our decision to invade Iraq - absolutely 100% was against this war. But, now that this can has been opened, there aint' no closing it.
• 

  SixofNine

  The above "solution" actually causes more problems than it helps.

  Not by any stretch of the imagination petty. It's a straightforward fix for a very real problem, and it's a solution that is real and has been on the table for years. It will just take some strength and balls to effect it. Anyone who tells you otherwise is bad with math.
• 

  pettygrudger

  I'm sorry, I misspoke. Raising the mpg average on cars will definitely help the overall situation as far as our dependence on foreign oil, but its a twisted complicated affair isn't it? Its our consumers that demand the SUV's and the power - gas hungry engines. The car manufacturer's only make what the consumer will buy - its customer driven. Where are the lines for the "hybrid's" ? There aren't any. I can't afford one. I personally drive my little Geo-Prism that I'm happy with - even w/2 kids (albeit a "little crowded" at times) - 35mpg city.

  Anyways, the bottom line is, that until I hear a real agenda as far as domestic & foreign policy goes, my vote goes to no one yet. I'm looking for that politician who's "conservative" economically, willing to make us American's go through a painful rebirth of less dependence on our own government, even if it will cost him a 2-term presidency. One who is also intelligent enough to have the right staff in place & a good head on his/her shoulder's regarding our foreign policy - including relooking at our stance in the Isreali/Palestinian affair and our "presence" in so many countries of the world. Bush so far is "chicken sh*t" in my opinion regarding his domestic agenda - he's trying too hard to appease the "left" by giving them all they want on the domestic front - which is way too much, and more than we American's should expect from our government. And then, on the opposite side, he's too arrogant to realize that he's not the ruler of the world, and can't dictate behaviors based on his own whims & wants.

  Clark, I don't know yet - but that's why I'm asking you all - why him? What's he going to do on the domestic side of things besides pushing for increased mpg averages on auto's?
• 

  DakotaRed

  I love a man of such convictions;

  What Must Be Done to Complete a Great Victory

  by General Wesley Clark April 10, 2003 Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled. Liberation is at hand. Liberation ? the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. Already the scent of victory is in the air. Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph.

  In the first place, the final military success needs to be assured. Whatever caused the sudden collapse in Iraq, there are still reports of resistance in Baghdad. The regime?s last defenders may fade away, but likely not without a fight. And to the north, the cities of Tikrit, Kirkuk and Mosul are still occupied by forces that once were loyal to the regime. It may take some armed persuasion for them to lay down their arms. And finally, the Baath party and other security services remain to be identified and disarmed.

  Then there?s the matter of returning order and security. The looting has to be stopped. The institutions of order have been shattered. And there are scant few American and British forces to maintain order, resolve disputes and prevent the kind of revenge killings that always mark the fall of autocratic regimes. The interim US commander must quickly deliver humanitarian relief and re-establish government for a country of 24 million people the size of California. Already, the acrimony has begun between the Iraqi exile groups, the US and Britain, and local people.

  Still, the immediate tasks at hand in Iraq cannot obscure the significance of the moment. The regime seems to have collapsed ? the primary military objective ? and with that accomplished, the defense ministers and generals, soldiers and airmen should take pride. American and Brits, working together, produced 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.

  But no one ever won a war or a battle with a plan. Every soldier knows there are only two kinds of plans: plans that might work and plans that won?t work. The art of war is to take a plan that might work and then drive it to success. This, General Tommy Franks and his team did very well indeed.

  Everyone who has ever served knows that battles are won at the bottom ? by the men and women looking through the sights, pulling the triggers, loading the cannon and fixing the planes. The generals can lose battles, and they can set the conditions for success ? but they can?t win. That?s done by the troops alone. And nothing could have been more revealing than those armored fights in which a handful of US tanks wiped out a score of opposing Iraqi armored vehicles, again and again, and usually without suffering any losses, while in the south, the British troops worked their way through the suburbs of Basra with skills born of sound training and firm discipline, minimizing friendly casualties, civilian losses and destruction.

  It?s to the men and women who fought it out on the arid highways, teeming city streets and crowded skies that we owe the greatest gratitude. All volunteers, they risked their lives as free men and women, because they believed in their countries and answered their calls. They left families and friends behind for a mission uncertain. They didn?t do it for the glory or the pittance of combat pay. Sadly, some won?t return ? and they, most of all, need to be honored and remembered.

  As for the diplomacy, the best that can be said is that strong convictions often carry a high price. Despite the virtually tireless energy of their Foreign Offices, Britain and the US have probably never been so isolated in recent times. Diplomacy got us into this campaign but didn?t pull together the kind of unity of purpose that marked the first Gulf War. Relationships, institutions and issues have virtually all been mortgaged to success in changing the regime in Baghdad. And in the Islamic world the war has been seen in a far different light than in the US and Britain. Much of the world saw this as a war of aggression. They were stunned by the implacable determination to use force, as well as by the sudden and lopsided outcome.

  Now the bills must be paid, amid the hostile image created in many areas by the allied action. Surely the balm of military success will impact on the diplomacy to come ? effective power so clearly displayed always shocks and stuns. Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western standards of human rights.

  Germany has already swung round from opposition to the war to approval. France will look for a way to bridge the chasm of understanding that has ripped at the EU. Russia will have to craft a new way forward, detouring away, at least temporarily, from the reflexive anti-Americanism which infects the power ministries. And North Korea will shudder, for it has seen on display an even more awesome display of power than it anticipated, and yet it will remain resolute in seeking leverage to assure its own regime?s survival. And what it produces, it sells.

  The real questions revolve around two issues: the War on Terror and the Arab-Israeli dispute. And these questions are still quite open. Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and others will strive to mobilize their recruiting to offset the Arab defeat in Baghdad. Whether they will succeed depends partly on whether what seems to be an intense surge of joy travels uncontaminated elsewhere in the Arab world. And it also depends on the dexterity of the occupation effort. This could emerge as a lasting humiliation of Iraq or a bridge of understanding between Islam and the West.

  But the operation in Iraq will also serve as a launching pad for further diplomatic overtures, pressures and even military actions against others in the region who have supported terrorism and garnered weapons of mass destruction. Don?t look for stability as a Western goal. Governments in Syria and Iran will be put on notice ? indeed, may have been already ? that they are ?next? if they fail to comply with Washington?s concerns.

  And there will be more jostling over the substance and timing of new peace initiatives for Israel and the Palestinians. Whatever the brief prewar announcement about the ?road map?, this issue is far from settled in Washington, and is unlikely to achieve any real momentum until the threats to Israel?s northern borders are resolved. And that is an added pressure to lean on Bashir Assad and the ayatollahs in Iran.

  As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt. And especially Mr Blair, who skillfully managed tough internal politics, an incredibly powerful and sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally, and concerns within Europe. Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced. And more tough questions remain to be answered.

  Is this victory? Certainly the soldiers and generals can claim success. And surely, for the Iraqis there is a new-found sense of freedom. But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction.(funny how this is all many see, but forget all the other reasons given prior to the war) They haven?t yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed.

  Let?s have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue ? but don?t demobilize yet. There?s a lot yet to be done, and not only by the diplomats. (and what is meant by "not only the diplomats? Is that same message he is giving since deciding he should be running things?)

  General Wesley Clark was Supreme Allied Commander Europe 1997-2000 and led Nato forces during the Kosovo campaign

  http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm