Wesley Clark: Obama Lap Dog & a Disgrace in General

[olddobe]

Pfffft who in their right mind would name a Son Wesley...
Mr. and Mrs. Hardin...John Wesley Hardin 
Dobe

 

[Toad]

Good article here:  "Surrogate Silliness"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/01/AR2008070102480.html

Both sides have attack poodles yapping at their master's behest.

Should we really allow the mass media to focus on this tripe?

Or should we be pushing hard to find out what the candidates plan to do about America's energy problem?

E-mail your favorite news source and tell them to forget the attack poodles and get us some information on how the candidates will solve the energy problem and stuff that really matters.

[indy007]

Here's an interesting bit on Clark...

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_2003_Oct_27/ai_109128671/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1

Retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark wants to be president and, given that he is a man who has worn many hats during his controversial rise through the ranks, many believe this qualifies him for the top political job. Clark has worn the hat of first-in-his-class graduate of West Point, Rhodes scholar, decorated Vietnam combat veteran, White House fellow, four-star general and even Supreme Commander of NATO a post from which he was relieved. There is one hat, though, that despite lingering suspicions and accusations Clark neither has confirmed nor denied wearing a hat that many Americans might find very disturbing for a military man seeking the top civilian post in the U.S. government without first registering with either political party or being so much as elected dog catcher.

In his recently published book Winning Modern Wars, Clark proclaims that the "American way was not to rely on coercion and hard pressure but on persuasion and shared vision," which has been taken by Democratic Party doves to explain why the retired general has been an outspoken critic of President George W. Bush's handling of the war in Iraq. But while Clark may prefer a "kinder, gentler" persuasion in dealing with U.S. enemies abroad, critics are saying his actions at home should be reviewed before deciding whether he is qualified to be trusted with America's civil liberties.

For example, there is the 1993 siege of David Koresh's Mount Carmel commune in Waco, Texas, where four law-enforcement officers were killed and nearly 90 civilians men, women and children massacred by being shot and/or burned alive. Those seeking an investigation of his part in the Waco outrage say that Clark not only played a hidden role in the military-style assault on the Branch Davidians, but easily could have refused to participate in what was a clear violation of the Posse Comitatus Act that bars use of the U.S. military for civilian law-enforcement activities.

Although Clark never publicly has discussed his role in the attack on the Branch Davidians and did not respond to Insight's requests for an interview to discuss his role at Waco, there are indisputable facts that confirm he had knowledge of the grim plans to bring the standoff to an end. Between August 1992 and April 1994, Clark was commander of the 1st Cavalry Division of the Army's III Corps at Fort Hood, Texas. According to a report by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the list of military personnel and equipment used at Waco included: 15 active-duty military personnel, 13 Texas National Guard personnel, nine Bradley fighting vehicles, five combat-engineer vehicles, one tank-retrieval vehicle and two M1A1 Abrams tanks. Additionally, Fort Hood reportedly was used for much of the training for the bloody attack on the Davidians and their children.

Based on the fact that military equipment from Fort Hood was used in the siege and that training was provided there, say critics, it is clear the commanding officer of the 1st Cavalry had direct knowledge of the attack and, more likely than not, was involved in the tactical planning.

West Point graduate Joseph Mehrten Jr. tells Insight that, "Clark had to have knowledge about the plan because there is no way anyone could have gotten combat vehicles off that base without his okay. The M1A1 Abrams armor is classified 'Secret,' and maybe even 'Top Secret,' and if it was deployed as muscle for something like Waco there would have been National Firearms Act weapons issues. Each of these M1A1 Abrams vehicles is armed with a 125-millimeter cannon, a 50-caliber machine gun and two 30-caliber machine guns, which are all very heavily controlled items, requiring controls much like a chain of legal custody. It is of critical importance that such vehicles could not have been moved for use at Waco without Clark's knowledge."

Mehrten continues, "This is something that the general staff would know in the daily situation report or manning reports. Clark would have known and, given his obsession for micromanagement, there is probably someone who can place him on the scene. He wouldn't have been able to resist going in. At the very least there is no way he didn't have knowledge."

So what if the general was aware that his military equipment was being used against American civilians, and so what if he even participated in the planning? Wasn't he just following orders from above? "To follow that order," explains Mehrten, "is to follow a blatantly illegal order of a kind every West Point officer knows is a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. Clark's obligation was to say, 'No, I'm not going to do it.' Look, Clark went to the same institution I did and at West Point we had extensive instruction in military ethics and issues concerning how one avoids obeying an illegal military order. It is drilled into our heads from the earliest days as cadets that the 'I-was-just-following-orders' defense isn't necessarily a good one."

[alskahawk]

I'm sorry; if you want to seriously discuss this you need to use a reputable source. As was pointed out, ANYONE can edit Wiki and the Bushophobics have had a field day with that load of road apples.

Oh, one other little thing..... you didn't answer if YOU had ever served the United States in its military. If you did, what did you accomplish that is on a par with winning wings? What job did you have that would compare to flying the F-102?

The F-102's accident rate was more than three times that of a modern F-16: 13.69 per 100,000 hours. 875 F-102A interceptors were built; 259 or almost 30% - were lost to accidents or enemy action while serving in Vietnam. A total of 15 F-102 fighters were lost in Vietnam. 10 of those were due to accidents, so you can see the accident rate was pretty high. The F-102 claimed the lives of many pilots, including a number stationed at Ellington during Bush's tenure. Of the 875 F-102A production models that entered service, 259 were lost in accidents that killed 70 Air Force and ANG pilots. The early Century series were no picnic to fly; ergonomical cockpits hadn't been invented yet. That's just one of the reasons for Tom Wolfe's statement, it had other inherent design flaws as well.

All that said, Bush has been a poor President and even that's being kind. The only bright spot in his legacy is the appointment of two strict constructionist Supreme Court judges. Other than that he totally squandered a six year conservative hold on the Presidency and the Congress.

But for you to disrespect and make light of his service shows a basic lack of knowledge on your part. IMO.

 The National Guard is an honorable force and to have it used as a dumping ground for some elitist frat boy is a disgrace.

 2nd generation retired military. F-102 accident rate? Comparing the F-102 to the Tomcat? Of course being a aviation expert you know that the accident rates got better in the seventies. Better aircraft, better training, emphasis on safety procedures all improved the accident rate. But you know that don't you?
  And the T-33 was that a hard plane to fly? If your a pilot and I think you are, remember back to the early days in your flying career. You didn't avoid flight time, you went for every hour you could get. Junior pilots share one trait, they love flying. They don't miss their physicals and get grounded.
 Take President Bush's name of these reports and look at them. Do you see a love of flying? Or a disgruntled officer? How would you approach this if you were his superior? Suppose you reviewed this record for promotion or retention? Would you really say this guy is fighter pilot material?  During a war? Would you say this guy has the traits of a fighter pilot, eager, aggressive, motivated? Take off your republican badge and look at this record for what it is.

 Don't lump this guy in with Clark, McCain, Kerry, Gore, or anyone who went to Vietnam. Move him closer to Clinton.

[Toad]

The National Guard is an honorable force and to have it used as a dumping ground for some elitist frat boy is a disgrace.

That last part is just Bushophobic blather. He was certainly not the only elitist frat boy in the Guard, he wasn't the first or the last. He was one of many. There's nothing special about him getting into the Guard; it happened routinely back then. Hell, if I had known there were ~300 unfilled Guard UPT slots in 1973, I'd have tried for one in a fighter outfit and almost certainly got it. Guard had a lot of bennies; one of my classmates graduated from a UPT Guard slot, flew Guard for less than a year and got a job with a major airline at a very young age.


 

2nd generation retired military.

What was your MOS?

What was it you did that makes you feel so smug in dissing the winning of wings and qualifying in the F-102? Ever been out over the Gulf of Mexico at night in a single engine jet at 35K dodging major thunderstorms? Thought not.

F-102 accident rate? Comparing the F-102 to the Tomcat? Of course being a aviation expert you know that the accident rates got better in the seventies. Better aircraft, better training, emphasis on safety procedures all improved the accident rate. But you know that don't you?

Yes, I do. The point, of course, is that flying the F-102 WAS a dangerous job relative to other fighters in use at the time. ~14 per 100k is an abysmal accident rate. I'm sure some was pilot error. OTOH, I KNOW there were inherent design problems with the 102 that made it anything but a cakewalk. It takes some huevos to strap on any of the Century series and go for a ride, particularly in bad weather. Houston has plenty of that, too.

So yeah, it ticks me off you make light of his accomplishments in that regard. Because you are one of those guys talking from the safety of his armchair that apparently hasn't won his OWN wings.

 

And the T-33 was that a hard plane to fly? If your a pilot and I think you are, remember back to the early days in your flying career. You didn't avoid flight time, you went for every hour you could get. Junior pilots share one trait, they love flying. They don't miss their physicals and get grounded.

The T-33 was the lead-in to the 102. He qualified in the 102 and flew it. ALL 102 jocks got T-33 time. He flew his required time.

Take off your republican badge and look at this record for what it is.

I'll deal with this first. I voted for Bush over Gore, a no-brainer in my opinion. I did not vote for Bush or Kerry the 2nd time, I voted Libertarian. I will vote either Libertarian, Constitutional or perhaps write in Ron Paul this time.

So your attempt to compartmentalize me into something you can easily dismiss has no basis.

The point here is that Bush did serve, did win his wings, did fly a difficult/dangerous airplane and did get an honorable discharge. The Bushophobics are barking up the wrong tree attacking him on this issue; it just makes them look stupid. He did less than many, for sure... but he did SIGNIFICANTLY MORE than an even greater number of people that didn't serve at all or ran to Canada.

The intelligent thing for any Bushophobic is to attack him on his record which is essentially abyssmal with the exception of appointing Roberts and Alito. However, the Bushophobics would rather impugn his military service.

 

Take President Bush's name of these reports and look at them. Do you see a love of flying? Or a disgruntled officer?

I see a pretty typical, young, junior officer Guard guy of the time. Which just happens to be pretty close to my time... see, I'm not too  young to remember VietNam. BTW, are YOU old enough to remember those times?

How would you approach this if you were his superior? Suppose you reviewed this record for promotion or retention?

I haven't read all of his OER's. I've read some that said he was a good pilot. I've seen the stuff like missing his physical. Hell, only the totally brain dead don't make 1LT and Captain is almost as easy. I'd would guess he got pretty normal OER/promotion treatment for the time he was in.

 

Would you really say this guy is fighter pilot material?  During a war? Would you say this guy has the traits of a fighter pilot, eager, aggressive, motivated?

Well, let's look at the obvious. He qualified in a difficult fighter and there is an OER floating around that said he was good in it. So yeah, he is obviously fighter pilot material. How would he do in combat? Who knows; generally you don't know how anyone will react in the shirt until you see them react in the shirt. 

 

Don't lump this guy in with Clark, McCain, Kerry, Gore, or anyone who went to Vietnam.

Never said I did. I certainly don't put him anywhere near a draft dodger like Bill Clinton though.

Bush volunteered, won his wings, flew a difficult airplane apparently pretty well, got favorable treatement and got an honorable discharge. That's the end of it for me. Not distinguished to be sure, but not at all deserving of the scorn you heap on what he did.

Now go after his actual record as President and I'd likely agree with most of what you post.


[/quote]