An Army of Detractors Follows in Clark's Wake

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-clark22sep22,1,7814904.story?coll=la-home-leftrail

Before the Pentagon leadership picked Gen. Wesley Clark to head the command for the Latin American region in 1996, it asked the Army for its recommendations. The brass submitted a list of candidates — and Clark's name was not on it.

A year later, before the Pentagon leadership elevated Clark to NATO supreme allied commander, it asked the Army again — and again received recommendations that did not include Clark.

Clark went on to win fame as the top military commander of the successful 1999 war to expel Serbian forces from the former Yugoslav province of Kosovo. Now he is counting on a resume packed with military and diplomatic accomplishments to give his candidacy credibility.

But Clark's military past is not an unalloyed asset. In fact, critics say, the Army's reluctance to back him for promotion illustrates misgivings that a number of his peers had about Clark despite his distinguished 37-year career.

[Girlfriday]

1. Get use to it

Clark is getting alot of attention, I even heard ABC name him as the top candidate today. I see this as the Repugs' slime machine in action. For every detractor, you can find two who praise Clark. Maybe we should just wait and see him in the debates.

[Dr Fate]

2. Comes complete with subtle Clinton smear!

The article seems to suggest that Clinton picked him for these jobs though he was somehow not up to it...hmmm- they must have been "in on somthing"...

Funny, the article mentions no specific misconduct, no "scandals", no out of the ordinary or negative behavior on the part of Clark...

...yet it somehow suggests that "somethings not right" that there were "misgivings" hmmm- "misgivings"= that must be "bad"...

Just what DID he do that was supposed to be so bad or mysterious? The article doesnt really say...

Brilliant hit piece, hats off to whoever orchestrated this classic Rovian propaganda...

[Robin Hood]

15. Misgiving like the fact that he was probably WAY to Liberal.

Not being on the pentagon top list may not be the worst thing to happen to a man.

[Tatiana]

3. Seems like a hit piece.

Of course, maybe one can conclude that Clark has had a distinguished 37-year career without being part of the Army's establishment....

[maggrwaggr]

9. I agree. "reluctance to promote him"? Uh, how'd he get those stars then?

I grew up in the military, my Dad was an officer. You don't get to be a major general without some serious juice.

Hell, you don't even get full bird colonel without SOME juice.

This article is just silly.

I love it when they say phrases like "some detractors suggest"

Yeah, well some detractors can suggest damn near anything about anybody. Is that news? Journalism? Of course not.

[Dr Fate]

16. Yes- who are these mysterious "detractors" anyway?

You pointed out even more examples in this fishy article- ...

...I think it's pretty safe to conclude that this is a genuine hit piece- there is nothing here- just shadowy innuendo- seems almost desperate to say "somthing" about Clark without actually lying...

[corgigrrl]

25. If this is a hit piece,

it's from the left, not the right.

The LA times is hardly Freeper ville. If they are trying to do a number on Clark, it's from the left, not the right, imho.

[Tanketra]

32. Unless I'm mistaken ...

... the Los Angeles Times is owned by the Tribune Corporation (as in the Chicago Tribune, Cubs, and WGN), which is pretty well-known for leaning conservative.

It's *not* "Freeper-ville" ... but it's definitely more in their neighborhood than the left.

[Tinoire]

4. Keep posting.

If some people have their way, pretty soon the only acceptable source at DU will be Clarksphere.com

Just this week the following were accused of being Rove tools:

www.antiwar.com
www.counterpunch.com
NY Times
Fair
LA Times

We wouldn't want Reagan Democrats to feel ill at ease here.

Maybe we should just get in the spirit of things and merge with Free Republic?

A homecoming is all fine and well but damn- let's not redecorate the entire house!

[Jim Sagle]

5. CounterPunch sucks Nazi filth and calls it cherry soda.

They bash every Democrat they find - always from the "left".

Of course.

[Dr Fate]

6. what are some of the specific "misgivings" held about Clark...

...by the military? A strong word, but no actual examples.

I do not pick Clark as my first choice- I dont think whover posted this is a "Rove operative"-...

...I wish the article was more specific- it really gives us no details on why we should have these "misgivings"...

...from my objective point of view, the information, or lack there-of in this article stinks of Rove...

[Dr Fate]

7. Seriously- I posted specific examples of how this looks like a hit-piece..

...while you suggest that people who are not anti-Clark should join the freeps!

Who is the one trying to stifle dissent here? I offered specific examples and clues that suggest this is propaganda- but all you do is practically accuse non-Clark bashers as republicans-freepers no less!

I dont even support Clark as my 1st choice- I have MANY questions about him- but that does not mean I dont know propaganda when I see it...

[Tinoire]

10. Did I suggest that

I merely suggested that in the spirit of Centrism, we just merge Free Republic and Democratic Underground. We could call it either the Free Underground or the Democratic Republic...

I in no way accused non-Clark bashers to be Republicans-Freepers! But I do accuse many of them of attacking every Left Wing source that has even the merest whiff of criticism about Clark.

What was said in this article is nothing that wasn't said in the military for years. Expect a lot more of it to come forth. Certain paths are traced from the get go as long as the person punches their tickets- it's not rare but it is uncommon.

On edit: Ah must be the term "Reagan Democrats".

My apologies. That in NO WAY was meant for all Clark supporters. We have a lot of real Dems supporting Clark- that term was used for the real Reagan Democrats coming over. I just came from IG's "Welcome Home Reagan Democrats" message in GD and am speaking as someone who does not want Reagan Democrats taking our Party further to the right. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=380992

[Dr Fate]

14. Okay- cool...

I am not a centrist, I am not even a Clark supporter- I'm just a hard-core DEM in general...

I still think that this particular article is fishy...you say there are "things to come"- any idea what they could be?

Perhaps "they" are waiting to leak some of these specific "misgivings" about the successful General Clark, but I wonder why this article does not really give any specific examples...

As far as that Reagan Democrat stuff goes- it stinks of propaganda too- do YOU know ANYONE who as EVER called themselves a "Reagan Democrat???" - it's a media term-not an actual term that people ever really identified themselves as...

Sorry- I'm a skeptic- all media/propaganda is guilty until proven factual in the eyes of Dr. Fate!

[Tinoire]

19. Lol - No I don't either but that came straight from the Clark Site

http://draftwesleyclark.com/republicans/reagan.htm

I have you the link to the thread in GD.

I don't really don't know what all will come out. I heard a bit in the Military but didn't pay too much attention because as I said, it's not uncommon. If the right person takes you under their wing (and in Clark's case it was Gen Shalikashvili and Alexander Haig), all you have to do is punch your tickets and keep your nose clean because your path is paved.

The military's not stupid and Clark is undoubtedly brilliant. They don't throw that kind of officer away, they groom him for bigger and better things and it tends to cause a LOT of resentment because promotions and assignments other people have to earn tend to get kind of handed to them.

It's no fairer than the system on the outside. The military is extremely elitist in the officer circles.

I don't know why this article doesn't give specific examples. I know Colonel Hackworth has been giving some for a long time because he hates Clark... He hates everything that's not mud and soldiers and taking care of soldiers. He hated my guys in the military. Basically he hates what he calls pencil-pushing "weanies".

Personally, I have several rather severe issues with Clark but this isn't one of them because he's not responsible for how the system works. I would (and do), however, have a problem with the people who try to paint his career with an unrealistic brush as if he spent his entire time in the trenches doing heroic things.

[Dr Fate]

22. I know- read my comment on the DU thread you mentioned...

...I think regular old DEMS or Clark operatives put that cite up- not actual "Reagan Democrats"...

...Come on- "Regan Democrats"??

...it's poorly crafted BS- just my suspicion...

[Tinoire]

28. It was put up by Josh Margulies co-founder

It was put up by Josh Margulies co-founder of the Draft Clark movement. He is a Republican so I'll assume a Reagan Democrat. The other co-founder, John Hlinko is a Democrat.

Both were on C-Span last month discussing their tactics and sating that they, at the time, had 1/3 Dem support, 1/3 Ind support and 1/3 Republican support wit the last group several times referred to as Reagan Democrat.

But you have a point... I doubt anyone calls themselves that!

Kind of funny, over on the Dean blog, they don't like the term either... They prefer to just be called "Republicans for Dean"
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/001337.html

In all fairness, I can understand them. Reagan Democrat implies full-blown schizophrenia.

And on that good-night! I was supposed to be in bed 3 hours ago!

Peace

[DoveTurnedHawk]

27. Actually, in This Very Article, It Has Hackworth Recanting

I don't know why this article doesn't give specific examples. I know Colonel Hackworth has been giving some for a long time because he hates Clark... He hates everything that's not mud and soldiers and taking care of soldiers. He hated my guys in the military. Basically he hates what he calls pencil-pushing "weanies".

Col. David Hackworth, a retired Army officer turned commentator, disparaged Clark in a 1999 column as "known to those who've served with him as the Ultimate Perfumed Prince." But in an e-mail exchange, Hackworth said he no longer believed that characterization of Clark to be accurate. "Withdrew it after I read his <Clark's> new book and did further research," Hackworth wrote, adding that he recently interviewed Clark, "and came away very impressed."

I'm glad to see one less Hack(worth) out to get Clark. :-)

DTH

[Tinoire]

29. Tha is very surprising!

Do you have a link? Hackworth could very well have changed his mind, I don't know... That's the first I've heard of that. I do know he promised to write more about Clark soon. Maybe it will be good, I really don't know. He's a very blood and guts soldier...

Don't rush for the link if you don't have it handy, I'm going to bed lol. If Hackworth takes back some of the things he said about Clark, it will go some way towards undoing the damage of "Perfumed Prince" because Hackworth has a lot of respect as a straight shooter within the military community.

He would not be above admitting he made a mistake if he thought he had. Good-night! :)

[DoveTurnedHawk]

30. The Link Is Above, It's in the LA Times Article That Started This Thread

Good night! :-)

DTH

[Tinoire]

31. Ah... Thanks!

I'll log on tomorrow... I can't remember my password and I'd HATE having to re-register to read an article. I'll take your word for it that it's in there and either re-register or remember my pass-word tomorrow. I thought the original post had the entire article for some odd reason (lack of snips I think).

Peace and good-night one final time! :)

[Selwynn]

8. I agree, BUT..

I think you've got to give people a break. It *IS* true that there is going to be a lot of negative media about Clark or any other candidate because that's just how things work. And if you feel like DUers are a little over-protective of their candidates, I think that's understandable. I bet most DUers are absolutely terrified/horrifed at the thought of Bush for another four years. People who are passionately fiestily backing Dean or Clark are doing so because this election feels so critical to the country to many people. I don't think I'm over stating things when I say that many DUers, and in fact many democrats on the whole feel almost desparate to win this round, as though the literal fate of the nation depends on it. While perhaps that is a tad overdramatic, its not all that far from the truth.

So I think its at least understandable that folks are going to be very protective about the candidates. In a lot of ways, even with Bush's sinking poll numbers, we are still the huge underdogs - its gonna promise to be an all-out knock down, drag out fight and a lot of DUers feel the need to saddle up and be on the defensive against the forces at work to keep democrats from winning the election. Sometimes, that's going to mean some come off with a bit of paranoia, or a bit overdefensive, or whatever. I think the rest of us who are perhaps a little more detached (not me) or just still have significant reservations and haven't yet figured out who to support (me) are at least going to have to have a little understanding and patience with camps that have already completely made up their mind and are passionate about it. After all, they could very well be right. :)

It is a natural human reaction not to want to hear anything that might be a strike against a belief that you want to hold. But any the end, everyone here can agree on one thing: a democrat in the white house in 2004. We're all just trying to figure out the best way to do that right now.

Personally, I sift through even the negative articles about candidates because I want to hear every angle. I want to hear the people who sing Clarks praises, but I also want to hear the people who are deliberately trying to discredit him (so that I know what he's up against) as well as keep an open mind to legitimate criticsm, because NO candidate is without faults or weaknesses, and I need to know if he really is the guy for me or not.

Anyway, yesI know sometimes some of the supporters here make me feel like I'm in a fundamentalist church again rehersing dogma and stamping out dissent with the established "right" point of view... but I think that's understandable, and we all should probably give everyone a break. :)

[Tinoire]

13. I explained in my previous post

I did not mean to smear all Clark supporters as Republicans; I am however concerned about the right-wing talking points we've been seeing more and more lately and they're not coming from old-time DU Clark supporters.

Thank you for your thoughtful post. Your approach is as fair as your post

[DoveTurnedHawk]

11. Incorrect Title

Should be: Clark Wears Campaign Medals From Two Fronts

I actually didn't think this article was all that bad. Much more fair than the Newsweek articles, IMO.

DTH

[Democat]

12. The right wing media is going to try to destory Clark

The right has decided that they want Bush against Howard Dean, so Clark must be destroyed.

[Sick of Bullshit]

18. Seems to me they're also bashing Howard Dean

A REAL Democrat, by the way, not some Johnny-come-lately like General I-Can't-Remember-My-Position-On-The-Iraq-War.

[Dr Fate]

20. Bush/Media attacks ALL Democrats...

...Clark(Clinton Administration), Dean, Kerry,Joe-Shmoe, they dont give a fuck who it is. Whoever the DEM front runner of the week is- they ATTACK...

When you can DIG that then perhaps we will have some unity and DEFEAT these GOP fuckers instead of attacking each other's candidates...

I'm not a Clarkie or a Deanie, for the record...

[truthisfreedom]

17. none of these kooks can save bush*. if they wanted to get judgemental

about bush himself, they might try asking his former business partners who he screwed... he has a history of being a terrible businessman who had to be bailed out endlessly by his daddy's friends. if being too liberal is the only thing they can pin on Clark, he's got it made.

[dArKeR]

21. I don't like a President who's job was to kill people. I'd take any of the

others.

[Dr Fate]

23. I guess that leaves out any candidate who served!!

YIKES! I guess that still leaves us with Dean at least!!!

[Tinoire]

33. KUCINICH also!

He didn't serve, to his distress, because of a heart problem. His brother did though. Don't remember all the particulars but I think his brother might have perished over there... Not really sure about that part though.

[neuvocat]

26. Jimmy Carter wouldn't have made it then

nor would FDR, JFK or LBJ.

[neuvocat]

24. I was in the Army for four years

and have some idea of the sort of culture it has. The lack of recommendations don't entirely surprise me, really. So much of it was based on personal politics and who knows who. All they did IMO was look at what his party registration was-which kept the Army brass from giving him the considerations he deserved and got.

I am quite sure however that the same army brass would dearly love to see Clark become the President-as would most active and veteran military members. Also recall the piece in the Army Times that was quite critical of the lack of funding it got from Washington. Things will certainly change in the Dems favor.

[Sick of Bullshit]

34. If he voted for Reagan and Nixon, one would assume

his party registration was Republican. If the guy couldn't decide until last week that he was a Democrat, then Dem was obviously not his party of registration.

[freethought23]

35. Clark was Waco military advisor & wanted to bomb Russians at Pristina

It's too bad; I wish it were otherwise, but these are facts.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/9/19/155850.shtml

[disgruntella]

36. when did newsmax start publishing facts? n/t

[TahitiNut]

37. Incorrect Subject - Please Read LBN Rules

Please be aware of the following restrictions when posting in Latest Breaking News:

1. NO opinion pieces, editorials, or other stories that are not news.

2. NO news that is more than 12 hours old.

3. NO duplicate posts of stories that have already been posted.

4. NO polls, petitions, or other action items.

5. All of our other rules for posting apply as well, including copyright rules.

6. When posting articles, please use the published title of the article as the title of the discussion thread.

7. Discussion of Israeli/Palestinian issues is not permitted in the Latest Breaking News forum, and instead must be posted in the Israeli/Palestinian Affairs forum. If, however, the news item is primarily about U.S. policy in Israeli/Palestinian affairs, you may post it in the Latest Breaking News forum.

If your message is not Latest Breaking News, you should post it in the General Discussion Forum or in one of the other forums.

Locking.