Wesley Clark's "High Noon" Moment (Katrina's Editor's Cut)

[IrateCitizen]

Not making a judgement either way (as it appears is true with Katrina as well), but just thought this should be thrown out there for thought.

http://www.thenation.com/edcut/index.mhtml?bid=7

Wesley Clark's 'High Noon' Moment

09/17/2003 @ 11:45am

It was reported today that retired four-star General, ardent critic of Bush's national security policies, telegenic TV commentator, and recently declared Democrat Wesley Clark will enter the crowded presidential race?

Democrats believe that Clark, as a former military officer, could make the party more viable on foreign affairs than it's been since a general named George Marshall was containing Communism under the command of a president named Harry Truman. (That's the conventional wisdom, though the staggering cost of the badly bungled Iraqi occupation has diminished the Republican advantage on defense no matter who runs against Bush.)

While media commentary on Clark's prospective candidacy has been almost entirely favorable--even adulatory--it's worth looking back at a forgotten chapter in his military biography that occurred when Clark was Supreme Allied Commander of NATO and Commander In Chief for the US European Command. Call it Clark's "High Noon" showdown. It's an incident that deserves scrutiny because Clark's claim to be an experienced leader in national security matters is tied, in significant part, to his record in the Balkans.

CLICK ON THE LINK ABOVE FOR THE REST OF THE ARTICLE.

[Kahuna]

1. Katrina who supported Nader until the eleventh hour doesn't

like Clark?!? I'm shocked! :eyes:

Also, why didn't she bother to get Clark's side of it. That would be responsible reporting, no? :eyes:

[IrateCitizen]

2. Ummm... did you READ the article?

She does mention Clark's side of it in the end. And her final conclusion is that she hopes that Clark has learned the importance of coalition-building from this experience. Judging by his opposition to the way in which we invaded Iraq, I would say that he has.

If you view it as a broadside to your chosen candidate, methinks you're looking at this piece through a biased lens. I saw it as quite neutral.

[slappypan]

3. Sunday Bloody Sunday

But British General Michael Jackson, the three-star general and commander of K-FOR, the international force organized and commanded by NATO to enforce an agreement in Kosovo, told Clark: "Sir, I'm not starting world war three for you," when refusing to accept his order to prevent Russian forces from taking over the airport.

Read more about the career of Mike Jackson here.

The editors of The Nation are not Democrats. They did not endorse Gore in 2000 and they do not want Democrats to win elections.

[Kahuna]

4. Exactly.

nt

[CWebster]

5. Well, Irate

I guess slappy set you straight about the "Nation" and those damn reds they represent. ;-)

[Kahuna]

7. Well?

:shrug:

[Kahuna]

6. No. I couldn't get past her repeating some bullshit about..

Clark starting WWIII. Seems she would have reported that that remark is totally ridiculous because it is.

Katrina should take her own advice and stop trying to sabotage a candidate who has a chance of unseating bush. In 2000, she couldn't abide Gore and look at what we ended up with.

[IrateCitizen]

10. I fail to see her conclusion in the last 3 paragraphs as "sabotage"

Despite concerns this incident raises, it remains a fact that the Clark candidacy is a tantalizing prospect. Clark says he is a liberal Democrat who favors abortion rights, affirmative action, gun control and progressive economic policies. He has also spoken eloquently about basing America's role in the world on the country's better principles: "generosity, humility, engagement..."

The other day, Clark told Bill Maher on HBO that this country was founded on "the idea that people could talk, reason, have dialogue, discuss the issues…We can't lose that in this country. We've got to get it back."

Perhaps Clark has learned that building alliances--and not risking showdowns-- is more crucial than ever in these perilous times? It would be good to hear from the general himself now that he has decided to run for president.

Please tell me where these 3 paragraphs constitute some kind of "sabotage". The only part I can see that might be construed as such by Clark loyalists is the last sentence stating that it would be good to hear from Clark himself. :shrug:

[IrateCitizen]

9. Thank you for the additional material on Jackson

I looked over it, and it doesn't paint him in a rosy picture. But, considering it comes from a site called "clarksphere", I still view it with a wary eye.

The editors of The Nation are not Democrats. They did not endorse Gore in 2000 and they do not want Democrats to win elections.

The editors and writers of The Nation are not Democratic Party loyalists. They are progressives and leftists. They have been as critical of the center-right shift of the Democratic Party as a whole as anyone over the past 10 years.

More than "wanting Democrats to win elections", they want them to stand up for progressive principles. While that may not seem like a worthy cause to you, it is to a progressive like myself.

[slappypan]

11. The fact remains

they do not support the Democratic Party. I am a progressive, and after much due consideration, I have concluded that the best way to advance progressive causes in my country at this particular moment in history is to support the election of well-qualified progressive Democrats such as Wesley Clark. If you and the editors of The Nation can think of a superior strategy, I certainly hope it succeeds.

I am deeply concerned that the criticism of Clark's conduct in Kosovo seems to come chiefly from supporters of Milosovic and other far-right ideologues. I am also concerned how quickly it is picked up and spread around on by some elements of the far left.

[CWebster]

12. "The far Left", Irate!

The far left! They just don't get that you have to play the game by the Republican rules to win. Damn!

[slappypan]

14. The Constitution of the United States

is "the Republican rules"?

[IrateCitizen]

13. I can guarantee you that The Nation will support the Dem in 2004.

They'll do it because they realize how BAD things are under Dubya. Then, I hope, they will return to their role of supporting progressive policies, and help keep the heat on the Democratic Administration to push for such reforms.

Anyway, if you're so damned disillusioned with The Nation, where else are you going to go? The warmongerers at The New Republic? The NYT editorial board?

I'm sorry, but I'll take the points of view of those pushing for progressive change than Democratic Party loyalists any day. I may not agree with everything they say, but at least there might be a certain kind of principal behind it besides naked self-interest or supporting the status-quo.

[slappypan]

15. I hope you are correct.

I disagree with them mainly on strategy.

[IrateCitizen]

17. Plain electoral strategy never has been, nor will be, their strength

And perhaps that is why I most enjoy reading them. They have some of the best investigative reporting and commentary out there, IMHO -- even if it does come from an obviously well left-of-center bias.

I mean, the fact that they have William Greider ALONE is reason enough to keep reading. And the piece they did on Iraq 2 weeks ago was the best reporting of conditions "on the ground" that I have read to date.

Like I said, the primary motivation of their editorial staff and writers seems to be pushing for progressive policies and reforms. And considering how much the Democrats have been failing on this front lately, it's not a bad role to take.

[StClone]

8. Kosovo was a big mess

And yet no Americans were lost (oh Rush says because we were at 30,000 feet) and the place is better than when we found it. BushCo. can't say that. I see it as hard to criticize Clark unless you are a lying liar and paid truth assassin.

Clark is a war criminal! Any soldier can be called crimal because that is what war is a crime of epic proportions and a failure for whatever reason.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

16. Obviously this IS going to be an issue for Clark that he will have to

effectively address as a candidate. Regardless of his decision at the time, the collective result did overrule him and it DIDN'T happen which is also part of the poker game called war and domination ..perhaps Clark's threat made Hungary's denial of the use of airspace more iminent than it might have been and ONE thing Clark was RIGHT about was putting TROOPS on the ground. The war ended 4 days later....something Katrina DID NOT mention.