Clark's Vietnamese lesson

[dfong63]

this link has been posted before, but i haven't seen anyone else comment on this particular item in it.

Ex-NATO commander Clark talks of wars at GOP dinner

``Clark said he drew a lesson from his time in Vietnam. "I learned you never commit the United States of America to any mission unless you go in with a clear intent to win," he said.''

so that's Clark's "lesson from Vietnam"? not that the war was based on lies, was wrong, but that we simply lacked the will to win? that is not what i want to hear from a potential future president.

[neuvocat]

1. So you wanna go into a war half-assed

like Bush did with no intention of winning. Yeah, that makes sense.

[eileen_d]

2. Maybe if this article gets milked any more

we'll find out about Clark's role in the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

I would say if you want to know how Clark feels about Vietnam, write him a letter and ask him - no need to rely on a single quote from 2001.

[VolcanoJen]

3. Seeing as how Clark actually fought in Vietnam...

... I imagine he learned many lessons from it, and has much wisdom to impart on the issue.

It's incredibly unfair to take these words alone as the "sole lesson" a Vietnam War veteran learned from his experience there.

I've read no transcript of his entire address from this event, and feel that you're really making a leap of faith by concluding that these few words are all Clark has to say about Vietnam. Rather than putting words in his mouth, you're extracting them, aren't you?

[dfong63]

6. those are his own words, quoted from a news article

... I imagine he learned many lessons from it, and has much wisdom to impart on the issue.

the article said he learned "a lesson" in Vietnam.

It's incredibly unfair to take these words alone as the "sole lesson" a Vietnam War veteran learned from his experience there.

that's not what i said. i quoted the article exactly. i neither added nor subtracted from Clark's quoted statement about Vietnam.

if Clark learned any other lessons, they apparently weren't worth mentioning that night. had he said that the war was wrong, that we never should have gone in, or spoken of his admiration for the courage of the people who opposed the war, that would have been noteworthy and i'm sure it would have been mentioned in the article. but it wasn't.

I've read no transcript of his entire address from this event, and feel that you're really making a leap of faith by concluding that these few words are all Clark has to say about Vietnam. Rather than putting words in his mouth, you're extracting them, aren't you?

i'm quoting the relevant part of a news article. if you have mitigating info to add, you're welcome to do so. i don't. and i never said that was "all" Clark had to say. but i think it is interesting that the only thing that the reporter quoted was a right-wing talking point. if Clark's speech was not fairly reported, then Clark should complain and give a more complete explanation of his views. but don't tell me i'm being unfair by quoting in full the relevant portion of a news article.

i think Clark's comment deserves discussion. let the discussion begin. i would note that you and other supporters are not responding with facts, but wishful thinking. you "imagine" he learned other lessons from Vietnam, but you provide no concrete evidence of that, nor what those other lessons (which he apparently didn't feel were worth mentioning) actually might be. you're accusing me of unfairness on the basis of what you wish he had said.

[Cappurr]

4. Odd that you should leave this part out....

"Clark discussed his work in the Balkans and his career in the military. He said his work strengthened his affection for the American way of life.

"There are a lot of people in the world who really love and believe in the United States. They love what we stand for, they love American civic involvement, they want to be us," Clark said. "That's why our work abroad is so important"

Now you wouldn't be just trying to tell part of the story would you? :eyes:

ON EDIT: This speech was in 1991. While Clinton was still President. Before George Bush made the entire world hate what we stand for. I'll bet Clark ain't too happy about that.

[dfong63]

8. how is that part relevant to "lessons of Vietnam"?

"Clark discussed his work in the Balkans and his career in the military. He said his work strengthened his affection for the American way of life.

"There are a lot of people in the world who really love and believe in the United States. They love what we stand for, they love American civic involvement, they want to be us," Clark said. "That's why our work abroad is so important"

Now you wouldn't be just trying to tell part of the story would you? :eyes:

what's your point? i'm not going to type in Clark's entire bio every time i post. i quoted in its entirety the relevant portion of a news article. if you don't like what i quoted, blame Clark or blame AP, but don't blame me.

the part you apparently wanted me to include doesn't mention Vietnam or any lessons Clark might have learned from it. moreover, it just strengthens my suspicion that Clark is an unrepentant jingoistic interventionist who learned the wrong lesson from Vietnam.

ON EDIT: This speech was in 1991. While Clinton was still President. Before George Bush made the entire world hate what we stand for. I'll bet Clark ain't too happy about that.

what are you smoking? the article is dated May 11, 2001. Clinton was out of office. and in 1991, Clinton was not yet in office. your history seems to be a bit muddled.

[eileen_d]

9. the power of a single quote

which "just strengthens my suspicion that Clark is an unrepentant jingoistic interventionist who learned the wrong lesson from Vietnam."

You have just stated your bias right there. So Clark could probably say "I like fuzzy bunnies" and you would read the same thing into it. Nothing will convince you otherwise; why continue to bring this up as a matter for "debate"?

[dfong63]

13. you call it "bias" to suspect that a 4-star general is an interventionist?

i say it's no more "bias" on my part to suspect that, than it is "bias" on your part to attribute intelligence to a rhodes scholar or bravery to a man who won medals.

[eileen_d]

15. Let me go out on a limb here...

You don't like Clark. You don't want anyone else to like him either. To me, that's bias.

[Cappurr]

10. Marlboros

And you are right about the date. But youre wrong about the speech you took one line and put it out there. The lines I added were in the same speech, but give a different perspective to the things Clark has learned during his career. Besides.....and this is important.....NONE of those excerpts are complete. You have no idea what he said after or before that one comment on Vietnam. Yet from that incomplete record, you conclude he is a warmonger. :eyes:

[seventhson]

12. Psssst. Clinton was NOT president in 1991

nt


anyway....

[seventhson]

5. DAMN - If ONLY we had been able to Turn Vietnam into a Parking Lot

Then we would have had parking for our new Walmarts in Cambodia and Laos and Communism would have been defeated (and a lot of pesky socialist Asians would have been eliminated)

And the Repubs would be rich, fat and HAPPY!!!

Yahoo

YeeeHawwww!!!!

[Cappurr]

7. Were you there?

Did you see what our soldiers went through because of lousy, half-witted political policies? Did you see what the Vietnamese went through....both South and North? Remember, we were there to get the North out of the South. We failed. And Clark is right. We failed because we didn't have the will to do what we set out to do....get the North out of the South. We failed because of bad commanders. (And Clark was barely out of West Point at that time).

Unless you saw what hell it was for GIs and Vietnamese I don't think you have a lot of room to make wise remarks about turning Vietnam into a parking lot.

It was a lousy war. We shouldn't have been there. Just as we shouldn't be in Iraq. But Wesley Clark had nothing to do with either decision.

[seventhson]

11. But Clark's BS about the will to win etc.....

is utter BS.

The problem was that it was an illegal and immoral war that we should never have been in.

Just like Iraq.

Blaming our loss on the failure to be BRUTAL enough is fascist IMHO

[dfong63]

14. but what if he had been, what would he have done?

It was a lousy war. We shouldn't have been there. Just as we shouldn't be in Iraq. But Wesley Clark had nothing to do with either decision.

i disagree with that assertion. on one level, smart people who unquestioningly obey stupid leaders, are enablers, potentiators. they increase the damage that stupid leaders can do. without people like Clark, we wouldn't have as many lousy wars.

on another level, the Vietnam war was ended by protests. Clark says we (who does he mean by "we", anyway?) didn't have the "intent" to win, but what he really means is that LBJ and Nixon were constrained in their options by public opinion. i believe it was at least in part the anti-war movement that kept Nixon from "turning Vietnam into a parking lot". people of conscience prevented further escalation of the war. the point is that every citizen had something to do with the decision. and where was Clark while this was going on? did Clark do anything to oppose this lousy mistaken war, or was he one of the people who thought it was a noble cause that should have been fought more ruthlessly?

if it's the latter, then why should we trust him with the reins of power now? i think it is quite relevant to ask what lessons Clark learned from Vietnam.

[eileen_d]

16. yes, it is quite relevant to ask what lessons Clark learned from Vietnam

Again - if you want to ask him, ask him. No need to present this quote as Clark's "last word" on Vietnam.