Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Carla Anne Robbins of WSJ on infamous Hugh Shelton comment on Wesley Clark

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-19-03 11:54 PM
Original message
Carla Anne Robbins of WSJ on infamous Hugh Shelton comment on Wesley Clark
Wall St. Journal reporter Carla Anne Robbins was interviewed on C-Span tonight.

She thinks that when Hugh Shelton said Clark was "fired over issues of character and integrity" (Shelton refuses to clarify to this day) he meant that he arranged for Clark to be fired because he didn't like Clark trying to go over his head over tactics in the war in Kosovo.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Military Brat Donating Member (999 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-03 12:02 AM
Response to Original message
1. Oh, yeah, sure, I can see how that comment was misinterpreted
:wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikehiggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-03 12:08 AM
Response to Original message
2. I wonder how General Shelton felt
hearing his quote used in the Hague against Clark. Milosevic said it during his cross examination.

Must feel good to be quoted in the defense of a mass murderer.

What an honor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill of Rights Donating Member (424 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-03 12:15 AM
Response to Original message
3. I think the reporter is right
about Shelton's reasons. Do you think Clark going over his superior's heads looks bad or good?

It looks good when you consider that Clark didn't want the Muslims to be killed.

It looks bad when it appears to be insubordination due to Clark's ego.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-03 12:27 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Shelton's ego
would seem to be more of the problem. Over head in this case was a president, who agreed with Clark. Also, Albright, Holbrook and Talbot were all talking to Clinton and if they had talked to Clark, tough shit to Shelton. Clark's answering the CinC truthfully might piss the Shelton-Cohen rightwing connection off, but it is hardly insubordination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jerseycoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-03 12:28 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. Actually
As NATO commander, he didn't report only to the Pentagon, although they would have liked him to. Half the job was diplomatic and went through the Secretary of State and the US Envoy, both of whom speak very highly of Clark's job in Kosovo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deminflorida Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-03 12:30 AM
Response to Reply #3
9. Your wrong, Clark was wearing a hat as Supreme Allied
Commander. In that respect, he was in charge of an operation where multiple nations were participating. America doesn't always own the whole damn sandbox that NATO is playing in. Look the word supreme up before you start throwing around the word insubordination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toucano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-03 01:28 AM
Response to Reply #3
14. Authority of Supreme Allied Commander
As such, Clark was allowed to report and confer directly with all heads of state in NATO. That includes Bill Clinton.

He was not limited to the traditional chain of command of the pentagon. If that's got Shelton's panties in a bind, all he has to do is say it and the matter can go away.

Suggesting that Clark exercising his authority is somehow an issue of character and integrity is illogical. It amounts to a smear based on personal jealousy.

If it was insubordination of any sort, Sec. Cohen would not have honored Clark upon his retirement as Cohen did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imhotep Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-03 12:20 AM
Response to Original message
4. Clark doesn't follow orders
not a good temperment for President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jerseycoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-03 12:30 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. Of course, if he did follow orders,
you would say the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-03 12:30 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. Depends on what those orders are.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deminflorida Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-03 12:32 AM
Response to Reply #4
10. Never having to have obeyed an order doesn't always make
for a good President either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-03 12:33 AM
Response to Reply #4
11. If he thought the tactics he was advocating would save lives
If he thought the tactics he was advocating would save lives, then it was appropriate for him to discuss this with Shelton's superiors (Bill Clinton?)

He didn't disobey orders.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikehiggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-03 01:28 AM
Response to Reply #4
13. Whhaaaa??? Who gives the President orders?
Do you mean he might not bend over for the military industrial complex or the oil industry or the pharmacuetical industry or the stock markets or the banks or the insurance companies or the rest of the special interests?

Wow! What an idea. A president who didn't follow orders and didn't think he was put into office by Jesus.

Hey, he's got my vote!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tatiana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-03 01:29 AM
Response to Reply #4
15. That's funny.
I thought the knock against Clark was that as a military guy, all he was used to doing was following orders.

Who gives the President orders anyway?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Myra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-03 01:08 AM
Response to Original message
12. The fact that people are trying to guess what Shelton meant shows that
It's nothing more than a smear.
It's vague as hell so it's conveniently impossible to
comprehend, let alone refute.

Is Robbins an operator on the psychic friends network?
How the hell would she know what, if anything, Shelton was thinking?

Maybe he was thinking that since he was going to be
an "advisor" on Edwards' presidential campaign it would
be good to fling some crap at a better candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 10:21 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC