Gen. Clark is Right: McCain's Military Service is Not a Qualification for the White House

Duh, points, facts, and integrity don't have seats the Straight-talk express. Now lies, slander and fear however, have front row first-class seats.

Can somebody say irrelevant?

Clinton didn't fire Clark.

One of the problems with Clark was his outrageous arrogance displayed at the expense of the common soldier. Special privileges, flaunted perks and a dismissive attitude towards those under him made him disliked and it's very bad to be a disliked officer out on a battlefield. This pattern persists.

One of Clark's biggest problems was being a stickler for the rules and regulations. But that comes with the territory of being a good soldier, sometimes you have to take the heat for your commanding officers.

Arcanebliss, I asked you in another thread about what got him FIRED from his NATO post. You replied with a bunch of excerpts from "CLARKS OWN BOOK" explaining how he was pulled from his post early so some other general wouldn't have to take a demotion in rank. Yeah, he's going to tell the truth about getting fired from a Top Brass position in his own "tell-all" book.

What did he do you all ask? I know some of you remember this story.

He nearly created the largest international incident to occur in the last 40 years by ALMOST firing on Russian troops while conducting joint operations in Kosovo.

There we were, working side-by-side with the Russians (as crazy as that sounds after decades of Cold War posturing) and the guy "almost" errantly engages some of their forces.

Thank god the subordinate he ordered to attack had the sense to realize the mistake!

Remember the old threat we used to hear used in the movies of getting sent off to some distant Alaskan or Arctic military outpost to finish out your service after making a major blunder?

Instead of that, the Secretary of Defense, under the direction of William Jefferson Clinton hisself, put Mr. Clark out for early retirement. Thus salvaging the balance of his military record.

Its doubtful the Democrats reading these posts want to hear these FACTS but the story is out there so Google away and see for yourself.

It's too bad Colin Powell is a Republican. Because if he was sitting in that chair in place of Mr. Clark and trumpeting for the Democratic candidate, I do believe folks would have much less heartburn over him making this same statement.

WOW is it too bad Colin Powell is a Republican. What a dream ticket he & Obama could make.

lol, did you even read the entire post? It addressed his book AND an assessment of how one is fired or relieved in the service. The man was rotated out of the position early and replaced. Anything else is heresay - and yes, you can google away and find this. Also, Clark was told BY WASHINGTON and his SENIOR OFFICERS -cough- shelton and cohen -cough- to advance on the airfield and cut the Russian force off as they were maiking a mad dash to occupy the airfield. If they didn't reach it first - the Russians could legally take that sector. It was the British government and US administration at odds with one another, Clark was just a pawn in the whole scandal. It's obvious that Clark was rotated out of the position early to effectively throw him under the bus but there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE - NONE - ZIP that the man was fired or relieved.

Oh, and by the way - Powell adores Clark. He has on many occasion praised the man and likened him to be one of the greatest soldiers our Army has to offer. :)

Cohen and Shelton had Clinton sign orders without informing him of the dire consequences of the orders. Clark followed orders - as a good soldier does. There's always a chain of command, I don't understand why people can't comprehend this about the military. As much as we'd like to believe that Clark was being a cowboy in the issue - he wasn't. There's no puzzle or deception by Clark here, the man is strict to the rules and a good soldier. It's rare that commanders are relieved of their duties and you'll find that most MSM articles contradict each other. There is no evidence that the man was relieved or fired, he was rotated out and forced to retire by that move. It was Cohen and Shelton's idea - not Clinton's. Also, right after the incident, Clinton awarded Clark the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Clark wouldn't be good friends and close to the Clinton family today had Clinton been responsible for it all. I'm really tired of the misinformation in these forums.

Misinformation you say? When a figure as well known as Norman Schwarzkopf, the hero of Desert Storm and one of the finest military minds to ever wear our country's uniform, weighs in with a remark like:

Hugh Shelton said he was fired because of matters of character and integrity. That is a very, very damning statement which says, if that's the case, he's not the right man for president, as far as I'm concerned.

Arcanebliss, it is you who is spouting misinformation here!

The man went and set-up a ground-war planning cell of officers, behind the backs of his superiors! It took DECADES to get the tensions between these 2 Superpower nations cooled to where we were able to work together.

I don't give a rat's *** if Clark thought he needed to have a contingency plan in place to decide how a ground war was going to be fought against the Russians in Kosovo if it came to that. The Chain of Command above him had that decision to make! And they obviously thought it did not need to be done.

I know the guy graduated at the top of his West Point class but FOR PETE's SAKE, we have a chain of command for a reason!

There is no way Obama gets elected with this LOOSE CANNON as his Veep!

Norman Schwarzkopf had nothing to do with the whole issue, so why his word is bond is beyond me. Also, Hugh Shelton didn't say that Clark was "fired" and I read that comment made by Shelton - you can google it if you like.

"I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart," General Shelton said, adding that he would not vote for General Clark.

:)

He did not set up a ground war planning cell of officers behind the backs of his superiors.

The chain of command above him advised him to advance to the airfield. End of story.

And the Presidential Medal of Freedom William Jefferson gave to him.......let's see....

They were both Good ol boys from Arkansas.

They attended Georgetown university TOGETHER in 1965........

Once Bill was elected as POTUS.....Mr. Clark rose up the ladder of rank rather swiftly..........landing in his NATO post discussed above.

And then the Kosovo incident.......

I'm sure Mr. Clinton didn't want his old buddy FIRED from his NATO post over the Kosovo flap but the leadership between him & CLark wanted him G O N E so the cigar smoker had little choice in the matter.

You call it "Rotated out" all you want.......this Marine will call it FIRED!

Clark rose the ladder on merit; you can see his extensive studies, schooling, contributions to the service not just on base but on the field easily on wikipedia - fully sourced information. The man didn't just kiss Clinton's ass all 38 years of his service. He was top 5% in his class, a Rhode's scholar, an impeccable commander and highly praised by those who worked under and above him.

That's great - you call it whatever you like - that doesn't change the facts on the table.

Arcanebliss....you certainly "think" you have the facts but there are facts available on the internet that read differently than you portray the story.

Some of the best information, and quotes by Clark himself, can be found in "An Arkansas alliance, and high-ranking foes" by Michael Kranish, Boston Globe Staff, November 17, 2003.

.....That's not the first time Clark has differed with the Pentagon. During the 1999 Kosovo War, he clashed with then Defense Secretary William Cohen and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Hugh Shelton. Even though he led the successful campaign – with no American casualties – Clark was relieved of his command and forced into retirement a few months later.

At the time, no one said publicly why he was forced out. But two months ago, Shelton charged Clark was fired over "character and integrity issues."......

Is this information incorrect too?

channeledbymodem(dot)com/movabletype/archives/2003_11_20(dot)html outlines a breakdown of a November 2003 interview given to Dan Rather of 60 minutes.....

. . . Clark became convinced that he needed a backup plan for ground forces despite opposition from the Pentagon and the statement by Clinton. Ivo Daalder, a former aide in Clinton's National Security Council who also was briefed by the White House during the war, said Clark developed a "secret cell" of a half-dozen officers from Fort Leavenworth in Kansas to develop a ground-war plan.

"On his own nickel, without anybody's approval, he got a ground war plan," said Daalder, co-author of a book about Kosovo, "Winning Ugly." Clark "didn't ask Shelton for it because he knew the answer. He got the secret cell, a planning cell, that was going to do planning on a ground invasion that was not authorized by anybody, but he argued, rightly in my mind, that he needed to figure out what the options were going to be.".......

And whether the interviewer, or the writer of the webpage, or Wesley Clark thought he was doing the right thing by moving forward with the planning.......

HIS CHAIN OF COMMAND DID NOT THINK SO.........

So Bill Clinton's college chum got the axe and some medals to ease his pain into FORCED RETIREMENT!

That's not the first time Clark has differed with the Pentagon. During the 1999 Kosovo War, he clashed with then Defense Secretary William Cohen and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Hugh Shelton. Even though he led the successful campaign – with no American casualties – Clark was relieved of his command and forced into retirement a few months later.

At the time, no one said publicly why he was forced out. But two months ago, Shelton charged Clark was fired over "character and integrity issues."......

Apparently it's not the best information because that's not what Shelton said. lol I supplied the direct quote by Shelton himself. As I said already, MSM articles contradict each other. Why? BECAUSE NOBODY SAID THAT THEY FIRED OR RELIEVED HIM. HE WAS ROTATED OUT AND BY CONSEQUENCE FORCED INTO RETIREMENT.

I'm curious as to whether I should start posting pictures of what I'm saying but in sign language.

Ok, so the reporter from the Boston Globe also misquoted his sources with these 2 paragraphs from the story I mentioned previously?

......But Cohen and Shelton now moved to replace Clark with their favorite, Joseph Ralston. Clark says he was told by Shelton that Ralston, to avoid reverting to two-star status, needed a new assignment because his term as vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was ending.

Nevertheless, Clark viewed the move as his forced retirement and was outraged. "It didn't wash," Clark wrote. According to Clark and a former Clinton aide, the president thought he was signing off on a plan agreed to by Clark, and later told his friend he was livid over the ouster......

You go ahead & spin this any way you can feel better about it. That is your right & priviledge.

And, oh-by-the-way, Schwarzkopf's word is BOND because his character & military record/military accomplishments are considered far superior to those of Mr. Clark. If he chose to make a statement on this issue, he had no political motive behind it. Last I heard, he's enjoying a happy retirement in Florida.

Ivo Daalder is the head of a Neoconservative think tank and has been a staunch critic of the Clinton administration's Kosovo policy. He never held interviews with Shelton, Cohen or Clinton on the matter.

And you're telling me I use biased information by quoting from Clark's book?! hah

As I've been saying, there are no direct facts available pointing to Clark being fired, relieved or not acting under orders from Washington.

You can continue to post articles by people not directly involved in the conflict. It's fact that there has been no mention of Clark having been fired or relieved from WASHINGTON OFFICIALS, CLINTON, CLARK, SHELTON OR COHEN. What is obvious and available information that is FACT is that Clark was ROTATED out EARLY and by consequence FORCED INTO RETIREMENT.

Everything else is HERESAY.

OK spindoctor....one last shot since this topic has been beaten to death already.....

Above you state that "no Washington officials (Cohen included) ever mentioned Clark being fired or relieved"

Well you may want to brush-up on this CNN transcript of a 2003 interview between CNN anchor Bill Hemmer & Mr. Cohen: transcripts(dot)cnn(dot)com/TRANSCRIPTS/0310/07/ltm.03.html

At the end of the interview, when Mr. Hemmer asked a question about Mr. Clark:

>>>>>>HEMMER: Another question on politics. Wesley Clark was NATO commander at the same time you were secretary of defense. He's now running for the White House. There is a lot of talk inside of Washington that there was friction between you and Wesley Clark at the time. Whether that is true or not, do you believe he would make a good president? COHEN: Well, there was friction between General Clark and myself. And frankly, I think it would be inappropriate for me to comment on his political aspirations. I made a judgment during the time that he was serving as head of NATO, SACEUR, and I felt that the ax, as such, when it fell spoke for itself.<<<<<<

In my dictionary of "Real Life" terminology, when someone says "You got the Ax", your a** got FIRED!

Clark received another call from General Shelton in July 1999 in which he was told that Secretary Cohen wanted Clark to leave his command in April 2000. Clark was surprised by this, as he saw SACEURs as being expected to serve at least 3 years and often asked to stay on for a 4th, while this date would give him less than 3 years of service at the post. Clark was told that this was necessary because General Joseph Ralston was leaving his post as the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and would need another 4-star command within 60 days or he would be forced to retire. Ralston was not going to be appointed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff due to an extramarital affair in his past, and the SACEUR position was said to be the last potential post for him.
Ralston's first address as SACEUR

Clark, a native of Little Rock, Ark., served as commander, U.S. Southern Command for a year prior to becoming European Command's chief in July 1997. He was due to leave the position in July after serving a two-year term and a one-year extension. Cohen elected to cut Clark's extension short by a few months, however, to retain Ralston, who was slated to retire Feb. 29.

"I made a determination that Gen. Ralston would be the appropriate person to fill the SACEUR's position next year," Cohen said during a late-July trip to Japan and the Republic of Korea.

As vice chairman, Ralston is the nation's second highest ranked military officer. By regulation, the general could only be kept on active duty for 60 days without assuming another command. Ralston, who had intended to retire, had made it clear to the secretary that the SACEUR position was one of the few jobs he would accept to remain on active duty, the official said.

At a July 28 press conference in Tokyo, Cohen commended Clark for his outstanding performance in his dual-hatted role as U.S. European Command chief and NATO's top commander in Europe. The secretary specifically praised Clark for all his work in bringing stability to the Balkans.
U.S. Department of Defense
Cohen Announces New Chiefs for Europe, Korea Commands
By Linda D. Kozaryn
American Forces Press Service

The President doesn't need cause to remove a combatant commander such as SACEUR from his or her post, and the President can rotate them around like pieces on a chessboard at will. There was bad blood between Gen. Clark, Defense Secretary William Cohen, and Gen. Hugh Shelton. But these officers didn't have the goods to relieve Gen. Clark for cause - and they didn't.

Secretary Cohen, General Shelton, nor President Clinton have mentioned that Clark was fired or relieved. What DID happen that is FACTUAL is that Clark was rotated out, Ralston took his place and Clark went into retirement.

Lets not get the facts mixed up with opinions here, people.

This is where I leave the discussion, because now I'm just repeating myself.

WOW, are you guys done?

I dont know if I have all of this straight, but if Clark & Clinton were ol' college buddies and Cohen wanted to fire him and Clinton was HIS boss, wouldn't he have to handle the "end" with kid-gloves?

My military days were long ago but in any command I ever served in, we recognized a directed early retirement as a firing. There's not much grey area.

WOW

Hey JohnS., you missed a line in the 2003 Dan Rather interview that does say "fired": www(.)cbsnews(.)com/stories/2003/11/19/60II/main584446.shtml

@@@That's not the first time Clark has differed with the Pentagon. During the 1999 Kosovo War, he clashed with then Defense Secretary William Cohen and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Hugh Shelton. Even though he led the successful campaign – with no American casualties – Clark was relieved of his command and forced into retirement a few months later. At the time, no one said publicly why he was forced out. But two months ago, Shelton charged Clark was fired over "character and integrity issues." Shelton has refused to explain his remarks. But Clark says he was fired because he argued that the U.S. should have been more aggressive against ethnic cleansing in the Balkans.@@@

Did Dan Rather get this wrong?

McCain ... doesn't qualify himself to be president based on his wartime history.

From McCain's first TV ad for the General Election:

In the ad, McCain says: "Only a fool or a fraud talks tough or romantically about war. ... I was shot down over Vietnam and spent five years as a POW. ... I hate war. And I know how terrible its costs are. I'm running for president to keep the country I love safe. I'm John McCain, and I approve this message."

Clearly McCain is using his POW status as a way to lure votes. It's fair game, only because McCain never misses a chance to trumpet it. McCain speaking: A noun, a verb, and the word POW.

I think everyone is overlooking that before Clark said that McCain's military experience does not neccessarily qualify him to be POTUS, he praised McCain. Gen. Clark obviously respects anyone who served in the military, especially because he's served himself.

It was the best I could do :)

Ah, my bad. That's true, it wouldn't make a great story to go on for weeks about if they included that.

Clark was on Verdict last night and said he had said the same thing at other times when he was supporting Clinton. He also said he was not speaking for the Obama campaign.

McCain's experience in the senate ' for a much longer period of time' should be what he bases his campaign on as that is government experience and should give people an indication of where he's coming from and where he would take the country. But any time he is questioned about his voting record or platform, if he senses a criticism, he falls back on his military experience as a reason why he should be exempt from those kinds of questions.

I personally don't feel a military career is the needed background to become president. While I honor the veterans that have served and those that currently are, it's just one piece of a job resume.

I think of the military as last resort, not first application.

In the current world with climate concerns, economic concerns, state and country tensions on the rise, with the possibility of food shortages, water shortages, power shortages and fuel issues, health care issues, pension and job loss... a military record is the least impressive item on a job resume for someone I want as president.

I'd love to see those in the military and former vets get their college educations and help with the civil engineering work that's coming on line. We're going to need to rebuild our country's infrastructure and one of the best human resources and creators of small and medium businesses are those that have moved on from the military and gotten educated in private fields.

I'm more in favor of someone like Bloomberg this election. We need a business leader with out-of-the-box thinking, vision, the ability to work with others, someone who can drive long term foundational planning, not this 4 year presidential cycle thinking. To solve the problems we face, the leader I want will be diplomatic and able to hold their own position without resorting to the pentagon or CIA to fix things.

I'm not naive, I understand the threats to America. I understand the threats to any western government, from Fundamentalists to the potential of Russia and the move away from progress on democracy China could take. The Pentagon, CIA, NSA and dozens of other departments and private think tanks are the "planners and advisers". The president has a lot to work with if he or she would take the advice. I'm not worried about a non military president, I more worried that who ever becomes president won't listen to the departments and think tanks that actually do know the details and ask them for more before making sound decisions.

No, but I expect you to apologize for smearing Obama.

I thought Obama could have owned it too. But I think the reason he didn't was humility. He was never in service and felt whether it was true or not, it wasn't his call. I half agree with the quote but half understand Obama's position. To be honest I am on the fence on whether Obama should have co-signed it or not.

Life experiences make us who we are and part of McCain's life experience is his unique military experience.

So you praise John McCain's military service (which everyone should) and at the same comment have the balls to call Gen Clark's remarks as elitist (a man who was given a Silver Star after being shot 4 times by the VC an still lead a successful counter attack)!?

I'd ask you to apologize to Clark, but I doubt anyone is taking you seriously enough to be offended.