Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Clark Standard
U.S. News- Washington Whispers ^ | 10/13/03 | Paul Bedard

Posted on 10/05/2003 9:59:26 AM PDT by Pokey78

Finally, the skinny on what former Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Hugh Shelton meant by questioning the integrity and character of retired general and Democratic presidential candidate Wes Clark. Pentagon sources say Clark gave overly optimistic assessments about winning the war in Bosnia. Worse, Clark often cozied up to European and United Nations officials to get what he wanted in the war, at times disobeying Shelton's orders. "In terms of the honesty and integrity of most politicians, Clark is probably in the 99th percentile," says one who observed the Shelton-Clark spats. "But it's a different standard when you're talking about professional military officers." No reaction from candidate Clark. Shelton, says spokeswoman Kym Spell, "is entitled to his own opinion."


TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: edwards; generals; hughshelton; kymspell; wesleyclark

1 posted on 10/05/2003 9:59:26 AM PDT by Pokey78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Spin on Shelton's comments, and in my opinion is NOT what Shelton was referring to. "Overly optimistic assessments" don't fall in the "character and integrity" category. And if Shelton was talking about schmoozing with Eurocrats, he would have said something like "Clark was too political" and wasn't suitably supportive of Shelton.

There is something else which caused Shelton to say this, in my opinion. Note that this "explanation" sort of makes Shelton seem a bit petty and having a sour grapes attitude towards Shelton. I think it is Rat spin, myself.

2 posted on 10/05/2003 10:04:32 AM PDT by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
We Replaced Patrick Leahy's Brains With Folger's Crystals. Let's See If Anyone Notices!

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-
It is in the breaking news sidebar!

3 posted on 10/05/2003 10:06:13 AM PDT by Support Free Republic (Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
"In terms of the honesty and integrity of most politicians, Clark is probably in the 99th percentile," says one who observed the Shelton-Clark spats. "But it's a different standard when you're talking about professional military officers."

Apparently the author hasn't spent much time dealing with field to general grade officers. Past a certain point the vast majority of them are simply politicians. Clark may be in the 99th percentile, but I doubt it would be on the 'honesty' scale.

4 posted on 10/05/2003 10:13:30 AM PDT by Steel Wolf (Too close for guns, switching to missiles!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Clark = Retired DeadWood!!!!
5 posted on 10/05/2003 10:14:29 AM PDT by Defender2 (Defending Our Bill of Rights, Our Constitution, Our Country and Our Freedom!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Lots of errors here.

Pentagon sources say Clark gave overly optimistic assessments about winning the war in Bosnia

The war was in Kosovo or you could say Yugoslavia or even Serbia. Bosnia was not involved. And overly optimistic (or pessimistic)assessments don't get you fired--had to be something else.

Worse, Clark often cozied up to European and United Nations officials to get what he wanted in the war, at times disobeying Shelton's orders.

The UN did not approve that war and was not involved. It was a NATO operation. And Clark, as the commander of European Command (CINC as they were then called) did not work for Shelton, he worked for the Secretary of Defense--Cohen. Shelton certainly would have had a lot of input, but he could only give orders to Clark if they were from the SecDef and he did not have hire or fire authority; it was Cohen's call.

6 posted on 10/05/2003 12:02:35 PM PDT by mark502inf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
What Shelton is most likely referring to is Clark's willingness to do whatever it takes to further his career. He repeatedly prostituted himself to clinton, and was rewarded with super-rapid promotions.

In Shelton's case, this is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black, because he was a clintonoid stooge too. But he was near the top when clinton came in, and probably resented the way Clark rose so rapidly by licking clinton's whatever.
7 posted on 10/05/2003 12:09:01 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mark502inf
The JCS was flat unwilling to trust Clark with certain units -- e.g., the Apaches of Task Force Hawk.

Presumably, they had a good reason for keeping Clark's mitts off these units. Probably, they believed he would misuse them.

8 posted on 10/05/2003 2:25:39 PM PDT by okie01 (www.ArmorforCongress.com...because Congress isn't for the morally halt and the mentally lame.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson