Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Wesley Clark -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (354)	9/29/2003 9:37:36 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 1414

Frag Officer _________________________________________ Hugh Shelton smears Wes Clark. By William Saletan Posted Monday, September 29, 2003, at 3:20 PM PT slate.msn.com I have a problem with Wesley Clark's former boss and current bad-mouther, Gen. Hugh Shelton. The problem has to do with Shelton's integrity and character. Let's just say that if Shelton runs for office, he won't get my vote. A couple of weeks ago, Shelton, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked at a forum in California, "What do you think of Gen. Wesley Clark, and would you support him as a presidential candidate?" Shelton replied, "I've known Wes for a long time. I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early [i.e., was forced to step down as commander of U.S. forces in Europe] had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. I'm not going to say whether I'm a Republican or a Democrat. I'll just say Wes won't get my vote." Shelton's remarks appeared in the Los Altos Town Crier on Sept. 23. On Sept. 24, the Republican National Committee disseminated them in an e-mail alert. The New York Times sought clarification from Shelton but reported that he "could not be reached for comment." Since then, the remarks have reappeared in numerous wire stories, TV broadcasts, and newspaper articles. The New York Post trumpeted "the revelation that [Shelton] says Clark lacks the character to be president" and suggested it was one of several "hints that maybe Clark isn't all that." A Post op-ed added, "It makes you suspect that [Shelton] knows whereof he speaks when he says Clark's forced early retirement as head of NATO 'had to do with integrity and character issues.' " On CNBC, former Rep. Susan Molinari, R-N.Y., asked, "What do we know about [Clark]? He supported Bush. He said nice things about Condi Rice. Gen. Shelton says that there's issues of character and integrity that need to be discussed." On Fox News, Tony Snow said Clark "didn't run the military. He was run out of the military. … [Shelton] says Clark was, in effect, fired as the supreme allied commander for reasons of integrity and character." I've searched news databases and found only one person who's pointed out that Shelton has a duty to clarify his accusation. Last Friday, my colleague, Chris Suellentrop, appeared on the Fox News show The Big Story With John Gibson. Gibson recited Shelton's quotes, posited that Shelton "had to have a good reason" to fire Clark, and concluded, "Integrity—that means, does the guy lie? Does he tell the truth to his bosses?" Suellentrop argued that Shelton "should say more of what he means by that. What character issues? What integrity issues?" But Gibson persisted: 'Why do you think it is that none of the other nine candidates in this debate yesterday didn't turn around and say, Gen. Clark, what integrity issues, what character issues, why were you fired? No one said a word about this. Is somebody covering something up or are they just … Is there a khaki wall that is going to close around Clark and we are not going to find out what it was that Hugh Shelton and evidently more people at that level felt about him? … Could it be because these issues, the words "integrity and character," are so large that if [Democratic rivals] fried Clark now they may not have somebody that they want to run with [on the ticket]? The Democrats cannot attack this guy or find out what these issues were because it's too bad, they may need him?' Whoa. We don't know that Clark lied. We don't know that the grounds on which Shelton got rid of him were valid. We don't know that when Shelton challenges Clark's integrity, Shelton knows whereof he speaks. We don't know that "more people" at Shelton's level doubted Clark's integrity. All we know is that some military honchos have criticized Clark's style anonymously and that Shelton has challenged Clark's integrity. We don't know whether these two sets of allegations are related, or whether other military leaders who have issues with Clark would characterize them as issues of integrity. What we do know from widespread reporting is that Shelton resented Clark for going over his head to the Clinton White House, the State Department, and the media. That's the closest thing to a Clark-Shelton "integrity" issue I can find in the public record. If that's Shelton's beef, he ought to say so and let others judge whether it calls into question Clark's integrity. While he's at it, Shelton ought to explain why, if sneaking around your boss to go to the media is a grave character issue, sneaking around your former subordinate to go to the media with an unfalsifiable insinuation about him isn't. Clark says Shelton never came to him directly: "I have never heard anything about these integrity and character issues." Clark also says he has "no idea" what they are. Until Shelton clarifies the charge, Clark can't rebut it. He's presumed guilty of something serious. That's why Gibson's complaint is upside-down. If somebody is covering up what Shelton is talking about, that somebody is Shelton. And the cover-up isn't helping Clark; it's hurting him. A wise friend once told me you can learn more about somebody from what he says about others than from what others say about him. Given what I've heard so far from Clark and Shelton, if I had to vote for one of them based on integrity and character, I'd go with Clark.

To: American Spirit who wrote (354)	9/29/2003 9:56:25 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 1414

Democratic candidate Clark pays visit to Lone Star State ___________________________ Associated Press September 29, 2003 stamfordadvocate.com AUSTIN -- Retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark swooped into the heart of President Bush's territory Monday and declared the nation needs a change in leadership. "I'm happy to be down here in George W. Bush's home state. I think people in Texas know very well what this administration is Washington is about today," said Clark, who entered the Democratic presidential race 12 days ago. Clark repeated his call for an independent investigation into reports that a Bush administration official leaked the identity of a covert CIA agent. Clark said the name was released "in violation of law, in violation of good sense, in violation of protection of the American intelligence system." "It's wrong, it's shady, it's cheap. And we're calling for an independent commission to be established," Clark said, to cheers from the crowd. The White House on Monday denied that Bush's chief political strategist, Karl Rove, was involved in revealing the identity of a CIA operative. Other Democratic presidential candidates who called for independent probes were former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean; Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo.; Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn.; and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. Clark said the U.S. Justice Department under Attorney General John Ashcroft is not the agency to investigate. Clark also said Bush's tax cuts have hurt the economy and that Bush has taken the United States into "an unnecessary war in Iraq in which we've lost hundreds of people. We don't need to be there." After folk singers warmed up the crowd in this Democratic bastion of Texas, Clark stepped onto a stage in front of a large Texas flag at a downtown park, where some 400 people greeted him with chants of "We want Clark!" Some held signs that said, "Texans for Clark" and "Don't Mess with Wes." During a pause Clark's speech, someone in the audience yelled, "Give 'em hell, Wes." Clark responded: "Let me tell you something. We're going to give them the truth and they're going to think it's hell." He went on to say that he was paraphrasing President Harry Truman and he praised Truman's presidency. "He understood where the buck stopped," Clark said. Before the rally, Clark attended a fund-raiser at a private home and met with 18 Democratic state legislators who have endorsed him. One of the lawmakers, Democratic Rep. Richard Raymond of Laredo, introduced Clark and said of Bush, "General, if you send him back to us, we'll swallow hard and we'll take him." Clark is one of several Democratic presidential contenders who are making a swing through Texas this week. Earlier in the day, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina attended a private fund-raiser at the home of former Austin Mayor Kirk Watson. The Clark rally drew supporters of all ages. "I figured the Bush economy is not exactly helping people out like me, young professionals," said Andrew Millspaugh, 25, an out-of-work sales representative. "General Clark, I think, understands our problems better." Walter and Mary Autry, a retired couple in their 70s, drove two hours with a group of friends from Bandera to hear Clark speak. They cited several reasons for supporting Clark. "He's a general. He's very intelligent. And he's a Democrat now," Walter Autry said. Copyright © 2003, The Associated Press

To: American Spirit who wrote (354)	9/30/2003 12:19:25 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 1414

Clark vs. Bush ______________________________________ Imagine Bush, the warrior president, addressing the delegates at the Republican convention in New York in September 2004, saying that on behalf of the American people, he has fought terrorists at home and abroad, claiming that he won two wars against states that sponsor terrorism, claiming that because of his efforts, the American people are safer than they were three years ago and that - and here he finds the resonating Dubyan chord - "there is sunshine ahead." Then he stops and, reverting back to himself, says, "Now tell me. What Democrat can go up against that?" Answer: the Democrat who can ask George Bush questions he doesn't want to hear, questions he's afraid of. The Democrat who has been trained to ask those questions. The Democrat who has made asking those questions a way of life. On August 21, 2003 on CNBC's "Scarborough Country," Howard Fineman, editor and chief of Newsweek, said Bush's decision to go Iraq my be his undoing and "Wesley Clark is in." "The retired general and Rhodes Scholar increasingly looks like a seer for his pre-war comments. Go back and read what he had to say in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq. (Any of the Clark for President grassroots Web sites will do.) Clark, who was leaning toward running in any case, almost certainly can't now resist the chance to say "I told you so." And, more than any other possible Democratic candidate (with the exception of John Kerry), Clark could brush off the soft-on-defense rhetoric that GOP oppo experts are preparing to throw at the Democratic Party." One is from the meritocracy, one from the aristocracy; one served, and one found ways not to; one worked in government all his life and, despite the inevitable frustrations, ultimately believed it worth fighting and dying for, while the other's proper dream of government is to make it beholden to business and religion. They are polar opposites in nearly all ways, except one: They have both brought the overwhelming force of the United States armed forces to bear. Indeed, although the general can go into any fight with Bush claiming to have done what Bush has done, Bush can claim to have done what the general has done, in spades. What is the difference between the two men, then, in matters of war? The answer is that the Bush administration has liberated war from the yoke of NATO, the UN, and international alliances; the general, though constrained by that yoke when he was Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, prefers it to the alternative: war unleashed, war unbound, war that becomes too easy to fight and to tolerate and to rely on. "We read your book," a Bush administration official told him once. "No one is going to tell us where we can or can't bomb." To the general's mind, however, the difficulty of allowing NATO ministers to tell you where to bomb is offset by the power and legitimacy that international support confers. What is galvanic about the prospect of an electoral contest between the general and the president is that it becomes a referendum on the future of war and-since we are going to be at war for the foreseeable future-a referendum on the future of this country. The importance of having served in the military has much less to do with the courage required for combat than it does with the courage required for full accountability. President Bush was the Commander in Chief during the greatest security failure in this nation's history. He has not had the courage to be held accountable and indeed has done his best to prevent even a review of what happened on that day. And yet he wears a flight suit with COMMANDER IN CHIEF on the front and claims prestige as a warrior president? It is something no soldier could countenance. And it makes him vulnerable to a candidate in whom the value of accountability is ingrained and for whom the question the Commander in Chief doesn't want to hear-the question of what he knew about 9/11 before 9/11 even happened-is the question that must be asked as a matter of military honor. Portions of this composition were taken from The General by Tom Junod (Esquire Magazine - August Issue) studentsforclark.com