August 18, 2003
Clark Talks the talk, but will he walk the walk?
CNN’s “War in Iraq” section has an interesting article about ex-NATO commander Wesley Clark and his possible run for POTUS. Like other political candidates for the top spot, Clark has laid down some harsh criticism on Bush’s Iraq policies:
“We’ve [US policy in Iraq] made America more engaged, more vulnerable, more committed [and] less able to respond,” he said. “We’ve lost a tremendous amount of goodwill around the world by our actions and our continuing refusal to bring in international institutions.”
Another Texas politician also received criticism from Clark; Tom DeLay’s (R-TX) patriotism is called into question through the hypocrisy he has shown in selectively supporting the troops:
"When our airmen were flying over Kosovo, Tom DeLay led House Republicans to vote not to support their activities -- when American troops were in combat," Clark said. "To me, that's a real indicator of a man who's motivated not by patriotism or support for the troops but by partisan political purposes."
So will Clark run for POTUS? And if so which side of the two-party system will he throw his hat on - or will he run independently? Clark has not declared his party affiliation and says he will decide whether to run in two or three weeks. What is certain is that Clark would hold his weight against Bush in terms of security, foreign policy and most likely the "war on terrorism." It is also likely that Clark would carry the armed service votes in favor of Bush, who is loosing his support among the US armed service men and women due to Bush's "inane and reckless" response at a July news conference to Iraqi attacks on U.S. forces: "Bring 'em on."
Posted by Lefty at August 18, 2003 03:09 PMHere’s another link supporting the idea that milatary families are unhappy with Bush:
And Newsweek has an interview with Clark on the topic of running for POTUS.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/953102.asp
Posted by: Lefty at August 18, 2003 03:13 PMNice link to an Islamic cooky conspiracy page. I am putting on my tin foil hat now. I am a reservist and I can tell you this, You can link to as many articles as you want to but people in the military have HUGE support for Bush. People in the military absolutely hated Clinton and what he did to the military. Any suggestion to the contrary is utterly ridiculous. Is this the best you can come up with?
Posted by: pete at August 18, 2003 03:51 PMPete,
First, the article that I linked to was attributed to the Washington Post. Now we all know that the Washington Post is printed in Arabic, and prints sections of the Koran on it’s masthead. Maybe this special interest news source would be abetter news source for you: http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=16372&archive=true - and yes that is the Starts and Stripes - the US military news paper.
Now, you claim that “people in the military have HUGE support for Bush.” yet I didn’t see any news reports of citations for your claims. I have a number of friends in the military and most of them feel lied to by the Bush regime. They’re putting their lives on the line in Iraq because of Presidential lies.
Posted by: Lefty at August 18, 2003 04:06 PMI was referring to this link at the bottom of your posting…
http://www.khilafah.com/home/category.php?DocumentID=8085&TagID=2
Hello? Is this thing on?
Posted by: pete at August 18, 2003 04:33 PMI read the article from the Stars and Stripes. Interestingly enough it is families that are way out of the mainstream, there are only 600 claimed families (probably an exaggeration) while there are over 150,000 troops in Iraq. That is a ratio of .6 to 150. Does this organization of PARENTS who want thier kids back represent the families of most of the soldiers out there? No, and it is a ridiculous notion to think that this is the general consensus amoung military families. Just a bunch of cooks from the far left. In this case they are the exception that illustrates the rule. Thank you for proving my point.
“Bring Them Home Now is a campaign by Military Families Speak Out, which Lessin said was started in 2002 and boasts 600 families, and Veterans For Peace, which has hundreds of chapters in America, said member Stan Goff.”Posted by: pete at August 18, 2003 04:44 PM
Pete,
The story on khilafah.com is attributed to the Washington Post.
I’m still waiting for your links to articles supporting your “people in the military have HUGE support for Bush” claim.
Posted by: Lefty at August 18, 2003 05:30 PMPete,
Here’s a couple of questions for you that’s outside the issues that you’ve raised above and more directly related to the article I posted:
Do you think that military families and their enlisted family members would support Wesley Clark over Bush in 2004?
Do you think that the whole situation in Iraq, from pre-war to the current situation, would have been better handled by a President with military experience?
Do you think that it is fair to call Bush’s comment to “Bring ‘em on” inane and reckless?
How many families and veterans need to speak out against the war in Iraq before we should consider them not to be “cooks [sic] from the far left?”
Posted by: Lefty at August 18, 2003 05:38 PMI don’t need to provide links as I am IN the military, unlike you.
It is an opinion based on experience. You are the one who says that support is eroding so the burden of proof is on you. Perhaps you could have some of your many “friends” within the military establishment comment on the matter. Internet “journalism” such as yours is dangerous to the credibility of fact. Especially when you don’t know what you are talking about. Since it has always been rather obvious that people in the military tend to be more conservative, it is unlikely that you will find any “article” that says “military shows huge support for Bush” as it is so obvious that it doesn’t bear mentioning. Kind of like the fact that there will NEVER be an aircraft carrier named after Bill Clinton.
Posted by: pete at August 18, 2003 05:56 PMSo you have changed the subject, OK I am game.
Do you think that military families and their enlisted family members would support Wesley Clark over Bush in 2004?Posted by: pete at August 18, 2003 06:41 PMNo. (laughs)
Do you think that the whole situation in Iraq, from pre-war to the current situation, would have been better handled by a President with military experience?
No. Presidents do not run or plan wars. War is prosecuted by generals and military professionals. Can you imagine a president personally making targeting decisions for a cruise missile strike? Probably not, because you have never been in the military.
Do you think that it is fair to call Bush’s comment to “Bring ‘em on” inane and reckless?
No, because in the past, Presidents have said all sorts of things that were quite inflammatory about thier enemies and noone cared as long as that little (R) wasn’t next to thier name. The thing to remember is that these Islamo-Fascists are going to “bring it on” whether or not Bush says to. They have in the past and they probably will again, in time, because they are pure scum.
(side note)I would also not put the words “inane” and “reckless” together and the quote was taken out of context, as you know.How many families and veterans need to speak out against the war in Iraq before we should consider them not to be “cooks [sic] from the far left?”
Well that is [sic]a good question but how’s this for an answer[sic]. More than 600, which is a ratio of less than one percent [sic]of military families, and proof of [sic]widespread support.
I always laugh [sic]because Democrats are always saying that they are the party [sic]of the silenced, when in fact they are [sic]the party that won’t shut up! The [sic]loudest voices are always in the minority.
pete, it’s the “kooks” you keep referring to, not “cooks” Do you know the difference?
Posted by: Rick at August 18, 2003 07:07 PMYeah, I am so clueless, It is because I think about cooking a lot, sorry about that. I am kind of a kook myself, but I am also a really good cook so it generates confusion sometimes.
**scratches head**
Posted by: pete at August 18, 2003 07:56 PMPete, I enlisted, not drafted, in 1972, while the war in Viet Nam was still active. I hated and opposed that war. I was an E-5 when I left and had served as a drill seargent, platoon leader, and medic.
It amazes me that folks can comment that since they are in the military, they are privy to knowledge about all persons in the military and any opinions from outside the military are ignorant, at best.
The man has asked some good and direct questions and they have been side stepped, denigrated, and the name calling from the quotes above are truly indicative of intolerance, narrow vision, and prejudicial points of view.
Here in San Antonio, we have Ft. Sam Houston, where a few friends of mine are career enlisted. They don’t believe President Bush has managed the Iraqi situation well, and they are active duty full time military as opposed to reserve. I presume from comments above, that these folks, nor my opinions have any credibility, either. Yet, 600 families are on record, and to support your argument, documentation is still wanting.
I think many here can clearly see what is transpiring here; blind, unthinking loyalist thinking required of insecure folks who desperately need to cling to a group, which grants by association, a vicarious ego boost and self accetpance which otherwise would not be available.
Sad. I have empathy for such folks.
Posted by: DRRemer at August 18, 2003 11:02 PMI think General Clark looks very much like he will jump into the Presidential mix. Look for an announcement in the next two to three weeks. I don’t see him winning the nomination, but along with Senator Bob Graham, I think Clark would make an for an attractive Vice Presidential candidate for most of the top tier Democrats.
Posted by: Joshua at August 19, 2003 02:11 AMDavid R. Remer,
”Pete, I enlisted, not drafted, in 1972, while the war in Viet Nam was still active. I hated and opposed that war. I was an E-5 when I left and had served as a drill seargent, platoon leader, and medic.”
Quick questions that I feel need to be answered because of the phrasing of your reply…
What service was it? Army? Navy? Air Force? Marines?
Did you actually go to Vietnam? Have you ever served overseas?
If so, where?
”It amazes me that folks can comment that since they are in the military, they are privy to knowledge about all persons in the military and any opinions from outside the military are ignorant, at best.”First of all, Thank you for your service to this country in whatever capacity it was. Secondly, Vietnam was a long time ago and we are talking about the present commander in chief and a war that is happening NOW, within the present. We are talking about the idea that people in the military may be against the foreign policy of this President. What we are not talking about is the Vietnam war. To compare the two is intellectually dishonest, as this war actually has some support and we are dealing with an ALL volunteer force. For people to browse the internet and suppose that people in the military are against this war is, what is “ignorant” at best.
Here in San Antonio, we have Ft. Sam Houston, where a few friends of mine are career enlisted. They don’t believe President Bush has managed the Iraqi situation well, and they are active duty full time military as opposed to reserve. I presume from comments above, that these folks, nor my opinions have any credibility, either. Yet, 600 families are on record, and to support your argument, documentation is still wanting.
Well, Dave, why don’t you have them comment? I used to be active duty. So your comment on the reserve is noted, filed and documented but irrelevent. Are there people in the military that disagree with Bush? Yes, they are in the EXTREME minority and that is my point. Why don’t you tell your friends to comment on the Blog? Wouldn’t that be appropriate to the discussion?
Let’s take me for example…
1991-1995 25th Infantry Division (light) “Lightfighters Lead the Way”. We were trained by Rangers and did the things that nobody else wanted, or even could do. To date, there is only one remaining Light Infantry Unit in the U.S. Army. The 25th ID.
I served as a Medium Machine Gunner in Operation Uphold Democracy on the island of Haiti and supported the 8th Special Forces Group (as a security element) on the western claw of the Island State during periods of “low intensity conflict” which is political code for a protracted conflict that has no real endgame, and has been proven, didn’t. Another Clinton mistake. He couldn’t see the clarity that people like me could. Those people needed our help and we left because it was too messy politically.
Present: Reservist, (Washington State), 19D Cavalry scout Recon patrol leader. “we make the “bomb” drop then run like hell”.
Basicly we recon an area, observe from a “hide position”, take down grid coordinates from a concealed location that we spend hours meticulously moving through with deliberate slowness and caution under cover of darkness. We spot targets for big guns, Mark them using lasers, computerized devices like the A.N.C.D. and the raw skill that only the experience of a soldier can bring to bear on the battlefield. Then we run like hell before we are found. Or we “die in place”. It is honorable but hard work.
My unit was mobilized but did not go to the war in Iraq because it went too fast. We were one of two units that were mobilized and did not go. Thank God we didn’t, my wife would kill me. We were not needed because of the brutal ASS KICKING that was delivered to the Iraqi Army post haste.
Here are some photographs of what I do now in my free time…
Here
Here
I am currently courting a U.S. Coast Guard Counter-Terrorist Unit for recruitment where my skills could be properly utilized, in the field of M.S.S.T. Or “mist” as it is referred to. This unit must be anywhere in the country within 96 HRS and deal with terrorists in a S.W.A.T. Fashion. So why don’t you have them comment?
Surely a man who refers to himself as DR Remer (phd?) could post something relevant besides giving a diatribe on psychological aspects of the service as you have done. Why don’t you have your friends comment? I think it would be relevant to the discussion.
By the way, stay tuned because my friend just returned from Baghdad and has a write-up in a newspaper in the local area.
He has agreed to post an interview. I would like to ask him what the current situation is like in Iraq. I will. Your buddies on the left will be very angry about it I am sure of that. because it does not support your twisted world-view.
Sorry about the links to photos….copy and paste if you have the will…
http://media.militaryphotos.net/photos/view_photo.php?set_albumName=Misc_Military_Photos&id=scout
and here…
http://media.militaryphotos.net/photos/view_photo.php?set_albumName=Misc_Military_Photos&id=scout2
Posted by: pete at August 19, 2003 03:36 AMThe idea that Clark’s party affiliation is unknown is a bit laughable. I guess that’s enough, though, to get a Bush-bashing post in the third party blog again.
If you can find one poll anywhere that shows Bush losing the military vote, I’ll be very surprised.
Posted by: CJ at August 19, 2003 03:40 AMFifteen year U.S. Navy Vet here who served through numerous police actions and wars (including the first Gulf War) under three Presidents. I have been retired from active service for over five years. From my vantage point Bush has done nothing for the military other then stretch the men and women under arms too thinly around the world, with no relief in sight. He is a lousy commander-n-chief, and I would have been embarrassed to serve on his watch..
Quality of life issues still loom large in the armed forces and Rumsfeld’s brash leadership style has hurt moral, especially in the Army. Veteran’s services continue to be under-funded at a time when more and more Vets are retiring and are in need. The Accidental President claims to put the needs of the military first, but actions speak louder then words, and I am assured but those still serving that the tax cuts to the rich in this time of need has not gone unnoticed.
I question the wisdom relying more and more on reservist and civilian organizations to do what in the past has been the mission of regular military forces. How long will it be before recruitment of reservists drops off to such an extent that readiness becomes an issue? And I question the direction Rumsfeld seems determined to take the military. If the current situation in Iraq proves anything, it is that men in substantial numbers are needed to take and hold a country. Smart bombs and missiles cannot police a street and keep the peace! The Armed Forces of the United States are not a corporation and should not be run like one.
I am still waiting for a reply from DR Remer.
Mr. Martin, why did you get out after 15 yrs.? Why not stay in for 5 more so you can get that paycheck every month?
I agree with you on a lot of points but consider the ramifications of what DR Remer is saying. And realize that MOST of the military loves Bush. I want to see some hard evidence to the contrary. Pay increases EVERY year and the willingness to face our enemy is what makes him so popular. Take it from me, it is a stretch at the very least to say that Bush’s popularity is eroding in the military. Before Bush, we had no ammo to train with and had to follow draconian laws on ammo turn in. We had boxes of ammo that were taped together and “recycled” under the Clinton Administration. Laws to protect the desert creatures were enacted so in the Yakima Training Area we can’t dig hide positions or foxholes, why? Because environmentalist whacko’s were worried about a snail that was native to the area. Ridiculous? YES. That is the reason you leftists cannot see the truth, that Clinton and the liberal administration were all a bunch of assclowns. DR Remer should tell me of his past history, so he does not look as stupid as he sounds. He won’t though.
Posted by: pete at August 20, 2003 01:30 AM
Pete—
For the record, I am not a leftist, or a rightist, but a moderate, hence the section of this site I post under. I took (early) retirement back in the mid 90’s when the military was being downsized like a corporation. By that time the Navy was no longer an organization I wished to belong to, so I took the military up on its offer, took severance and retired. After fifteen years of riding submarines, ships, and planes, playing the Intelligence game, I craved a more sedate lifestyle.
You are of course missing the point DR Remer was trying to make; namely that not everyone in the military “loves” G.W. Bush, not by a long shoot. You might want speak to some of the soldiers of the 3rd ID, and their spouses. Pay increases every year and the ability to shoot as many live rounds of ammunition as you desire should not translate into a love relationship with the C-n-C. There is more to running an organization the size of the U.S. Armed Forces then that.
Speaking of evidence, where is yours that “most” of the military “loves Bush?”
I explained that earlier. Re-read it. May I remind you that you are not in the military anymore and have not served under Bush 43. Thank’s for trying.
Posted by: Pete at August 20, 2003 01:53 PMwww.bringthemhomenow.com
Kinda sinks Pete’s claim.
Actually isn’t that the very same organization that has a total of six hundred families? While 150,000 families have members in the gulf? You should read all the comments before you post.
Remember, the ratio is less than 1% of families…actually closer to 6/10 of a percent and I am being generous. Kinda sinks Robbies claim.
600 with the initiative to get organized and make noise suggests 10-100 times as many with similar opinions. 6000 out of 150,000 would be fairly insignificant. 60,000 out of 150,000 would not.
Meanwhile, Pete claims authority based on a sample size of one.
Posted by: Dan Wylie-Sears at August 20, 2003 10:28 PM“600 with the initiative to get organized and make noise suggests 10-100 times as many with similar opinions. 6000 out of 150,000 would be fairly insignificant. 60,000 out of 150,000 would not.”
Pure, unadulterated speculation. Those are not the numbers. As you well know. If so, Prove it.
Posted by: pete at August 21, 2003 03:32 AMhttp://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=0-ARMYPAPER-1954515.php
Posted by: v. king at August 21, 2003 07:31 AM
