| Submit your comments on this article | |||
| Home Front | |||
| Wesley Clark’s campaign manager quits | |||
| 2003-10-08 | |||
Wesley Clark’s campaign manager quit Tuesday in a dispute over the direction of the Democratic presidential bid, exposing a rift between the former general’s Washington-based advisers and his 3-week-old Arkansas campaign team. Donnie Fowler told associates he was leaving over widespread concerns that supporters who used the Internet to draft Clark into the race are not being taken seriously by top campaign advisers. Fowler also complained that the campaign’s message and methods are focused too much on Washington, not key states and the burgeoning power of the Internet, said two associates who spoke on condition of anonymity. Spokesmen for the campaign declined comment.
And the wonderful thing about Schwarznegger’s win yesterday, is that California could be up for grabs in 2004. Unless of course he screws up badly and gets recalled. | |||
| Posted by:Rafael |
| #13 Supposedly Clark ordered a British subordinate commander to attack Russian troops in Kosovo when the Ruskies went to secure an air port without the consent of NATO. I remember one of my buddies who was there say there was a lot tension between the Russians and us. I don't have all the details as of yet but will look it up. Not sure if anyone else knows something about that one. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2003-10-8 10:16:08 PM |
| #12 Super Hose, I agree with you.My problem w/Clark is just what journey lead him to Democratic Party?My personal take(never met him,haven't pesonally talked to anyone who has)rests on 2 assumptions.1 Clark is very ambitious.2,the collective US military didn't like Clinton.If Clinton fired Clark,why are Clinton advisors running Clark's campaign?If Clinton fired Clark,why didn't top brass make a fuss,if for no other reason than to embarrass Clinton?I believe after don't ask/don't tell fiasco Clinton and the"Pentagon" made a deal.Clinton wouldn't interfere w/Pentagon,the military wouldn't embarrass Clinton.I believe it was top brass at Pentagon who fired Clark and Clinton accepted it as internal Pentagon politics.Why did Clark visit Pentagon after 9/11 and praise Bush administration?And why on earth would a retired soldier be waiting for a phone call from White House political strategist?I believe he went looking for a job,discovered he was still disliked by Pentagon and his views on using masses of ground troops didn't fit Rumsfield's vision.He then went to Rove hoping to get administration support for a political run as Senator/Congressman.When Rove didn't bother calling back,Clark became a Democrat. |
| Posted by: Stephen 2003-10-8 9:15:30 PM |
| #11 Stephen I agree that generals like Franks and others are given every opportunity to talk directly to the president. As for a General trying to re-establish American martial superiority after Somalia by committing ground troops in a limited engagement - I can't say for sure as I never went farther than O-3 and didn't have access that high. As an outsider looking in, most recent generals have seemed to publically adhere to Colin Powell's philosophy of focusing decisive power (read massive advantage over hostile forces) to maximize the chance of success and minimize casualties. That's not what Clark seems to have been asking for. To contrast him with Franks, I would say that Franks feels personally repsonsible for every coalition or civilian non-combatant death to the extent that he would have personally attended every memrial ceremony and did every CACO notification himslef if it wouldn't have distracted him from his job. Clark doesn't give me that same gut feeling. Neither did Clinton. That gives me the willies and would prevent me from voting for them out of hand. I would feel uncomforatble giving either of them a bee-bee gun yet alone the nuclear football. There are Democrats that I would trust to control the military maturely. Lieberman or Gebhardt. One guy who I disagree with politically in most respects, that would satisfy me as commander in chief is Charlie Rangle. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2003-10-8 7:33:40 PM |
| #10 Superhose, My point was that there was another possible explanation for Clark demanding ground forces other than tring to "cement his legacy as a general."As for the sin of going outside of the chain of command and going directly to the Pres.,yes it's wrong,but every General in command of US troops overseas in 20th cent. communicated directly with his President.It hasn't been reason in past for getting fired.Clark's problem,seems to me,he wouldn't do it quietly and he seems incapable of understanding "no,now shut up and soldier." |
| Posted by: Stephen 2003-10-8 5:44:35 PM |
| #9 Clark was/is a micro manager and yes he wanted ground forces from the get go. If you want to know what a politician micro manager looks like, see Grey Davis D-Unemployed. Clark was on his way OUT of the service until Billy came to town. That is why he thought he could do an end-run on his superiors. Bypassing the chain-of-command as often as he did caused a ‘little’ friction with the higher ups. I can’t imagine what it would be like working for a retired general (shiver). Also being an Army General, leading an Air War didn’t mesh well with him. He wanted to insert Apaches Helo’s into the fray but one crashed in Albania while training in the mountains. That ended any Army involvement until the end of the campaign. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2003-10-8 5:38:22 PM |
| #8 Stephen, Military action is just another form of policy determined by the Commander-in-Chief. Going around Shelton and Cohen to get to the President is a gross violation that evidently all of Clark's superior officers took exception to. An air campaign was a perfectly acceptable way to achieve the goal as Clinton defined it - get the Serbs out without getting our servicemen killed. It would have been perfectly fine for Clark to tell Shelton something to the effect of," hey, this air campaign looks good but doesn't solve the underlying issue." Shelton would have explained why taking casualties was not politically acceptable for the president and that should have been it. The policy sucked; everyone in the military agreed. The military is paid to execute the policy. |
| Posted by: Superhose 2003-10-8 4:38:21 PM |
| #7 Superhose,a more charitable intepretation of Clark insisting on ground troops(and Army attack helos)would be him trying to get political credit for the Army.Don't forget that was a time of a rapidly shrinking defense budget.The Air Force was claiming all the credit for Desert Storm and there were assorted USAF generals,think tankers and pundits stating that airpower alone would win future wars.The Army had recently taken a PR beating over Somalia.Clark may have been trying to prove Army was needed-and earning a reputation that Clark could be counted on to defend Army interests,thus should be next head of Army. BTW,re-phrasing an old Southern expression I am a "yellow dog" anti-Clark voter.(In the Old South a yellow dog Democrat would vote for a cowardly mutt before voting for a Republican.)I saw Clark during Iraq War.He ripped the war plan and administration,predicted heavy casualties and said US attack was about to be hopelesssly bogged down w/out major reinforcements.He then misidentified F-16s as F-15s.After that I changed channel whenever he was on.Except once I watched as he couldn't identify A-10 that was flying over Bagdad.I believe anybody that misinformed about their chosen profession can't be trusted with my tax dollars. |
| Posted by: Stephen 2003-10-8 2:45:27 PM |
| #6 I think Wes Clark is going to wish he'd avoided this "draft". |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-10-8 10:39:00 AM |
| #5 no internet access in DC? Maybe Al Gore took it with him when he left? After all..... |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-10-8 10:16:43 AM |
| #4 Whenever I see him, I think of two characters in Doctor Strangelove: the guy who started the war who was concerned about maintaining purity of bodily essence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs who was worried about teh Russians seeing the Big Board. |
| Posted by: Superhose 2003-10-8 10:10:03 AM |
| #3 Superhose has it right on target. Funny thing is, not only did Clark not have a handle on airwar manuever and tactics, according to some of my SOF colleagues who had the displeasure of meeting him in an official capacity, he is light in the tactics department period. A military mental midget who was socially promoted through the Pentagon ranks....read ticket-puncher and back-stabber....a perfect liberal. |
| Posted by: TerrorHunter4Ever 2003-10-8 9:39:06 AM |
| #2 On Britt Hume's show two nights ago I saw AF Gen Thomas McInerny(Sp?) discuss what got Clark canned. People that the Gen had talked with said that Clark didn't like the plan to bomb Bosnia from above. He wanted to get down on the ground and mix it up some. Disatisfied with the restriction not to use American ground forces, Clark made a fatal error. He performed an endrun around Cohen and Shelton and went right to Bill on the issue thus enraging his Chain of Command. I think at that point Clark discovered that the decision not to risk American casualties after Somalia came either from Hilary or Bill. Unfortunately for Clark, his entire chain-of-command watched him go behind their backs. Wouldn't have been som bad but (my feeling) is that Clark wanted ground ops to cement his legacy as a general. -- Most miltary members frown on the blood for legacy concept. McInerny also said that Clark tried to micromanage the air war eventhough he had no airpower experience of understanding. The AF took real exception to his push for daylight use of C-130 gunships. While I am a reformed squid, I have seem enough history channel to understand the WWII results of daylight low level action by slowflying targets. |
| Posted by: Superhose 2003-10-8 9:07:31 AM |
| #1 Given the regularity and consistency of these reports, it appears that the DC beltway has no Internet service. In fact, there appears to be a massive conspiracy to deprive all locations which contain agencies of government, media outlets, and high-priced political consultants of access to the Internet. Please do not notify them of what they're missing, nor ask anyone to investigate. Their blindness and ignorance has gotten us this far. If it lasts just a little while longer, there will be sufficient evidence to prove conclusively that the US has no need of them. Collectively, we Internet citizen should offer to pitch in to find them gainful employment. I can kick it off with a sign I saw at a local hotel that needs a parking lot attendant. |
| Posted by: .com 2003-10-8 8:59:53 AM |