Gen. Shelton says Clark has 'character issues'

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2003-09-24 04:00pm

Retired General H. Hugh Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on 9/11, shared his recollection of that day and his views of the war against terrorism with the Foothill College Celebrity Forum audience at Flint Center, Sept. 11 and 12.

His review of that historic event and his 38 years in the military kept the audience's rapt attention throughout. But it was his answer to a question from the audience at the end that shocked his listeners.

"What do you think of General Wesley Clark and would you support him as a presidential candidate," was the question put to him by moderator Dick Henning, assuming that all military men stood in support of each other. General Shelton took a drink of water and Henning said, "I noticed you took a drink on that one!"

"That question makes me wish it were vodka," said Shelton. "I've known Wes for a long time. 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. I'm not going to say whether I'm a Republican or a Democrat. I'll just say Wes won't get my vote."

So much for Clark's 'integrity'.

Post by **Beowulf** » 2003-09-24 04:11pm

My prediction: Liberals will complain that he's a Republican, and therefore is trying to do a little mud-slinging.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-09-24 05:14pm

Goes to show, just because you are an ex-general, that doesn't mean you are qualified to run a country.

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2003-09-24 05:30pm

Clark was the one that ordered NATO forces to try and block an airport from Russian troops in the Balkans, right? I suppose "integrity issues" means "batshit insanity" now.

Post by **fgalkin** » 2003-09-24 05:36pm

Andrew J. wrote:Clark was the one that ordered NATO forces to try and block an airport from Russian troops in the Balkans, right? I suppose "integrity issues" means "batshit insanity" now.

Not to mention that the prospect of having a PRESIDENT CLARK is not very encouraging one.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

LordShaithis · Post by **LordShaithis** » 2003-09-24 08:38pm

So much for Clark's 'integrity'

Yes, because vague references to unspecified "character issues" from a different general whose agenda we have no knowledge of is the absolute gospel.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-09-24 11:19pm

fgalkin wrote:
Andrew J. wrote:Clark was the one that ordered NATO forces to try and block an airport from Russian troops in the Balkans, right? I suppose "integrity issues" means "batshit insanity" now.
Not to mention that the prospect of having a PRESIDENT CLARK is not very encouraging one.

This is a serious dicussion. Don't bother with the B5 references here

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-09-24 11:21pm

Until I hear some thing of real substance I'm disinclined to pay much attention to it. It's a paltry, non specific one liner that does mean much with nothing to back it.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-09-24 11:42pm

GrandAdmiralPrawn wrote:
So much for Clark's 'integrity'
Yes, because vague references to unspecified "character issues" from a different general whose agenda we have no knowledge of is the absolute gospel.

Guess you missed the part about his deal in the Balkans with the Russians. Can you say WW3?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-09-25 12:07am

Nathan F wrote:
GrandAdmiralPrawn wrote:
So much for Clark's 'integrity'
Yes, because vague references to unspecified "character issues" from a different general whose agenda we have no knowledge of is the absolute gospel.
Guess you missed the part about his deal in the Balkans with the Russians. Can you say WW3?

Hardly the first General to play a game of chicken. Hell, there have been Presidents that have played tought games of brinksmanship. It might not be especially desirable but it's hardly an overwhelming flaw.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-09-25 12:08am

Stormbringer wrote:
Nathan F wrote:
Guess you missed the part about his deal in the Balkans with the Russians. Can you say WW3?
Hardly the first General to play a game of chicken. Hell, there have been Presidents that have played tought games of brinksmanship. It might not be especially desirable but it's hardly an overwhelming flaw.

Eh, good point.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2003-09-25 02:05am

GrandAdmiralPrawn wrote:
So much for Clark's 'integrity'
Yes, because vague references to unspecified "character issues" from a different general whose agenda we have no knowledge of is the absolute gospel.

When one General criticizes another General (especially a former subordinate) in public, it's pretty earthshaking as they normally don't speak out like that regarding each other. Shelton's the former Chairman of the JCS, so he was in a position to know about the 'character and integrity issues' he mentioned.

Clark did leave his command before he was scheduled to leave. That much is public record

Reading between the lines, my guess is that Clark got caught lying in his reports. The incident with the Russians would reflect on his character and judgement, but not his integrity. Lying about it or something else would reflect on his integrity. Hell, Bill Clinton proved Rhodes Scholars can lie just like everyone else.

Post by **Edi** » 2003-09-25 02:25am

See following threads for more discussion on Clark:
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=30292
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=30376

There's some rather interesting stuff on the last page of the second thread which is more solid than General Shelton's comment but jives with it perfectly.

Edi

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-09-25 02:42am

That second one is very good. Kudos to Shep.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-09-25 02:59am

Glocksman wrote:When one General criticizes another General (especially a former subordinate) in public, it's pretty earthshaking as they normally don't speak out like that regarding each other. Shelton's the former Chairman of the JCS, so he was in a position to know about the 'character and integrity issues' he mentioned.

Shelton's was and probably still is pissed at Clark over the Kosovo matter. That's hardly the best recommendation for his incredibly vague remark to be true. It's political mudsling. If there was anything to cite I'm sure he would have but didn't.

Glocksman wrote:Clark did leave his command before he was scheduled to leave. That much is public record

Reading between the lines, my guess is that Clark got caught lying in his reports. The incident with the Russians would reflect on his character and judgement, but not his integrity. Lying about it or something else would reflect on his integrity. Hell, Bill Clinton proved Rhodes Scholars can lie just like everyone else.

And what proof is there that he lied?

Articles posted previously have stated that Clark was basically sidelined after what happened in Kosovo. He was a figurehead and little more. That's reason enough for the man to leave.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-09-25 03:02am

Edi wrote:See following threads for more discussion on Clark:
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=30292
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=30376

There's some rather interesting stuff on the last page of the second thread which is more solid than General Shelton's comment but jives with it perfectly.

Edi

It's nothing new. It's yet another rehashing of the Kosovo issue and Pentagon politics. There's not much new in those.

Clark's ambitious, watches his back, and can be an asshole. The first is a well fucking duh. The latter, with all the backstabbing at that level who wouldn't be?

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2003-09-25 03:15am

Stormbringer wrote:
Glocksman wrote:Clark did leave his command before he was scheduled to leave. That much is public record

Reading between the lines, my guess is that Clark got caught lying in his reports. The incident with the Russians would reflect on his character and judgement, but not his integrity. Lying about it or something else would reflect on his integrity. Hell, Bill Clinton proved Rhodes Scholars can lie just like everyone else.
And what proof is there that he lied?

Articles posted previously have stated that Clark was basically sidelined after what happened in Kosovo. He was a figurehead and little more. That's reason enough for the man to leave.

There is none right now. That's why I said it was my guess.