Wesley Clark- Making friends and rewriting history

Posted By Uncle Jimbo

The WaPo has a case of the publishing dumbass OpEds this week. They follow up their clueless State Dept whiner with Wesley "Didn't Clinton fire me?" Clark on how we can all just get along. For the uninformed, Clark is a maroon.

The last time the United States elected a Democrat as its president to govern with a majority-Democratic Congress, an immediate fracas arose over gays in the military, reinforcing a partisan story line that Democrats can't be trusted with the nation's security. Sixteen years later, some will certainly be watching how deftly President-elect Barack Obama salutes, or how House Speaker  Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader  Harry Reid say the Pledge of Allegiance.

Well no Wes, The gays thing was not about national security but about the theme of your piece "How clueless are Democrats about military culture?". As far as saluting and what not, Obama is the guy who won't put his hand on his heart, let's see if he learns to salute.

These are symbols, of course, but the national security challenges the nation faces now are anything but symbolic: two wars, an ongoing terrorist menace, a growing list of unmet military needs and a long roster of other threats arising from new quarters. So it's natural to ask: What do the Democrats need to understand about the military? And what does the military need to understand about the Democrats?

So why did you lead with fluff and ceremony if there weren't major doubts about the Dems actual committment to an active defense. Oh right that's because there are huge doubts about the leadership of the three you mentioned. All of them did their best to lose the Iraq war and now we must trust them to keep us safe? Pardon me if that doesn't give me a warm fuzzy.

While Democrats profess to like and support the military, Republicans usually win more military and veterans' votes than Democrats, and no wonder: Democrats have been pilloried for supposedly wanting to cut defense spending, for being soft on America's enemies and for wanting to use the armed forces for "social engineering" -- code for letting openly gay soldiers serve.

Democrats have been pilloried for actually cutting defense spending (think peace dividend), and while the social engineering has been an issue it's the left's fear of ever actually using the military that worries us. You see if there is no threat of force then diplomacy will always break down.

So it's easy to assume that the military and the Democrats don't and won't get along. It's also wrong. As the 2000 election approached, a member of the Joint Chiefs confided to me: "You know, people wouldn't believe it, but probably no one else will ever treat us as well as the Clinton administration has."

STFU Wes, if that happened then the flag officer who said it is a chump. Clinton and his wife treated the military with disdain and they hoped only to never have to use them.

Most Americans just can't fathom the stress and pain this lifestyle imposes (although Michelle Obama can -- as the future first lady showed by reaching out to military family members during the campaign).

Seriously dude, you are gonna try and sell me that Michelle Obama has the first clue about military life because after she pissed all over America with her statements she had to do some pandering? Not even close. 

I used to joke on the campaign trail that the Army was a socialist organization: The government owned the housing and all the equipment I worked with, everyone's children went to the same schools and used the same hospitals, and the highest-ranking person (after more than 30 years in uniform) earned only about 10 or 12 times the salary of a raw recruit. In the military, we don't like favoritism, show-boating or elitism.

You made that joke Wes, because you are an idiot. The military is a meritocracy, the exact opposite of socialism. 

Above all, don't think that we are anxious to "use our toys." Forget about the Hollywood dramatics: Soldiers are the last to seek war. We know its personal and professional consequences painfully well. Those in uniform would prefer that President Obama use every other tool and method -- diplomacy, sanctions, calling in the allies -- before sending troops into combat. You're better off leaving political and economic development to others, too. As for crisis response? Please, let the diplomats work their magic first.

As I outlined before Wes, your Democrats do not present a credible threat to actually use the military. Consequently your diplomatic efforts tend to suck like they did when you, Bill and Hillary brought peace to Bosnia and the former Yugoslavia. Of course we don't want to go to war, but we also don't want to be forced into one from a bad position that your team's appeasement led us to.

We have a president-elect who has set out a pragmatic, nonpartisan, visionary course. It's time to lay to rest the old stereotypes about feckless, pacifist Democrats and authoritarian, war-mongering soldiers. If there were ever a time to get the relationship between Democrats and the military right, this is it.

We have a president-elect who has made a couple of decent cabinet choices, but has yet to make a single tough decision. If the Dems want to gain some trust on national security, then the next time diplomacy fails miserably, kick somebody's ass. Trust me, the next diplomatic tea sip will be much more productive.

Wesley K. Clark, a retired four-star general, commanded the 1999 war in Kosovo as NATO's supreme allied commander in Europe

Who fails to mention being ignominiously fired by Bill Clinton for almost starting World War Whatever due to his megalomania.

---

Mission: To protect and promote the reputation and dignity of America's Warriors.
Join us!

Comments

Wesley Clark- Making friends and rewriting history

The WaPo has a case of the publishing dumbass OpEds this week. They follow up their clueless State Dept whiner with Wesley "Didn't Clinton fire me?" Clark on how we can all just get along. For the uninformed, Clark is a maroon.

The last time the United States elected a Democrat as its president to govern with a majority-Democratic Congress, an immediate fracas arose over gays in the military, reinforcing a partisan story line that Democrats can't be trusted with the nation's security. Sixteen years later, some will certainly be watching how deftly President-elect Barack Obama salutes, or how House Speaker  Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader  Harry Reid say the Pledge of Allegiance.

Well no Wes, The gays thing was not about national security but about the theme of your piece "How clueless are Democrats about military culture?". As far as saluting and what not, Obama is the guy who won't put his hand on his heart, let's see if he learns to salute.

These are symbols, of course, but the national security challenges the nation faces now are anything but symbolic: two wars, an ongoing terrorist menace, a growing list of unmet military needs and a long roster of other threats arising from new quarters. So it's natural to ask: What do the Democrats need to understand about the military? And what does the military need to understand about the Democrats?

So why did you lead with fluff and ceremony if there weren't major doubts about the Dems actual committment to an active defense. Oh right that's because there are huge doubts about the leadership of the three you mentioned. All of them did their best to lose the Iraq war and now we must trust them to keep us safe? Pardon me if that doesn't give me a warm fuzzy.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfadb53ef0105368d9910970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Wesley Clark- Making friends and rewriting history:

» Obama transition team to release Blagojevich report today from Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator
President-elect Barack Obama's transition office is ready to release an internal review of all conta [Read More]