General Shelton, 9-11 Joint Chiefs Chairman, will NOT support Clark

docetboy · #1 09-24-2003, 02:41 PM

From the Los Altos Town Crier:
http://www.losaltosonline.com/articl...ity/news01.txt

Gen. Shelton shocks Celebrity Forum, says he won't support Clark for president

Shelton
By Joan Garvin / Town Crier Correspondent

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."

Shelton was on a 757 en route to Budapest for a conference when he learned that a plane had crashed into the World Trade Center. Knowing that New York had perfect weather and there were no computer problems, he determined that it was a terrorist attack and immediately turned the plane around.

Shelton's 38 years in the military included two years in Vietnam and service in the 173rd Airborne Brigade and Green Berets. In addition to having been an adviser to the president and a member of the National Security Council, he has been awarded the Congressional Gold Medal, the Purple Heart and six Distinguished Service Medals. He has been decorated by 15 foreign governments and knighted by Queen Elizabeth.

His 6-foot-6-inch military bearing and commanding presence at the Celebrity Forum belied his recent personal battle. Only months after his retirement, following 400 parachute jumps from 30,000 feet, the former special ops soldier fell from a ladder outside his home, landed with his head caught in a chain-link fence and was partially paralyzed from the neck down.

The doctor told Shelton he would never walk or use his hands again. Shelton said he checked the doctor's name tag for "God"; he didn't see it. Eighty-four days later he walked out on his own, and he is now close to 100 percent recovered. The unfortunate experience taught him an invaluable lesson -- "the importance of faith, family and friends when the chips are down."

Three days after Shelton took office as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, his commitment to the integrity of the military was tested. When U.S. planes in the Iraq no-fly zone were attacked, a member of Congress suggested that perhaps "we" could fly a U-2 spy plane so low over Iraq that it could easily get hit. Then we'd have a reason "to kick Saddam out of Iraq." After Shelton responded that he would order that "just as soon as you are qualified to fly (it)," he was not asked again to compromise his office.

"Sometimes people in a position of power lose perspective on right and wrong," Shelton said.

The events of 9/11 were not a surprise to Shelton. He had been concerned because the United States offers a vulnerable target-rich environment. Two areas continue to worry him. First, a cyber-attack on air control, water, 911, financial or other nationwide systems could "bring us to our knees." Second, the use of weapons of mass destruction, even small amounts of sarin gas, anthrax germs, bio-attacks, continues to be a dangerous threat. Their deployment had been planned for the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, but al-Qaeda ordered the attack before they were in place.

In order to deal with the ongoing danger, the United States must "continue to go after terrorists," he said. "Bush has maintained the pressure and earned kudos in spite of the criticism."

DeltAlum · #2 09-24-2003, 04:03 PM

I'll not say that this is a bad topic for the Chit Chat forum, but I will ask what the topic is REALLY about?

It is no more likely that two Four Star's who are members of a different ideology will like each other any better than two Senators or Congresspersons with different beliefs.

Being the Chairman of the JCS during 9/11 also doesn't make General Shelton an expert on politics or human behavior. So, what does that have to do with Clark and his candidacy?

He has an opinion of General Clark and that opinion should hold as much weight as anyone else. But, with the information given, no more. If he wants to give details, I'd love to hear them because I don't know much about Clark and would like more information upon which to base my own opinion. So far, General Shelton has given me as much useful information as I would have if someone told me that Shelton is unworthy because he doesn't look good in a beret. Of course, I don't either.

But, despite the topic, isn't this really as much of a pro-Bush thread as an anti-Clark?

How about a little truth in labeling here? How about "Shelton prefers Bush to Clark?" Wouldn't that be more to the point?

bethany1982 · #3 09-24-2003, 04:25 PM

OMG, a thread that may have pro Bush undertones. President Clinton had Clark fired from his NATO position, I wonder what he thinks of Gen Clark.

damasa · #4 09-24-2003, 04:41 PM

Ah yes, great topic indeed.

Just as I was told that Dean was far too liberal and that Fox News was "fair and balanced."

bwahaha

So Shelton doesn't support Clark, watch out world!

KSigkid · #5 09-24-2003, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bethany1982
OMG, a thread that may have pro Bush undertones. President Clinton had Clark fired from his NATO position, I wonder what he thinks of Gen Clark.

I don't think anyone's saying that docetboy was wrong in posting the article - it's interesting to hear what Shelton had to say.

The only thing DeltAlum was saying is that, by highlighting the parts he did, docetboy was making an added point to his title.

Betarulz! · #6 09-24-2003, 08:52 PM

I really fail to see how this even classifies as news.

DeltAlum hit the nail on the head that DocetBoy obviously has something more sinister he is trying to imply.

DeltAlum also presented the reasons why no one should really care about the General's views.

bethany1982 · #7 09-24-2003, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by KSigkid
I don't think anyone's saying that docetboy was wrong in posting the article - it's interesting to hear what Shelton had to say.

The only thing DeltAlum was saying is that, by highlighting the parts he did, docetboy was making an added point to his title.

I guess I didn't see any pro Bush hint to the post at all. I would find it interesting to see what President Clinton thinks of the General's run for the Democratic nomination, since he didn't think Clark was qualified to run NATO.

DeltAlum · #8 09-24-2003, 09:40 PM

Take a look at the second and last paragraphs in bold, and consider the recent news that Clark has jumped ahead of everyone else in the polls.

Not sure sinister is the right word, but "hidden agenda" might work.

I don't even have a problem with that, except it's not what the topic of the thread portends to be the subject.

It's a version of what some (rather strongly) take Hoosier to task for.

If someone wants to say Shelton favors Bush, say it!

(Although I would still look for stronger evidence than a simple verbal implication)

damasa · #9 09-24-2003, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bethany1982
I guess I didn't see any pro Bush hint to the post at all. I would find it interesting to see what President Clinton thinks of the General's run for the Democratic nomination, since he didn't think Clark was qualified to run NATO.

In all honesty, I don't think it even matters what Clinton thinks of Clark entering the campaign.

bethany1982 · #10 09-24-2003, 10:33 PM

In my opinion, the cursory mention of Bush at the end of the post in no way detracts from the thread topic. General Shelton stated that he would not say what party affiliation he leaned toward, simply that he would not support Clark. To me, that is the heart of the post. For all we know, from the information given, General Shelton may support any one of the other Democratic candidates.

As far as Clinton's opinon, I believe the opinion of a two term President would be interesting.

DeltAlum · #11 09-25-2003, 12:50 AM

If the mention of President Bush in the last paragraph is cursory -- why the bold print at all? It has absolutely nothing to do with why General Shelton won't support General Clark.

Personally, I wouldn't mind hearing what President Clinton thinks about General Clark, but in terms of this particular thread, it's called begging the question. In essence, taking the sites off of the original question/discussion, and substituting it with something else. It's an old and oft used propaganda technique.

We're not talking about what Clinton thinks, but rather what General Shelton does.

As I said, worthwhile discussions, but not in line with the topic of the thread.

bethany1982 · #12 09-25-2003, 01:11 AM

I think General Shelton made it clear as to his opinion of General Clark. Shelton's remark about Bush was in passing. Do you have a problem with Bush being mentioned in a positive light? Thanks for the lesson in propaganda techniques. I was simply stating an opinion, not attempting to start a debate.

damasa · #13 09-25-2003, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DeltAlum

We're not talking about what Clinton thinks, but rather what General Shelton does.

Thank you kind sir, this was more or less what I was thinking and trying to say.

DeltAlum · #14 09-25-2003, 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bethany1982
Shelton's remark about Bush was in passing. Do you have a problem with Bush being mentioned in a positive light?

Not at all. But the comment doesn't fit the topic of the thread.

And, we generally don't use bold type for what we consider "passing comments." Unless, of course, the entire article in in bold -- which this one isn't.

Or, if it was a passing comment from General Shelton, did DocetBoy want to add more weight to it than the General intended?

Sorry, but there was a reason for making that last sentence bold.

At the end of the day, the final sentence has absolutely nothing to do with why Shelton doesn't support Clark -- at least in the context to which we are privvy in the article.

bethany1982 · #15 09-25-2003, 01:55 AM

Though the article headline relates Shelton's stance on Clark, the article itself addresses more than that single topic. The final sentence is in line with the article as a whole. The headline was more than likely attached to the article by an editor in an attempt to catch the attention of Town Crier readers. The technique sells papers, and is a common practice. Perhaps a different headline would have better represented the article in its entirety. To me, it's a small matter. I really don't see the problem.