I suspect, at heart, that Clark was too overly interested in the political (and in manipulating the political) in an organization that publicly wants to be seen as politics-adverse but internally (especially at the Pentagon) politics is just as much a professional sport as it is for their overseers up on Pennsylvania Ave.

Clark is considered a nutter by a few insiders and that group has been very vocal in their opinions. But there are just as many insiders who do have different opinions. And if the guy is selected as VP (which is a longshot, I think) I imagine that the vetting process will have shown that persistent vocal group won’t matter particularly much at this point.

The problem is that most sources on Clark that can be quoted are not easily available on the internet, while they are open sources. This makes having the discussion difficult.

I reiterate the original point: even by institutional standards of our overly politicized senior military officers, Wesley Clark is considered by insiders to be … well, I said it before, a nutter.

IMHO that fact should outweigh partisan considerations. Obviously, for a lot of people (and I’m not necessarily including you here), it doesn’t.

And it is too bad that you missed the point of the whole Petraeus narrative — big organizations have big organization behavior and that includes cliques, camps, and groups of those with ambitions to be in them and of those who have agendas to against them. And all of that needs to be taken into account when considering how much of what any partisan has to say. But then again, none of this was reported in The Nation, so I suppose it won’t register, either.

I’ve worked with, for and above people who served with General Clark in a variety of assignments. He has more of a reputation as a careerist hack than Colin Powell ever did. There is plenty of evidence about Clark’s bizarre “style of command” and persistent refusals to follow administrative policy and directives.

You would seriously suggest that after 8 years of Bushco you want to place one heartbeat away from the Presidency a man whose judgment and ability to follow national policy (and relevant laws) has been called into question at every position he’s held from Colonel to 4-Star?

Hey, hold that thought.

The BBC provides more detail on the confrontation, including noting that the NATO Secretary General told Clark to take the airport, and that there were expectation differences between the Russians and NATO over chain of command. And part of Warner’s hearings dealt with this issue.

I’ve no doubt that Clark has career mistakes, issues and enemies, green suit and otherwise. But there are not many 4 stars that don’t have similar (if less public) baggage. As for your nutter charge — there is certainly a faction down in the Pentagon who would say the same about Petraeus, and do. And those charges (along with details), I’ve heard first hand from folks with stars on their shoulders.

http://delawarelibertarian.blogspot.com/2008/06/wes-i-promise-i-wont-start-ww3-honest.html

Clark is a nutter….

Eventually, some day, someone with access will research and write the full story of Clark’s own insubordination and dangerous conduct in the Balkans.

He had a long-time reputation in the Army as a nutter before that….

And Wes Clarke did not nearly start a world war. The British General decided that he did not want to stop the Russians from taking control of the airport — he may or may not have made the correct judgment, but John Warner held hearings in the Senate to discuss whether the British general had been insubordinate and taking ideas on how to prevent such behavior in NATO future. Not exactly the actions of folks worried about nearly averting a world war.

Let it be Biden and see if he has the guts to risk his Senate seat.

NEW.DEM.VP.BAYH 26. -2.0

NEW.DEM.VP.KAINE 18.0 +1.5

NEW.DEM.VP.SEBELIUS 12.0 -2.5

NEW.DEM.VP.CLARK 10.0 +5.0

NEW.DEM.VP.BIDEN 11.9 0

NEW.DEM.VP.GEPHARDT 12.0 +8.4

NEW.DEM.VP.SCHWEITZER 7.5 +2.0

NEW.DEM.VP.CLINTON(H) 6.5 0