General Hugh Shelton was asked whether he would back General Wesley Clark for president, and he responded as follows:
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.
General Shelton didn’t say, however, what “integrity and character issues” led to Clark’s departure. Tom Delay repeated the charge on Meet the Press last Sunday: “General Wesley Clark, as you pointed out, was commander of NATO. He was also removed from that post because of character reasons.” But Tom Delay also didn’t say what “character reasons” led to Clark’s departure.
On Tacitus, Bird Dog asks: “What exactly were those integrity and character issues that Shelton was talking about? Where’s the follow-up?”
Let’s take it one step further.
It is wrong — in the good, old-fashioned sense of “morally wrong” — to say that person X has a bad character, but to refuse to say why. If Shelton and Delay think that Clark is morally unfit to be president, they should state their reasons. If they’re unwilling to do so, they should shut up. It’s a very simple: you don’t speak ill of someone unless you have a basis, and you must be willing to share that basis with others so that they can draw their own conclusions regarding your charge. Fairness to the accused demands nothing less.
Who lacks integrity in this little drama, or suffers from “character issues”? Hugh Shelton and Tom Delay, certainly. General Wesley Clark — well, it remains to be seen.
UPDATE: Macallan provides the circumstances for General Shelton’s remarks in comments. They’re worth reading. The venue where General Shelton made his remarks was small. The likelihood of the media being present to hear his remarks was also small. Given these (new-to-me) facts, it’s understandable that General Shelton would not have been as careful with his words as perhaps he should have been.
Now that his remarks are out there, however, I think that General Shelton must undertake the unhappy task of providing the basis for it. (Bird Dog makes a similar point in comments.) That you stepped in dog doo-doo by accident does not excuse you from cleaning up the mess. And this is a mess.
My opinion of Tom Delay, I’m happy to report, remains exactly the same.
Well said. It’s an old trick. Float the lie — or at the very least, in this case, the unsubstantiated charge — and let the media and the flunkies do the rest. Shelton probably said it in pique or anger. Delay says it with the usual crabbed calculation. And in this way, a meme is born. But as Dean subsides and Clark rises*, get ready for a great deal more of this. (Anyone who watched what Bush did to McCain in SC knows full well what he’s willing to do when threatened.)
*My very modest prediction.
If there was anything serious on Clark it would have surfaced by now. Clark’s “early retirement” could not have been engineered alone by Shelton, meaning that if there was a serious issue, more than Shelton would have known about it. Cohen is on the record heaping lavish praise on Clark, and Clinton had to fax a statement to the Hague to refute Shelton’s comment which Milosevic used in an attempt to exonerate himself. I’m still waiting for someone to explain to me why Shelton should not be considered a traitor to his country for giving in to the pleasure of a smear when the person he was smearing was the chief witness against Milosevic.
Von,
Gen. Shelton was speaking at a small community college in the SF Bay Area when he made that statement, and it was in response to a direct question. His remarks happen to be picked up by a tiny once-a-week paper called the Los Altos Town Crier. He wasn’t going on Meet the Press or issuing press releases. He answered a question to a small audience without any expectation of any press being there so I think you’re going a bit overboard on his comment.
As for Delay… well he should put up or shut up.
He answered a question to a small audience without any expectation of any press being there so I think you’re going a bit overboard on his comment.
Mac, I could agree there is a reasonable probability that this is true, but I would also argue that it is just as probable that Shelton intended the media storm he caused. Others launched off the statement as if they had been poised and waiting for it. Schwarzkopf, for example, practically pounded the table when he said, (paraphrasing) ‘I don’t know Clark, but if Shelton says he has character and integrity issues…blah blah blah. How conflicting is that … “I don’t know Clark” … but I think I’ll repeat the hearsay anyway. Zell Miller did the same thing, “If his boss says that about him…” and so on.
Von you’re right.
poputonian,
It is more than a “reasonable” possibility. Nobody is going to go to Foothill Community College to set off a media firestorm. I’ve been to their speaker’s series, and it isn’t exactly a media nexus. I know nearly the entire staff of the Los Altos Town Crier (when I say tiny, I mean tiny); this paper is more like a Main Street Advertiser throwaway than anything else. Big news to them is a town meeting where someone complains too vociferously about leaf blowers (that’s a true story BTW).
Hmmmm. Here’s a General speaking with media present, it’s a digital world, Lexus-Nexus, AP, and all that, and he feels comfortable that what he says won’t leave the room? OK – you know the environment there, but if it wasn’t Shelton’s intention, it seems he might have realized after the fact what was going on and issued a quick retraction. By letting it ride, his comment enables a lot of people downstream to leverage it to continue the smear, which is just what many Clark detractors have done, including Milosevic.
von, I agree that it’s a pretty spiteful thing for Shelton to say without elaborating on it. On the other hand, Clark has denied that he was ever fired from NATO, which encourages people to traffic in quotes like Shelton’s in response. I’m not trying to make an excuse for DeLay — he continues to prove himself a royal dick in his media appearances, and I’m ashamed as a Republican that he’s one of my party’s leaders.
Matthew, Clark has corrected journalists and reporters numerous times for using the word ‘fired’. Most recent that I’ve seen was on Hardball when Chris Matthews pressed on the point repeatedly. Matthews was fair to Clark, he just kept probing curiously like, Really? You don’t consider that you were fired? I’ve also heard Clark make the correction on NPR and during other interviews. It does seem that some of the media is coming around, though. George Stephanopoulous on ABC’s This Week ran the video from the Hague and edited it so that it was clear that Milosevic used Shelton’s smear but that it was refuted by Clinton and Cohen.
Gen. Shelton was speaking at a small community college in the SF Bay Area when he made that statement, and it was in response to a direct question.
Macallan, I’ll accept that Shelton’s remarks were off-the-cuff, and that he almost certainly didn’t intend the crapstorm he caused. But he did speak at a public forum, he is a public figure, and he did make his remarks about another public figure, knowing the media was present and his remarks would be of public interest. Shelton is perfectly capable of dodging a question like this. He is also perfectly capable of clarifying, modifying, or retracting his remarks.
Is Shelton as wrong in this as Delay? Hell, no. Is he still wrong? I think the answer has to be yes.
nd that he almost certainly didn’t intend the crapstorm he caused. But he did speak at a public forum, he is a public figure, and he did make his remarks about another public figure, knowing the media was present and his remarks would be of public interest.
Perhaps I’m not making myself clear. The Los Altos Town Crier is a throwaway little small town paper that is merely an excuse for real estate ads. I can almost 100% guarantee that Shelton was unaware that the “media” was present (since I wasn’t there I can only go 99.9%). This paper’s only reporter is a very young woman sporting a “goth” look that anyone who didn’t know would assume is a college kid. Oh, they also have a 70ish year old guy who writes about cars and town history. I doubt the “media” was even attending the event in any professional capacity.
I just re-looked at the original story and it was filed by one of the paper’s copy editors, not a reporter. In searching their site this editor has only ever done one other bylined article, so chances are she went to hear the speech as a member of the audience or a member of the audience called in with the story.
The point is, this happened in my backyard, I know the “media” and forum in question, and it’s just flat out false to make the assertion that Shelton did anything other than answer an awkward question to a small group of people. Unless I’ve missed something, he’s done nothing since to fan the flames or made any other comments. Which if one thinks about it makes the original comment even more damning. His unguarded and unrehearsed response to the query is probably the one that can most be relied upon.
What should Shelton have done differently? Said, “No, I won’t vote for him, but I’d rather not comment on why.” Or a simple “No comment?” Either of those might have sparked a similar controversy.
Shelton may have meant to say it out of press earshot (BTW, thanks for the heads up, Mac). Problem is, now it’s out there and since it’s worked it’s way into the public sphere, Shelton carries the responsibility of retracting or expanding his comments. Also, the press carries the responsibility of carrying through on comments such as these. Leaving it hanging is not acceptable, which was kind of my point for bringing it up in my post.
Macallan,
Memestrangler.
Bird Dog,
What exactly do you propose Shelton do?
What should Shelton have done differently? Said, “No, I won’t vote for him, but I’d rather not comment on why.” Or a simple “No comment?” Either of those might have sparked a similar controversy.
OK, Macallan, that’s fair. I’m updating the post to direct the reader to your comments.
Memestrangler.
Not so, RDB. The meme is alive and very, very well as to Delay. (And to anyone else who repeats Shelton’s charge.)
What exactly do you propose Shelton do?
Now that it’s out there, I think Shelton must undertake the unhappy task of providing the basis for his remark. That you stepped in the dog doo-doo by accident does not excuse you from cleaning up the mess.
…and say what?
It ain’t fair, Mac, that Shelton’s comments were splayed all over. FoxNews and other major media outlets have picked it up. The cat’s been out of the bag for a while now. Shelton should say what those integrity and character issues are or he should withdraw them.
…and say what?
“I stated that Clark had integrity and honor issues because of ________.”
(Sorry, should be integrity and character issues in the above.)
Now leaving the office for a long car-ride thru the winter wonderland. Happy holidays to all.
Shelton should say what those integrity and character issues are or he should withdraw them.
Withdraw them? That’s fine if his comments are false, but what if they are true? I’m trying to put myself in Shelton’s shoes and I fail to come up with any scenario that doesn’t make things worse for Clark. Can you?
Juxtapose Shelton’s comments with something written about Clark before he entered politics. This view of Clark is given by Susan Power, the Pulitzer Prize winning author of “A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide.” Power is the executive director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. In the book, written before Clark entered politics, she credited him with saving the lives of 1.3 million Albanians. She gives a more plausible explanation for Clark’s removal from Europe than Shelton does, and I believe that her opinion of Clark’s character and integrity more than outweigh Shelton’s.
At Clark’s press conference last week upon his return from Milosevic’ trial, Power introduced Clark as someone who led an intervention in genocide for the first and only time in US history. Alluding to Washington politics, she said Clark was “willing to own something that was very unfashionable at the time.” She notes in her book (again, before Clark entered politics) that this personal sacrifice caused Clark to suffer the early retirement at the hands of Washington bureaucrats.
The following excerpts from Power’s book give the details. The narrative surrounding the quotes was written by another person commenting on the book. Note especially Power’s last comment below on Clark’s pariah status in Washington:
**General Clark is one of the heroes of Samantha Power’s book. She introduces him on the second page of her chapter on Rwanda and describes his distress on learning about the genocide there and not being able to contact anyone in the Pentagon who really knew anything about it and/or about the Hutu and Tutsi. She writes, “He frantically telephoned around the Pentagon for insight into the ethnic dimension of events in Rwanda. Unfortunately, Rwanda had never been of more than marginal concern to Washington’s most influential planners” (p. 330) .
He advocated multinational action of some kind to stop the genocide. “Lieutenant General Wesley Clark looked to the White House for leadership. ‘The Pentagon is always going to be the last to want to intervene,’ he says. ‘It is up to the civilians to tell us they want to do something and we’ll figure out how to do it.’ But with no powerful personalities or high-ranking officials arguing forcefully for meaningful action, midlevel Pentagon officials held sway, vetoing or stalling on hesitant proposals put forward by midlevel State Department and NSC officials” (p. 373).
According to Power, General Clark was already passionate about humanitarian concerns, especially genocide, before his appointment as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO forces in Europe. When genocide began to occur in the Balkans, he was determined to stop it.
She details his efforts in behalf of the Dayton Peace Accords and his brilliant command of NATO forces in Kosovo. Her chapter on Kosovo ends, “The man who probably contributed more than any other individual to Milosvevic’s battlefield defeat was General Wesley Clark. The NATO bombing campaign succeeded in removing brutal Serb police units from Kosovo, in ensuring the return on 1.3 million Kosovo Albanians, and in securing for Albanians the right of self-governance.”
“Yet in Washington Clark was a pariah. In July 1999 he was curtly informed that he would be replaced as supreme allied commander for Europe. This forced his retirement and ended thirty-four years of distinguished service. Favoring humanitarian intervention had never been a great career move.”**
Me again: Apologies for the long post, but I thought this was right on topic and suggests even more strongly why Shelton is wrong for letting his smear of Clark ride.
It’s worth nothing that ‘character issues’ isn’t necessarily an indication of bad character rather than good character.
If Clarke was fired because he had too much character to do some sleazy thing that he was being asked to do, then they could still say he was fired for character issues.
As Von says, without some indication what the “issues” were, the only one whose character is called into question is Shelton (and DeLay).
I’m trying to put myself in Shelton’s shoes and I fail to come up with any scenario that doesn’t make things worse for Clark.
Maybe it should be made worse for Clark, Macallan. The point is to give Clark a chance to refute the charge, if he can.
von,
The more I analyze this the more I think that Shelton is irrelevant and owes Clark an apology. Here’s why. Shelton asserts the reasons why Clark was removed from Europe. The problem is, Shelton is not Clark’s superior and did not have the authority to remove him. It was Cohen who held that power. Clark’s comments on Hardball (I think it was) even reflect this when he described the notification call from Shelton. Clark asked for some discussion, but Shelton indicated that he had instructions from Cohen to have the matter completed by a certain time. Some of the commentary over on Tacitus agreed that Clark and Shelton were more like co-workers than superior/subordinate, and a similar structure is spelled out by Clark in his Hague testimony. So, if Cohen held the hammer, we should defer to him on matters of Clark’s character and integrity, and for the reasons for his removal from Europe. His comments on that topic were read into the record at the Hague, and were unambiguous. Similar, and equally unambiguous testimony was given by President Clinton. I’ve laid this out over here, including the Hague testimony.
Poputonian, you may have a point.