I spent a couple of hours searching on Gen. Clark.

From an article in 2002 written by Clark
www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0209.clark.html

What we really need is closer alignment of our police and judicial activities with our friends and allies: greater cooperation in joint police investigations, sharing of evidence, harmonious evidentiary standards and procedures, as well as common definitions of crimes associated with terrorism. Through greater legal, judicial, and police coordination, we need to make the international environment more seamless for us than it is for the international terrorists we seek.

Not a single European election hinges on the success of the war on terrorism. As a consequence, European elected officials simply don't have a personal stake in the outcome.

The United States has the opportunity to use the power of the international institutions it established to triumph over terrorists who threaten not just the United States, but the world. What a tragedy it will be if we walk away from our own efforts, and from 60 years of post-World War II experience, to tackle the problem of terror without using fully the instruments of international law and persuasion that we ourselves created.

From the Christian Science Monitor
www.csmonitor.com/2003/0917/p02s01-uspo.html

While a Clark candidacy might draw some comparisons to that of Dwight Eisenhower, observers point out that Ike was far more of a national hero - and that the Kosovo campaign, which Clark led, was not exactly World War II.

"This is going to come down to a two-man race, Dean and the anti-Dean," says political analyst Charlie Cook. "Someone has to be the anti-Dean.... [and] Clark because of his late start would at least have an excuse why he might not do well in Iowa and New Hampshire."

From YellowTimes.org
http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=1587

At one point in the bombing campaign it was reported that "[Clark] would rise out of his seat and slap the table. 'I've got to get the maximum violence out of this campaign -- now!'" (Washington Post, 21 September 1999)

And last year found our hero in New Hampshire, endorsing Democrat Katrina Swett for Congress, as reported by the local paper. "Clark, who supports a congressional resolution that would give President Bush authority to use military force against Iraq, said if Swett were in Congress this week, he would advise her to vote for the resolution, but only after vigorous debate." (The Union Leader, Manchester, NH, 10 October 2002)

From FreeRepublic.com: "A Conservative News Forum"
209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/984431/posts

Take Kosovo, the 11-week war, fought exclusively from the air, without a single Nato casualty. The former supreme commander now holds up the campaign against Slobodan Milosevic as a model of modern conflict, a war fought by the US at the head of a multilateral alliance - not as the superpower that launched an unprovoked, almost unilateral war against Iraq. General Clark claims his political skills played a large part in holding together that 19-nation alliance.

Kosovo also casts him in a less flattering light. There was the episode, well remembered in Britain, which pitted him against General Sir Michael Jackson, commander of Nato's K-For. "Sir, I'm not starting World War Three for you," General Jackson replied when ordered by General Clark to prevent a Russian force from occupying the airport at Pristina. General Clark took the refusal to the most senior military commanders in London and Washington, but was overruled in both capitals. Precisely what happened is not clear. But the episode hardly reinforces the image of the cool commander-in-chief with the super-safe pair of hands.

But the question remains. General Clark will certainly liven up the campaign. But will he follow the path of General Eisenhower, who breezed into the presidency almost by popular demand? Or will he be an Alexander Haig, another hard-driving general (and also Nato supreme commander) whose 1988 presidential bid self-destructed in a sea of temper tantrums.

From The Guardian
www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1045122,00.html

The commentators were similarly divided over the new candidate's illustrious military CV. "Gen Clark's primary political function is to serve as the Democrats' beard on national security," said the New York Post's Eric Fettman. He warned Democrats to think twice before backing a single-issue politician: "A Clark candidacy would mean a campaign based solely on the war at a time when many in the party believe Mr Bush's biggest weakness is the economy - an area in which, like every other domestic issue, Gen Clark has no track record."

From Utah Indymedia
utah.indymedia.org/news/2003/09/6223.php

General Wesley Clark is not a war hero. He is a war criminal, who time after time on CNN defended the bombing of Yugoslavia and choice of targets in an immoral, imperialist war designed to further enrich the ruling elites in the United States. He told lie after lie as all apologists for imperialist wars do and was very truculent in justifying the bombing. No leftist who truly understands the meaning of imperialism could possibly vote for this candidate for president. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing. I have the greatest admiration for the work of Michael Moore, but he needs to investigate the recent history of Yugoslavia more closely before endorsing Wesley Clark.