I thought I read initially that the military said his death was from natural causes. It does sound fishy. I hope his wife and family are able to find out the truth about his death. It's bad enough to lose a loved one to a violent end but to witness it and not know why... My condolences to those who love Capt. Clark.

Maybe.......... because the bullet exit his body?

why do you people continue to lie? Iraq (and afganistan) was voted on by both republicans and DEMOCRATS -bi-partisan with ally support, all through the 90's thats all dems talked about was how bad sadaam was and how he had WMD's and we needed to get rid of him. so if 9-11 happened under bush then 2-6-93 happened under clinton, ya know they first world trade center bombing by the same group who finished the job in 01 that clinton allowed to happen. hows that you ask? well clinton was literally handed osama multiple times but refused to take him because "he couldnt find anything to charge him with". stop being blind party sheep and look at how both parties fool you into believing what is not true.

Couldn't have worded it better myself.

haha , nice bit of stupidity Porter Blockhead

you may young so you may not be aware that the plans for the 9/11 attacks were worked up during your little shower buddy Bill Clintons reign , as well as :

Clinton:
1993
Feb. 26, New York City: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others. In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 9 others were convicted of conspiracy charges, and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of the bombing. Al-Qaeda involvement is suspected.
1995
April 19, Oklahoma City: car bomb exploded outside federal office building, collapsing wall and floors. 168 people were killed, including 19 children and 1 person who died in rescue effort. Over 220 buildings sustained damage. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols later convicted in the antigovernment plot to avenge the Branch Davidian standoff in Waco, Tex., exactly 2 years earlier. (See Miscellaneous Disasters.)
Nov. 13, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: car bomb exploded at U.S. military headquarters, killing 5 U.S. military servicemen.
1996
June 25, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds of others. 13 Saudis and a Lebanese, all alleged members of Islamic militant group Hezbollah, were indicted on charges relating to the attack in June 2001.
1998
Aug. 7, Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: truck bombs exploded almost simultaneously near 2 U.S. embassies, killing 224 (213 in Kenya and 11 in Tanzania) and injuring about 4,500. 4 men connected with al-Qaeda 2 of whom had received training at al-Qaeda camps inside Afghanistan, were convicted of the killings in May 2001 and later sentenced to life in prison. A federal grand jury had indicted 22 men in connection with the attacks, including Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, who remained at large.
2000
Oct. 12, Aden, Yemen: U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole heavily damaged when a small boat loaded with explosives blew up alongside it. 17 sailors killed. Linked to Osama bin Laden, or members of al-Qaeda terrorist network.

Bush
Sept 11

Yes, Republicans. The current war started under Bush on October 7, 2001. It's worth keeping in mind that 9/11 happened under Bush's watch too, after he had been in power for most of a year.

Its funny how you blame Bush for something that happened 7 months yes 7 months into his term, yet claim the economy is also Bushes fault, even though he has been out of office for almost 4 yrs now.

I hold Obama responsible for our economic conditions and gas prices, since he had almost a entire term to correct the issue. Yous see, I also place the blame for 9-11 on Bush, since im not a hypocrite like you seem to be..

Republicans because they are the ones that got us in this fiasco

I guess there is a code against calling someone a dumb ass but c'mon man! Absolutely brain dead, and people are agreeing with you. So many dumb people out there.

Don't hold your breath while waiting for the truth.

Both parties got us into this war, voting for it and setting up the conditions that lead to it.

Blame one, blame all.

I'm ready for some real Change in DC.

NObama 2012!

I am a Conservative Republican, but I am tired of this Repubs vs Democrats in Afghanistan and Iraq wars. AMERICA entered the wars, our government decided to enter both wars after reviewing all of the facts and circumstances that existed at the time. Both parties made mistakes. That is obvious. Congress passed a bill to invade Iraq during the Clinton administration. We invaded Afghanistan because they supported Al Qaida. We invaded Iraq because we, and the entire world thought he had WMDs and was a brutal dictator, the world is better off without him.

The mistakes really occurred after the Taliban were removed in Afghanistan and after Saddam was removed in Iraq. We didn't know how to handle the situation on the ground. This country has made worse mistakes in previous wars that cost a lot more lives.

Back to this story, it's a sad story when a wife sees her husband shot and killed. Put down your political rants and think of the family for a while.

Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq. That's why he got the vote to attack.

You right wing nuts may have collapse my comment above but you cannot change the facts. Bush was warned about 9/11 but failed to act yet somehow you nuts still blame Clinton. Fact is it happened on Bush's watch where a Gore administration may have paid more attention to those that warned in August 2001 of an attack.

RalphH, kindly take your anti-Semitism elsewhere.

9/11 was only a conspiracy of Al-Qaida. We didn't have actionable intel to stop it. We did, however, finally have actionable intel to kill Bin Laden a year ago.

Blaming Obama for the bad economy today is like blaming the EMS for a 10 car accident.

Back to this story, it's a sad story when a wife sees her husband shot and killed.

Where in this story does it say her husband was shot and killed?? It only states that she as well as others thought they saw a bullet hole. No where does it say the man died of a bullet wound.

yeah, Ralphy, i see your mouth movin' but all i hear is blah, blah, blah...

Larry-2260635

Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq. That's why he got the vote to attack.

You right wing nuts may have collapse my comment above but you cannot change the facts. Bush was warned about 9/11 but failed to act yet somehow you nuts still blame Clinton. Fact is it happened on Bush's watch where a Gore administration may have paid more attention to those that warned in August 2001 of an attack.

If Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq, then so did Clinton in the 90s. Clinton and the dems believed Saddam needed to go and that he had WMDs even back then. At least Bush didn't p*ss on the Constitution and circumvent Congress to send our troops to battle. Your boy Obama did just that with his little Libya stunt.

Also, Gore very well may have paid more attention to warnings, but that is just speculation without the slightest bit of evidence to support it. You can't know for sure how that would have turned out. I recall speculation before the 2008 election that Obama would make a fine president. We all know how that turned out.

Blaming Obama for the bad economy today is like blaming the EMS for a 10 car accident.

But blaming Bush for 9/11 is logical. Hypocrite much? I think so.

I have to agree, the report that I seem to recall earlier was that it was natural. This article surprises me, if this is true then there is definitely more going on then what we where originally lead to believe. I'm glad the wife is speaking out about it, otherwise it could just be hidden under the carpet. My thoughts and prayers go to her and her children, I hope light is shed on this quickly.

Ryan, there's a difference in believing something as fact and lying. Clinton did say there were WMDs in Iraq but he never presented information to congress that he knew was false. The yellow cake uranium information Bush presented to congress to get them to vote for the use of force were already debunked by Wilson. Most of the other information Bush presented was not cleared by the CIA as fact. Bush picked the information from the CIA he liked and ignored the rest simply because he was going to attack Iraq whether congress gave him approval or not.

Of course you won't find this on FOX or a Conservative web site but for what it's worth here it is.

http://www.salon.com/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/

But blaming Bush for 9/11 is logical. Hypocrite much? I think so.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/index.htm

If Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq, then so did Clinton in the 90s. Clinton and the dems believed Saddam needed to go and that he had WMDs even back then. At least Bush didn't p*ss on the Constitution and circumvent Congress to send our troops to battle. Your boy Obama did just that with his little Libya stunt.

Obama did not send troops into Libya. Yes he sent in airpower but it was part of a larger NATO operation. The difference between Clinton and Bush is, Clinton's assessment of Hussein's WMD program was based on available intel at the time, so it was assumed to be correct. But, under Bush the CIA determined the intel was false but Bush chose to use it anyway to justify starting the war. Just before his resignation the CIA director George Tenet had a meeting with Bush in which he presented evidence the intel was false. Bush's response? "F*ck it, we're going in anyway," according to Tenet and former secretary of state Colin Powell, who were both present at the meeting and were witnesses to Bush's response to the false intel. Clinton's mistake was believing the false intel; Bush's mistake was discovering it was false but choosing to decieve the rest of us into believing it was accurate.

This was written on December 16, 2002. Over a year after the 9/11 attack.

"A series of articles in the Washington Post, co-authored by Bob Woodward of Watergate fame and based on long interviews with senior members of the Bush administration, reveals how 11 September was manipulated.

On the morning of 12 September 2001, without any evidence of who the hijackers were, Rumsfeld demanded that the US attack Iraq. According to Woodward, Rumsfeld told a cabinet meeting that Iraq should be "a principal target of the first round in the war against terrorism". Iraq was temporarily spared only because Colin Powell, the secretary of state, persuaded Bush that "public opinion has to be prepared before a move against Iraq is possible". Afghanistan was chosen as the softer option. If Jonathan Steele's estimate in the Guardian is correct, some 20,000 people in Afghanistan paid the price of this debate with their lives."

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/nc-pilger.html

Sending troops and authorizing air strikes fall under the same category. They're both initiating military action. That it was part of a NATO operation is irrelevant. NATO does not determine US law, the Constitution does. Obama bypassing Congress when he sent our military over there was basically spitting on the Constitution and slapping every American in the face in the process. The man just thinks he's above the law. Once again, at least Bush did things according to the law. It was a bipartisan effort to get them through Congress, so if you want to blame Bush and the Republicans for Afghanistan and Iraq, don't forget to include the Democrats that voted to authorize the use of the military as well. It seems you guys always, conveniently, tend to forget that little tidbit.

Also, there was no conclusive evidence that the WMD intel was false at the time the decision to invade Iraq was made. The probably of WMDs being found was still high, and lets not forget... that same brutal dictator that Clinton and the dems agreed needed to go in the 90s was still there. If what you said is true regarding Tenet and Powell, then that was just pure political posturing in the event that nothing was found. They saw the opportunity to remove the posibility of getting their hands dirty and took it.

Larry, the link you provided in response to my 9/11 comment could be considered reaching at best. If we were to take it seriously and blame Bush for 9/11, then Clinton should be blamed for the terrorist attacks that took place during his time in office, including the WTC bombing, since Bush's administration and those that preceeded his knew that bin Laden wanted to attack the United States. Of course, I'm sure that it only pertained to Bush though.

Bush picked the information from the CIA he liked and ignored the rest simply because he was going to attack Iraq whether congress gave him approval or not.

You don't know that Bush would have attacked without the approval of Congress. Your posts are just one bit of speculation after another. Obama, on the other hand, has done just that. Once again, look at Libya.

Ryan had this to say:

If Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq, then so did Clinton in the 90s. Clinton and the dems believed Saddam needed to go and that he had WMDs even back then. At least Bush didn't p*** on the Constitution and circumvent Congress to send our troops to battle. Your boy Obama did just that with his little Libya stunt.

Actually, no. There's a little thing called a history book you might want to become a little more acquainted with. Saddam Hussein did have WMD in the 1990s--we know this because he used them. He gassed to death large numbers of his own citizens, and there are photographs of the dead bodies. After the FIRST Gulf War (when Bush I was in office), the stockpiles that were found by the UN in 1990 and 1991 were destroyed. During 1998, when Clinton was in office, there was mass bombing done to eradicate (well, that's what the goal was) the remaining WMDs. The UN did not feel that Saddam had yet built his stockpile back up and that he might not have the capability any more. Bush quite likely knew this--if he didn't, personally, his people did. Cheney knew it. Still, they were already planning to go to war with Iraq (a country which had nothing to do with 9/11) at the behest of Cheney's friends the Saudi Arabians (who, by the by, had a lot to do with 9/11).

Bush presented a lie to Congress (whether or not he knew it was a lie is another issue). Bush hid the costs of his war (whether or not he was quick enough with numbers to know this was going on is another issue). We were involved in wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and Bush did not listen to his own generals about the matter (they felt they were spread too thin). He was in the room when they said it--whether or not he was paying attention is a different issue.

As for Obama sending "troops" into Libya--well, yes, he sent four people there in early September 2011, and 8 more in latter September 2011. By latter October, Gaddafi was dead. In January of 2012--after the major hostilities were ended--we sent in about 12,000 troops to take over security for key ports and oil fields. They are not in battle. If you are worried about the dozen or so people sent in when there were battles going on--it is fairly traditional for the CIA to ask for military spotters (the CIA was definitely there) and we do generally like to keep some military intelligence on the ground in an unstable region.

Let's remember that Clinton did warn Bush about Al Qaeda, that Bush (at least publicly) pooh-poohed the idea that Al Qaeda was any big deal, that Bush had intelligence reports that the plot which had been underway for some time was about to be unleashed (not in small part because the people in the Middle East saw Bush I's son, Bush II in office and the US was a much more desirable target for them)--Bush (or, at least, Cheney) chose not to do anything about it. So, yes, given that he had the power to do something about it, had been told he needed to do something about it, and didn't do something about it--Bush would be the one to largely get the blame for 9/11.

We know Saddam had WMD in the early 1990s, because they were destroyed. We suspected he had them in the latter 1990s, and that's why we bombed the crud out of the country. Whether or not he still had any in 2003 is a completely different issue. Have a great day.

You don't know that Bush would have attacked without the approval of Congress.

Poor Ryan, in denial.

President Bush would have ordered an invasion of Iraq even if the CIA had told him that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14767199/ns/meet_the_press/t/cheney-wmd-or-not-iraq-invasion-was-correct/#.T6djBsWHzk8

I don't know why people have to argue about who got this country into these wars. The facts can be found with a click of a mouse. For example:

The facts are cut and dry....

This soldier was Killed by Obama /s/

Beanathome-- There was some reason to believe that either the bombing of Iraq didn't completely eradicate their supply of WMDs or it didn't completely destroy their capability of building back up their supply. But anyway, WMDs were not the only reason we went to war with Iraq, though that's what the majority of the critics focus on. Many believed that Saddam needed to be removed from power long before we went to war with Iraq. It seems that Bush is the only one that had the balls to push the issue and do something about it.

Also, why would Bush publicly say that Al Qaeda is a huge threat? By doing so, they could have taken that to mean we are scared of them, and that's what they feed off of being terrorists. Behind closed doors, I'm sure they weren't taken lightly though. As for preventing the attack on 9/11, there was not enough information known to prevent it. What would you expect him to do? Should our military have had fighter jets in the air 24/7, blanketing the entire airspace above the United States, waiting to shoot down any plane that looked suspicious?

Last, even if only a few men were sent to Libya, they brought the force of many more men than that. They participated in the bombing runs. I don't care if its 1 man or 10,000 men. He did what he did without getting the approval of Congress.

Larry-- I'm not in denial. Frankly, your sources just suck, and there's a reason you won't find them on Fox or even more moderate news sources. Your sources are about as leftwing as they come. Funny how you want to criticize Fox, but you cite something from their polar opposite. Like I hinted at before, the source you used gave information that could have been used to criticize Clinton as well, but imagine that, they zeroed in on Bush and conveniently failed to mention how the same could be applied to Clinton.

Also, way to spin my words.

me:

You don't know that Bush would have attacked without the approval of Congress.

your quote to respond:

President Bush would have ordered an invasion of Iraq even if the CIA had told him that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday.

Your little quote does not prove that Bush would have invaded Iraq without the approval of Congress. What it does prove is that WMDs were NOT the only reason behind the invasion. Saddam was a brutal dictator who needed to be removed from power. Even Clinton knew that when he was in office. It just turns out that Bush had the guts to step up and do something about it. If the shoe was on the other foot and Clinton had brought on the authorization of military action to remove Saddam, I'm sure you would be praising him for it. Instead, it was Bush, so it must be wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCVZlLBchVE

Guess that makes these dems liars?

ROUGE: "I don't care if it was for oil, 9/11, or an old grudge from Desert Storm.....We have to fight. THEY ARE so why shouldn't we."

You sound like my little brothers fighting as kids. No concern over any rational reasoning. Just he did so I do it too! What a bunch of little immature baby boys getting our men and women killed because "they fight so why shouldn't we?"

Um...perhaps because we're better and smarter and more mature than they are? (or are we?)

Ruby

Wikistupedia? , really?

Or maybe the guy died of a massive heart attack and pitched forward. The hole could have been in the closet the whole time and nobody noticed it till afterwards. It also could have been a stray shot (no mention of the sound of a shot in the article) and some really really bad luck.

The folks assuming military coverup over such a skimpy article have other issues.

dont ya think the wife would have known it was a heart attack? did he say he was in any discomfort to the wife before? did he have a medical condition? people just dont have heart attacks without some signs beforehand (like pain). heart attacks are very painful so i would presume just before he slumped forward he was telling his wife he was having trouble breathing and having extreme pain, oh whats that? that info is not in the story, so why would ya think a average poster might come to the conclusion that it MIGHT NOT be a heart attack. though if he was shot and slumped forward, the wife might have seen blood from the entry wound. too many question and as always not enough reporting.

It said he had no visible signs of discomfort and I guess that would include the pain that would come from a heart attack.

Really? Wow, I guess I should tell my DEAD Father that he should have had some kind of sign and complained about it before hand. Get a clue, people die from heart attacks every day and they have no idea that the indigestion or what feels like a cramp in the arm is actually a sign that something more is wrong.

"too many question and as always not enough reporting." Why do you read the report then? Go to another news source or wait for more information. If they speculate then you are crying about that. I'll wait for more, and hopefully get correct information rather than salivate for some news, any news, and get the wrong information.

He was killed by his own troops...period

For Chrissake. The Skype connection was live for over 2 hours. Then someone showed up to see what happened. That would mean that the person in the closet stayed there all that time. That would be one stone cold killer to put up with that kind of wait.

When my husband was in Afghanistan in 2007-2008 there were bullet holes in many of the buildings that were there before. She might not have noticed it before because she was always talking to her husband. I know when we were able to do SKYPE I wasn't looking at the room and walls.

Also my grandfather died of a heart attack. He walked into the house after work, and fell down in front of my grandmother. She thought he tripped..nope it was a fatal heart attack. My father and uncle both had heart attacks with no warning ahead of time...oh oops yeah my dad had an upset stomach early that evening, we all thought it was Mom's food. So I know we like to think that ALL heart attacks give signs, the truth is some don't.

I can vouch for that. My father dropped stone cold dead from a massive coronary. Absolutely NO sign of it at all- sat at a table, ordered a 7-up, packed his pipe with tobacco, and was dead before he hit the floor.

In the case of Captain Clark (RIP, /salute), It will pay to wait to see what the cause of his death actually is.

And BTW- This is to ALL that have served, is serving, may be called to serve, or paid the ultimate sacrifice:

THANK YOU. /SALUTE.

In 1976, my father's business partner died of a massive heart attack instantly with no warning while having a pleasant breakfast in a restaurant with his oldest son. Just fell forward in his chair, dead before his face hit the table. It was my first real dealing with the death of someone I was close to, and it really made me think about how death can come at any instant and WITHOUT WARNING. I think mmhaq's scenario is not only plausible, but most likely given the fact that a bullet could not have gone through a door without making some kind of noise, even if she couldn't hear the gunfire itself.

Or someone could have been playing around with their rifle and it went off. Or someone could have been cleaning a gun inappropriately and it went off. Or someone could have been putting it in the closet backing to the captains closet and it went off. Or as someone said..... he could have had a massive heart attack and the hole had already been there.

What I think needs to be investigated is how it took two hours for her to be able to get in touch with someone to check his room. I think it is sad that she knew of no one over there that he was friends with that she could have contacted. Or that she could not have called the Army ops center or the Pentagon ops center or his stateside unit. Someone. Two hours seems to be an awfully long time.

Yesterday's article had a statement from the stateside military doctor stating that his death was not suicide nor from battle, that it appeared to be from natural causes. AT THIS POINT it appears that we are witnessing incompetence or a cover up, but for what? Did this nurse find out something or had come to realize something someone over there wanted kept quiet? Perhaps insurgents regularly are able to infiltrate, come and go as they please and our military leader's egos are wounded, we don't have enough information about how and why the man died. One thing for sure however is that it is DEFINITELY inexcusable that it took TWO HOURS to get him help! His widow needs to push hard to get REAL answers and we, the public, the american people, need to stand with her.

Our military leadership needs a complete overhaul! Money wasted on inferior "state of the art" weaponry which the battlefield military don't want while Humvees are left with widely know armour defects, family of military personnel have to buy body armour for their military loved ones, these are all criminal and MUST be made accountable for unless we actually see our military as a way to get rid of our poor. Fellow citizens, we should be ashamed that we haven't been involved in protecting our protectors and allowing them to be just another resource for the elite to use and discard.

For all we know, that might have been it. There wasn't anyone hiding in the closet it seems, else Mrs. Clark would've seen someone jump out and run out of the room. A killer hiding in the closet wouldn't stay there and wait two hours for someone to come poking around. That is, unless Mrs. Clark was not looking at her computer screen while she was phoning for help...

If the closet was behind him he would have been shot in the front and the bullet exited out his back into the closet. Or a stray bullet came from another room through the closet and into his back, seems unlikely though.

Seeing as he fell forward, I'm guessing that he was shot from behind. If there was a bullet hole in the closet, it would have had to come through from the other side, meaning there probably wasn't anyone in the closet.

In a battle zone leaking of information can lead to treason charges so I am not surprised that more has not been videoed. I AM surprised that so much video has come out showing blatant violations of military conduct set forth by our military's own codes of conduct and the rules of the Geneva Convention shot by the offenders no less! We as a people have become exponentially stupid over the past 35 years or so!

Elf:

And...you expect war to go perfectly? Why don't you do a little research on WWII and the Nazi atrocities during that war. I bet then you will have a different opinion on how America conducts modern wars.

I'm reading the same story you are.

To add to your speculation, perhaps a stray even - it's a war zone.

Agreed which makes any misdirecting (cover up) damned foolish besides being criminal. Unfortunately we have seen too many overblown egos in leadership positions do damned foolish things.

One war was unecessary. We had to go into Afganistan so you and I didn't have to firefight terrorists in our own back yard while we were barbequeing baby back ribs.

drinking

Maybe preparing for a visit by his (8th) cousin, Barack Obama.

yep...something is missing....like a lot of facts are missing, but only the pertinent ones, that is

hmmm....not to burst ur bubble but i am somewhat doubting that capt clark is capable of hearing ur thanks to him.