What You Need To Know About Wesley Clark

((And sorry sincere Clark supporters, but this is our country's future we are talking about!))

Clinton's war against Yugoslavia was a disgraceful chapter of an mostly distinguished Presidency. The spin on this war was unbelievably well manipulated that most people, to THIS day, have no idea what went on there. Clark is no hero in my eyes nor is he in the eyes of many soldiers and officers. Right now, Clark, who spent his entire life grooming himself for bigger and better posts right up to the Presidency is in the advantageous position of crafting whatever position is necessary to win an election. I’m sorry but “Anyone But Bush” has it’s limits and this is ONE line I will NOT cross. I am no huge fan of Dean but if he or anyone else adds Clark to his ticket, hell will never get cold enough for me to vote for them. Instead of listening to a bunch of campaign operatives, most of whom showed up at DU at the same time, do your own research. Google Wesley Clark and War Crimes or War Criminal. Look at the pictures. Think of all the innocent men, women, and children who were MURDERED by a General that MILITARY OFFICERS, to include the most decorated officer alive, called THE PERFUMED PRINCE. Our country is at stake! Our future and the future of our children is at stake! This is no time for partisan politics, sentimental attachment to candidates, or anything except the most researched and informed vote!

Tinoire,
20 year Military Veteran, Veteran for Peace

Here are some great articles by By Col. David Hackworth (Ret.) to get you started http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=+site:www.hackworth.com+Wesley+Clark+%22David+Hackworth%22 and Hackworth’s material is trustworthy no matter what you think about the military and the man’s political beliefs.
Before Iraq: Strengthen allies, weaken al-Qaeda ((in other words, punch a few ticket holes before going to bomb the shit out of them))
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2002-09-09-oplede_x.htm

Clark and George Soros ((billionaire stock market and currency manipulator who plundered the Ukraine and was up to his neck in the war against Yugoslavia and is now putting up $10 mln of his personal funds to an organisation seeking to defeat George Bush at the forthcoming US presidential elections. ))

Soros's International Crisis Group boasts such "independent" luminaries as the former national security advisers Zbigniew Brzezinski and Richard Allen, as well as General Wesley Clark, once Nato supreme allied commander for Europe. The group's vice-chairman is the former congressman Stephen Solarz, once described as "the Israel lobby's chief legislative tactician on Capitol Hill" and a signatory, along with the likes of Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, to a notorious letter to President Clinton in 1998 calling for a "comprehensive political and military strategy for bringing down Saddam and his regime". http://www.indymedia.nl/nl/2003/08/13132.shtml

As another DU poster researched How Can you trust someone who worked for Jackson Stephens and Acxiom? Make sure you read up on this one guys!

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thenewbushwhackerbrigade2/message/15989?source=1

and DU research about this:
http://www.stephens.com/
http://www.acxiom.com/AcxDisplay/1%2C1486%2C0~en%2C00.html


Acxiom's 2002 proxy (includes Board of Directors)
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/733269/000073326902000007/proxy2002.htm
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=jackson+stephens+
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=jackson+stephens+AND+BCCI
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=jackson+stephens+AND+drug+trafficking
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=wesley+clark+AND+war+crimes

(from this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/duforum/DCForumID60/23181.html#8 )

Informative, sourced FR thread on Clark (because contrary to popular opinion, there is such a thing as a thinking Freeper)

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38331cb52099.htm

Progressive War Crimes Tribunal finds Clark guilty and lists why.
http://www.iacenter.org/warcrime/wct2000.htm

Announcement of this Tribunal with why’s and who and how and based on what evidence http://www.iacenter.org/warcrime/wc112099.htm

Clark & his friends on the Palestinians
An article by General Wesley Clark, appearing in Time magazine, discussed the situation on the ground in Israel and the Palestinian territories praising “Israel sfor the way it fought the intifada inside Israel.” Describing the West Bank and Gaza as “inside Israel,” it praised “Israeli use of assassination, Apache helicopters, and armed vehicles, and all sorts of ways and means which Israel used to kill political leaders.”
http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/pubs/20011114ftr.html

Clark wasn’t drafted. Clark & Soros have been running this operation from the start. What kind of a draftee tells his “operatives” to Crank it up? General Clark tells his troops to "Crank it up!" Clark: Crank It Up
"Clark recently phoned one close adviser, who spoke on condition of anonymity, and said, 'Crank it up.' The Clark adviser said that the former NATO chief is smart to stay out of the race until after Labor Day, but not much longer after that. He pointed to the number of debates and forums that the Democratic hopefuls have on tap and the chance that these encounters will do little to clarify the race -- as was the case in the recent AFL-CIO forum in Chicago. The Clark adviser speculated that the general will be better positioned for a run if he has a message that seems fresher for not having been part of the clutter."
http://www.draftclark2004.com/news_detail.asp?nid=92

No Ticker Tape Parade for War Criminal General; No Tough Questions, Either
"America's triumphant general in the Kosovo war received less than a hero's welcome yesterday from US senators, who criticized the lack of readiness for a ground invasion, poor intelligence estimates, and the now open-ended mission of American peacekeepers," the Boston Globe reported July 2.
In his first extensive public assessment of NATO's 11-week air war, General Wesley Kanne Clark, the alliance's supreme allied commander in Europe, told the Senate Armed Services Committee called the battle ''a testament to political unity and the will of NATO members to stand up to the humanitarian tragedy'' inflicted on ethnic Albanians by Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic.
But the four-star "Clinton general" appearance before Congress stood in absolutely stark contrast to the standing ovations given by Congress to the last returning American war commander, General H. Norman Schwarzkopf, who delivered a stirring 20-minute tribute on May 8, 1991 to both houses of Congress. By comparison, Clark suffered through the indignity of being caught in Washington traffic and then entered a huge Senate hearing room a few minutes late to find only six of the 19 committee members at their seats. (13 eventually appeared.) And when Clark finally answered the last question more than three hours and no ovations later, only two senators were left. Spectators numbered 11.
<snip>
Clark answered his last question close to 1 p.m., and stayed for a few minutes to discuss the Pristina airport situation with Senator John Warner of Virginia and Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat. The general threw his arms in the air and had a hard time keeping his voice down, despite the presence of reporters nearby, the Globe said.
http://www.truthinmedia.org/Kosovo/Peace/ps13.html

A little mail archive with posts WE should have been writing: http://www.mail-archive.com/stopnato@listbot.com/

More info on this monstrous war: http://www.swans.com/library/art7/gowans02.html

From the International Action Center with which we tried so hard to stop the war on Iraq and why they were so outraged about the war against Yugoslavia. Was Iraq bogus? You bet your sweet ass this one was too! http://www.workers.org/ww/1999/warcrime0805.html
-----------------------
http://www.greenspun.com/com/zpub/un/clark.html
Contributed by Bob Petrovich (bojanp@home.com) on September 6, 2001.
I want to second what Bob Petrovich wrote. I would like to say that I was one of the attendees of Gen. Wesley Clark's talk at the Pentagon Centre Borders Books, and I saw how biased his presentation was.
I'd also like to add that Clark came across as a truly arrogant and rude person. He confirmed the opinion I have had for a long time about military commanders, that they have egos as big as all outdoors. They fancy themselves to be great "heroes," and expect to be treated with fawning respect and admiration by everybody, and thanked profusely for "saving our freedom." They need to be brought down a notch, and I think that's what those of us opposed to NATO aggression against Yugoslavia did to Clark at his presentation.
I don't think he's used to being challenged on his beliefs. This would account for the rude remarks and tone of voice he used against Mr. George Jatras and myself when we asked him critical questions. (Like how could he justify using such weapons of mass destruction as cluster bombs, and depleted uranium, which will poison the environment in the Balkans for generations to come, against a nation which never did us any harm).
-------------------------------------

From the Association of Former Intelligence Officers

RAF VIEWS ON KOSOVO INTELLIGENCE SUPPORT. A draft RAF analysis being submitted to a British Ministry of Defense study of the lessons learned from Kosovo was recently leaked to a London paper. Presumably the final MoD assessment will be tabled in NATO channels later in the year.

The published extracts from the RAF draft ascribed NATO's disappointing Kosovo performance to serious failings in intelligence, training, weapons and other hardware. The restrictions incurred in coalition fighting will probably be addressed cautiously in the final report also. The RAF study notes intelligence reports about Serbian troop and equipment locations took up to three days to reach front-line attack squadrons, by which time the Serbs had changed position. Many pilots found themselves "bombing old tank tracks" or civilians as a result, the document says.

<snip>
The delays that made intelligence on Serbian forces "days behind" real events are blamed on the Americans, whose spy satellites, drones and aircraft mostly supplied the raw material. "Everything had to be exhaustively processed and analyzed through this bureaucratic American intelligence machine, and it took far too long," said one RAF officer. (Source: WTimes 26 July '99. p. A1.)

http://www.afio.com/sections/wins/1999/34.html

----------------------------------

Here's more stuff I'm finding about this CFR member, Wesley Clark

Apparently, the Boston Globe reported on the following on July 2, 1999

"America's triumphant general in the Kosovo war received less than a hero's welcome yesterday from US senators, who criticized the lack of readiness for a ground invasion, poor intelligence estimates, and the now open-ended mission of American peacekeepers,"

<snip>

But the four-star "Clinton general" appearance before Congress stood in absolutely stark contrast to the standing ovations given by Congress to the last returning American war commander, General H. Norman Schwarzkopf, who delivered a stirring 20-minute tribute on May 8, 1991 to both houses of Congress. By comparison, Clark suffered through the indignity of being caught in Washington traffic and then entered a huge Senate hearing room a few minutes late to find only six of the 19 committee members at their seats. (13 eventually appeared.) And when Clark finally answered the last question more than three hours and no ovations later, only two senators were left. Spectators numbered 11.

Senator James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma said: ''I do think that we have abused and we have lied to the public as to the atrocities'' that were taking place in Kosovo.

Senator Olympia J. Snowe, a Maine Republican, questioned Clark's battlefield damage assessments. A Globe reporter, in two weeks of extensive travel throughout the province, saw only three destroyed Yugoslav military vehicles - two tanks and one armored personnel carrier. ''I stand by the figures that we released on confirmed battle damage,'' Clark said. ''That was 110 tanks, 210 armored fighting vehicles and 449 artillery and mortar tubes.'' He did say that pilots hit some ''dummies,'' or fake military equipment built by Yugoslav troops as decoys.

<snip>
Clark answered his last question close to 1 p.m., and stayed for a few minutes to discuss the Pristina airport situation with Senator John Warner of Virginia and Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat. The general threw his arms in the air and had a hard time keeping his voice down, despite the presence of reporters nearby, the Globe said.

<snip>

http://www.truthinmedia.org/Kosovo/Peace/ps13.html
------------------------

Chicago - Almost - Confronts Clark

May 1, 1999 As NATO and the Clinton Adminstration, in open defiance of the U.S. Congress, which voted last Wednesday to strip the war against Yugoslavia of any legitimacy, escalate their campaign of death and destruction, opposition to this criminal endeavor is mounting from increasing sectors of the public. Panel discussions and teach-ins, the latter reminiscent of the Vietnam War era, are springing up on nearly every campus across the city. Radio talk show call-ins and letters to the editor in both major Chicago daily newspapers are heavily in favor of ending the war and negotiating a peaceful settlement of this tragic and complex conflict.


...NATO has killed thousands of civilians in less than one month.
Clarence Page and Steven Chapman, both nationally-syndicated columnists based at the Chicago Tribune, have spoken out bluntly, and in Chapman's case repeatedly, for an end to the bombing and a
peaceful resolution of the crisis. In fact, not one single columnist in either daily, the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times, has written in support of the war.

The entire Democratic Congressional delegation voted against the resolution authorizing ground troops in the House on Wednesday, and one Congressman, Jesse Jackson, Jr., voted against the resolution on the air war.

Most impressive, though, is the almost spontaneous outpouring of anti-war sentiment from the general population here in Chicago. Several mass demonstrations have occurred in the last two weeks, the most spirited of which, arguably, was outside the Hotel Intercontinental on Michigan Avenue this past Monday. Major media networks and the press continue to ignore anti-bombing demonstrations. ]font color="red"] Wesley Clark, the Bomber of the Balkans, was to have been the guest of honor at a fete organized by the Chicago Council of Foreign Relations. Being otherwise occupied, largely with raining cruise missiles and "dumb bombs" on Serbia, Kosovo, Montenegro and Bulgaria, a last minute replacement arrived instead.
We were ready for him. An estimated crowd of 500 people gathered outside the hotel on Chicago's upscale Michigan Avenue, Miracle Mile as it's known locally, with bullhorns, banners and a simulated air raid siren.
<snip>

The marchers were a diverse group, reflecting the wide range of sponsors: Illinois Peace Action, 8th Day Center For Justice, the Serbian Unity Congress and a busload of Veterans for Peace en route from California to the East Coast.

<snip>

http://www.mail-archive.com/stopnato@listbot.com/msg01415.html

DU links: Clark and Axciom:/ Homeland Security http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=212190#212501

And now, I am very tired. Not even for ABB should we let ourselves be so blinded. I’ll hold my nose and take a normal Dem Centrist if I HAVE to– you can scare my principles out of me that much but NO WAY will I ever vote for any ticket that has Clark on it.

Written in response to this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=81043&mesg_id=81043#81703

You and Pastiche are really gutsie about this.

Thanks :)

A few of the Clark supporters scare the hell out of me. I wonder why such twisted people would support someone that is supposedly so liberal or what they thing qualifies as liberal.

the whole support of kosovo by the majority here is real sad, and no offense to those who did support it, when I was on vacation last week I hear some pretty awful things were said about the Serbs, this drove a good and close friend to leave, she is Serbian American and a great person I have the highest respect for her and consider her one of the best people I have met on DU, Kosovo was not a good thing,
"My interest started when I saw how quickly our nation slipped into the bombing attacks on Belgrade a few years ago. I saw in my own Democratic Party individuals who were otherwise people of good will suddenly getting swept up in this furor to bomb Belgrade. It was almost like a virus worked its way though the consciousness of people."
Dennis Kucinich

the bombing of Kosovo and called the WH many times to bitterly complain.
To avoid casualties on our side we dropped tons of bombs from on high which resulted in massive and unacceptable 'collateral damage'. I thought it was a cowardly approach and stunk of 'politics'.

Just think about what it must had been like to be a Serbian civilian or a Serbian here with family overthere, your tax dollars used on bombing your relatives.

It's obvious you have a big heart. Yes, I DO know what it's like - all too well. And to see an entire people demonized on lies fabricated from whole cloth. The Serbian people are proud of their country, proud of their heritage and their history. Kosovo is the HEART of that heritage. Kosovo is today STILL a province of Serbia - but occupied by NATO forces. Serbia was a country bombed to chaos and left to rebuild on her own. Shame. Thank you for your thoughtful and kind posts.

I am a proud Yugoslav American I am Slovene if you must know one of my best friends and she really is the greatest person is 1st generation Serbian American. It's just sad. War is terrible for everyone, as DK said one time war excludes no one as victims. Beautiful Kosovo, the Serbs had a rough century let this one be peaceful.

Clark supporters that I would classify as real liberals and spoken with them. They explained their reasoning which I respect but I am not sure that they are all aware of this information. And there's so much more out there. Our country has been taken over by the Military Industrial Complex and they are not letting go! Whatever it takes to keep it, they will do. I fear that endless wars are coming if we don't choose very wisely and with our eyes fully open.

It's hard, it's ugly but if not now when? When it's too late?

Peace

And most of the remainder seem to be the same ones who were justifying the war in Iraq. Brutal, honest observation based on memory. Correct me if I'm wrong!

And then there are some who I know are very sincere and good people. The information I posted is mostly for them and anyone who feels uneasy without knowing why.

Peace

I just got a response on his website the other day about Clark. I was asking his thoughts on a Clark candidacy and got a short reply that he will be writing on it soon. Someone else here (at DU) clued me into the fact that Hack hs ripped Clark a new one a couple of times. thanks for the info. will be reading through it.

but am not sure if I saved it because I can't find it tonight. I'll be anticipating Hackworth's article and expecting several from other Officers and Senior NCOs. Please post it here and PM me if you do! I'll be taking breathing breaks from DU because I am wiped out!

Peace

just curious: what branch and what rank were you at the end

because I don't want to invite any unpleasantness in my life but neither one anything to sneer at :) These times are getting too scary.

sorry if I was rude. I have military family, my grandfather Korean war vet, army, a gunnery sgt.

I'll PM you the information. It's no one else's business and I am not comfortable publishing it on a message board so open to the world.

Peace

may give me some time to read up on what Hack has written on him.
When it comes to military matters I give Hack an awful lot of credit, it's very well documented his deeds and he is 110% on the side of the grunts/soldiers.

Never, ever would ANY soldier under Hack's command have perpetrated some of the horrors you're hearing now! And, I repeat this laughingly, every US soldier knows that Hackworth hates weanies and is an officer of the highest integrity. Most decorated officer alive with none of that "Tour of the Pentagon" crap on his chest- real awards that speak to his courage during an entire career.

Peace

it doesn't deserve this abuse.

first, the quote from clark concerning israel comes from www.palestiniancenter.org. way to use unbiased sources. clark's position on israel, as far as anyone can tell, is no different from any of the top-tier candidates. next time, please use actual news sources.

second, the "crank it up" thing was debunked as a rumor spun by the draftclark people in order to energize his supporters. i forget what actually happened, but he wasn't talking about draftclark.com and its members (full disclosure: i am a member)

third, clinton's war against yugoslavia was a disgrace? preventing the ethnic cleasing of hundreds of thousands of ethnic albanians is disgraceful? sure, there were some mistakes, but the US hasn't conducted such a large scale humanitarian mission since it was founded. our involvement in yugoslavia was arguably the most moral war the US has been in since WWII. i know many rational people on the DU will back me up here, despite all of our natural aversion to war (being the liberals that we are).

fourth, why the hell are you bashing soros? he's giving $10 million dollars to the cause of beating bush and you have a problem with that? soros is one of the leaders in pushing for and financing the movements for FAIR trade instead of "free" trade and for the decriminalization of marijuana. just because he's rich doesn't mean he's a bad guy. like buffet, he's one of ours.

fifth, oh sure, the "progressive" war tribunal found him guilty of war crimes. they also found clinton and albright guilty. think they're war criminals too?

sixth, so he's arrogant and rude. i don't buy it. he's smart enought and good enough at what he does to be somewhat arrogant. but many others that have worked with him don't say that about him. people attack dean as being arrogant and rude too. i think they resort to those charges when they have nothing else left to use.

Finally, an overview. just about all your evidence seems to have been researched on the web in about 5 minutes, with no crosschecking or corroberation. much of your info is serbian propaganda, and of course there are some serbs that don't care too much for clark. next time, be wary about using uncorroborated internet sites as sole evidence, especially if you are going to tar and feather a man with it.

as you said, "Our country is at stake! Our future and the future of our children is at stake! This is no time for partisan politics, sentimental attachment to candidates, or anything except the most researched and informed vote!" you are right. next time you post something, please make sure it is researched and informed. the decision that we must make in the next year is a crucial one. let's keep that in mind.

Excellent post!

DTH

first, the quote from clark concerning israel comes from www.palestiniancenter.org. way to use unbiased sources. clark's position on israel, as far as anyone can tell, is no different from any of the top-tier candidates. next time, please use actual news sources.

The original source is TIME MAGAZINE You can read the entire article here: http://www.greatertalent.com/clark.shtml

second, the "crank it up" thing was debunked as a rumor spun by the draftclark people in order to energize his supporters. i forget what actually happened, but he wasn't talking about draftclark.com and its members (full disclosure: i am a member)

Please notice I SPECIFICALLY used the link from the Draft Clark website to avoid this.

The rest, well, I'll leave it to the readers to decide. I am too tired and getting too cranky.

But, by the way, I'll post any damn thing I damn well please at DU. If you have a problem with my posts, hit the alert button and explain to the admin of this site that your candidate can't bear any scrutiny after the Clark camp has so thoroughly bashed every single other candidate.

Thought. It's a GOOD thing. Burying one's head in the sand, or trying to keep other people uninformed are, on the other hand, bad things...

. . . Soros is angry not with Bush's aims—of extending Pax Americana and making the world safe for global capitalists like himself—but with the crass and blundering way Bush is going about it. By making US ambitions so clear, the Bush gang has committed the cardinal sin of giving the game away. For years, Soros and his NGOs have gone about their work extending the boundaries of the "free world" so skilfully that hardly anyone noticed. Now a Texan redneck and a gang of overzealous neo-cons have blown it.

As a cultivated and educated man (a degree in philosophy from the London School of Economics, honorary degrees from the Universities of Oxford, Yale, Bologna and Budapest), Soros knows too well that empires perish when they overstep the mark and provoke the formation of counter-alliances. He understands that the Clintonian approach of multilateralism—whereby the US cajoles or bribes but never does anything so crude as to threaten—is the only one that will allow the empire to endure. Bush's policies have led to a divided Europe, Nato in disarray, the genesis of a new Franco-German-Russian alliance and the first meaningful steps towards Arab unity since Nasser.

Soros knows a better way—armed with a few billion dollars, a handful of NGOs and a nod and a wink from the US State Department, it is perfectly possible to topple foreign governments that are bad for business, seize a country's assets, and even to get thanked for your benevolence afterwards. Soros has done it. . . .

http://www.indymedia.nl/nl/2003/08/13132.shtml

Soros is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Beware of Soros' "benign" agenda.

to rescue us from the Bushies this bears thinking about. I've been suspicious about him from the beginning.

And any fans of Michael Ruppert here will realize that your post is what he has said. Bush/PNAC overstepped and the "Powers that Be" will take him out and install someone who is more acceptable to the American Electorate.

Beware who "The Powers" want to install. If Soros is pushing Clark then we should certainly question the motivation.

Thanks!

NO WAY will I ever vote for any ticket that has Clark on it.

But I'd much rather have the tons of loyal Dems who would be energized by a Clark run -- not to mention the tons of Independents and even some Thugs who would vote for Clark -- over the miniscule number of peace activists who just can't get past Clark's military background.

Clark is more progressive on the use of force than the majority of the Democratic field. He studied with the Jesuits on the "just war" theorem, for crying out loud.

Also, I reject your foundational assumptions that: a) the Kosovo intervention was bad; b) investment bankers (including Soros, who is doing a lot more for the Democratic Party than the vast majority of folks) are bad; and c) Hackworth is credible.

DTH

But I am one of those "peace nuts" and my opposition of Clark has nothing to do with him being a general, jeez one of my greatest heroes is General Dwight D Eisenhower. I also share the belief of some that Clark really is confusing people when he wont declare his party, how can our "savior" not even know if hes one of us.

He is just waiting for the right moment.

Clark is a Democrat. He has supported Democratic causes and politicians, he holds Democratic views, he takes Democratic ballots in Arkansas where you don't declare party affiliation.

I am quite certain that all of this concern over his affiliation will disappear promptly if and when he declares his run within the next 1-2 weeks.

DTH

PS: "Peace nuts" is your term, not mine.

I just didnt read what you called peace activists my bad. Why wont he declare himself now? Look I try to understand but I just dont see how he is the best we got, hes not a career politican, his views on the issues are unknown, I am sorry but I dont think the fact hes a general is why people dont like him.

Why wont he declare himself now?

By playing coy for a little longer, he gets tons of free media attention (critical in an age where Shrub is projected to rake in $200MM), he attracts the attention of the critical independent voters who might otherwise pigeonhole a declared D or R, and he saves up his chips for a REALLY BIG ANNOUNCEMENT in a week or two.

hes not a career politican

Most people I know would count this as a very good thing.

I dont think the fact hes a general is why people dont like him

There are several people here who don't like him exactly because he's a general or otherwise associated with the military.

DTH

Well give me some links about the military affilation and all I can say is that aint me. Look I dont know his views on the issues, and I dont understand the reason just to run a general only because it will be more electable, I dont wanna be feisty but I just dont see how someone whos political views are unknown to most is the best for the job.

But trust me, they're out there. A couple of them are on my Ignore list, it got so bad.

Look I dont know his views on the issues,

Check out www.draftwesleyclark.com, there is a good section on Clark on the issues. You might be pleasantly surprised.

and I dont understand the reason just to run a general only because it will be more electable,

Yeah, that is a critical component for me, to be completely honest. I'd rather compromise and win than be a purist and get four more years of the asshole currently residing in the White House.

I've always been kind of a pragmatist like that. I know it's not necessarily the most popular viewpoint around here at times, I fully acknowledge.

I dont wanna be feisty but I just dont see how someone whos political views are unknown to most is the best for the job.

Well, I would only ask that you reserve judgment, too, until you get to know more about his views, and also until he starts laying out his policy positions (assuming he runs, which I hope hope hope he will).

DTH

but dont worry about this and me, you probably have seen my skepticism on Dean, I know you are trying to be pragamatic well you know what I am, I am an idealist, I dont mind compromise but I feel that Kucinich is the best for me but if he is to drop out I think I would go Gephardt or Kerry. DTH Thanks for being cool, I can agree to disagree with you anytime I guess. I dont like attacks but I will express my iffs and buts.

Could you tell us a little about your name? When were you a dove - and what turned you into a hawk? I honestly feel you are one of the more reasonable Clark supporters and respect your posts. I have disagreed strongly - but hey - it's still America! I honestly don't mean this in a sarcastic way - I'm interested to know when and why you changed and better understand the moniker.

-JB

"DoveTurnedHawk" was chosen right after 9/11, when I was upset and emotional about the attacks. As time wore on, my more natural tendencies reasserted themselves (with the assistance of dialogue with my fellow DUers), and I again became a Dove on issues such as the Iraq invasion.

By then, I'd already racked up a lot of posts and a little bit of "name recognition" with this screen name, so I stuck with it. Besides, DoveTurnedHawkTurnedDove is a little unwieldy. :-)

DTH

~

I am quite certain that all of this concern over his affiliation will disappear promptly if and when he declares his run within the next 1-2 weeks.

but why did Clark think it was advantageous to create all this concern in the first place?

what you mean by the following:
>he takes Democratic ballots in Arkansas where you don't declare party affiliation.<

Are you talking about primaries?

And you are one of the old-time DUers I respect but we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

I'm not going to go out on a limb and say that the Kosovo intervention was unworthy. What is obscene and despicable is modern warfare where more innocents die than soldiers and NO cause in the world is worth that to me.

Soros leaves a very unsavory taste in my mouth because of stock market & currency manipulation in which millions were hurt. I son't disagree that he's given money to worthy causes but I can't accept the harm he caused getting that money.

Hackworth on military matters is credible. I don't personally like the man or some of his beliefs but the entire time I read his column when I was in, I never found one thing where he wasn't.

I can get past his military background just fine Dove, I am a vet myself and I know how many military people are good and decent so that's not my problem with him. Carter was a military officer, Gore a soldier- I have no problems with that. I am by nature, a very suspicious person politically and I dig not to anger anyone but because I want to know as much as possible about all the candidates. What I'm finding out about Clark sends up a bunch of red flags for me. If they don't for you- for whatever reason, that's fine- may the best man for the Democratic Party win- but this is not information I can keep to myself when I find it.

And the Jesuits... fine shapers of the mind and critical thought. They educated my father and brother but politically speaking, they are a bit meddlesome! Not that I'm saying the Jesuits are behind this!

I look forward to reading the substantive posts and links you're known for, on Clark.

Btw, you're the first person who popped into my mind when I wrote "Apologies to all sincere Clark supporters". I have to go no. Bed-time and raging head-ache. Peace

Have a relaxing evening and a restful sleep! :-) I think agreeing to disagree is probably best.

I posted a couple of sources on the other thread, but most of what I love about Clark is from his appearances. A lot of them are archived on:

www.digitalclark.com

DTH

and that is that Clark is the most charismatic, well-spoken, best interviewing and most physically presentable candidate out there.

Years ago before I became so cynical and started devouring the news and becoming so appalled at the obscenity of modern warfare, I think he would probably have been my candidate too.

Peace to you and good-night.

I hate doing this and I hate watching what our passion about these elections is doing to the old DU. I feel as if I will lose quite a few friends for a while. But this is so important to me.

Peace

Years ago before I became so cynical and started devouring the news and becoming so appalled at the obscenity of modern warfare, I think he would probably have been my candidate too.

You might want to reserve some judgment until after his book, "Waging Modern War" (or something like that, I can't exactly remember what it is right now) comes out. You might be pleasantly surprised, if I understand the buzz correctly.

DTH

I hate doing this also its not just Kosovo I just dont understand how we expect a general to be our greatest hope, DTH I know you arent I dont know the word of a Clark supporter but I one time saw a Clark supporter say he would win 67-33 first of what about third parties, second of all FDR didnt even get that, and also Clark and this is not an insult but a mere fact Clark isnt a household name like Eisenhower was 50 years ago.

If you're all serious about an informed vote, I only ask you all look at all sides of the story.

Peace.

Ho hums about this or that. People got to know, before making any kind a decision on anything. Otherwise it is only a guessing game when you’re left in the DARK about things. Thanks for info and I did find some other stuff on Yugoslavia, might be biased but at least its more info

http://news.beograd.com/english/articles_and_opinion/djurdjevic/001107_the_dos_vote_fraud.html

New World Order
Bob Djurdjevic
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nov. 7, 2000
New World Order and the Serbs
The DOS Vote Fraud
This is the third and final column of a three-part series devoted to the Yugoslav elections and its aftermath.
The plot as old as theft. A thief is caught in the act. So he yells to the crowd - "catch the thief!", running after another person. Then, as people converge on the new suspect, the thief quietly disappears in the crowd.

Well before any votes had been cast, let alone counted, the Serb DOS leaders, including Vojislav Kostunica, kept accusing the Slobodan Milosevic regime of planning a vote fraud. They knew Milosevic would cheat. So decided to outcheat him. The western and Serb opposition media took part in the plot by echoing these accusations without bothering to let the crime be committed first.

Now, there is no doubt that Slobodan Milosevic did try to cheat with the Sep. 24 vote count. His regime had become corrupt to the core during the last 10 years, so what's one more little white lie to such people?

But did anyone pause, think, and then demand that the DOS leaders provide an independently corroborated PROOF of their own claims? (that Kostunica did win 52+% of the vote). Not that we know of. The DOS claims were based on reports of their own people from the polling stations. They are hardly independent and unbiased. And they had as much reason to lie and cheat as did Milosevic.
And probably did. Which is why they saw two it that electoral ballots went up in smoke above the Yugoslav parliament building on Oct. 5, so that the truth and the proof shall never be known.
(snip)

There is a few more here

http://news.beograd.com/english/articles_and_opinion/djurdjevic/index.html
(snip
1999.10.12 What is New World Order - Part I
1999.10.19 What is New World Order - Part II
1999.10.26 Why Russia Is Still NWO's Bogey No. 1
1999.11.02 Serbs and the "Green Interstate"
1999.11.09 Kosovo and East Timor: Similarities and Differences
1999.11.16 Toward New World Order's "Menage A Trois"
1999.11.23 A Bear in Sheep's Clothing
1999.11.30 The Iron Curtain Over Europe
1999.12.07 Stirring Up Trouble in the Caucasus
1999.12.14 Who lost China?
1999.12.21 Don't Cry For Me, Argentina
1999.12.28 Why Did Nato Bomb Serbia?
2000.01.04 Quo vadis, Serbia?
2000.01.11 Toward A New Multipolar World
2000.01.18 Putin Putting Russia Back On World Powers Map
2000.01.25 Death of the City
2000.02.01 Cavorting with the Enemy
2000.02.08 Eminence Grise Ended the War?
2000.02.15 Washington Big Brother Dictates to Germany
(snip)

for pulling all of this together. As you may have read, there are a number of "guts" here at DU that have been feeling there is something seriously wrong about Clark.

I did post the Hackworth article about the Perfume Prince a few days ago. And I was promptly flamed for it. That will not stop me from speaking out against and educating people about what Clark has done and what he is really like. He scares the shit out of me.

http://www.hackworth.com/20Apr99.html

The number of threads today that spoke of Dean speaking w/Clark and hoping he may ask Clark to be his VP, chilled me to the bone. As you know, I have been supporting Dean for many months. I also have been organizing a local Dean meet up.

That is on hold now. I will not support or vote for Dean if Clark is his VP.

Thank you, T

I havent defended what Milosevic did, but do I think bombing civilians was wrong absolutely, Iraq and the former Yugoslavia have much in common really.

and after just reading numerous articles - my instinct says this guy is bad news. Hell maybe he is holding off to announce a Bush/Clark ticket. Ole Chenney's heart aint what it used to be.

I realize you have other issues with Clark (and will agree to disagree on what that means in regard to him and the race), but
I'm just curious on where the blame should be with regard to Kosovo.

It really depends on how one feels about Kosovo, doesn't it. Respectfully, your telling me that the action in Kosovo was "disgraceful" doesn't necessarily make it so, does it. Compared to what? All wars, basically, are frought with 'war crimes'. That's the nature of the beast, unless there is a way to never fight a war ever again. Would you characterize our actions in Afghanistan as disgraceful? Is there any candidate against *that* action?

As a tiny tiny foot note, I don't know why Hackworth's "Perfumed Prince" is getting so much play. It's a cheesy insult from one man and that's all. It's like, "Clark is a murderer, a war criminal, and he's the PERFUMED PRINCE"! OOoooooooooo! Not the perfumed prince! NOOOOOOO!

the fact that it's out there is stuff that's going to be run against clark if he does get the nomination, which isnt a sure thing. so it's worth looking at now, because it's not like you won't hear about it later. coulter, if i remember correctly, basically said the same thing as Tinoire (or said something like this on tv) and a lot of freepers are posting the same info as Tinoire. so it's worth looking at, again.

still, there's two sides to every story. and most democrats will give clark a pass because he was a general under clinton. there is a small amount of liberals who hate clinton for what he did in kosovo, and subsequently clark, but i dont think many of those are voting in the primaries, they're more likely to be green party voters and unlikely to vote for a democrat no matter who's nominated in 2004. the ones who are turned off by what clark did in kosovo are probably outnumbered by the ones who like the fact that clark's a general.

It's NOT a left/right issue.

What happened in Yugoslavia was a travesty based on LIES - the very thing we are all upset about here on DU in regards to Iraq.

This being "Clinton's war" doesn't make it right - and no - there are MANY on the left who will not give Clark a "pass" because it was prosecuted under Clinton's watch. In reality, if we have to pin a person to this war it would be Albright. It was more Albright's war than anybody Else's. We all know the compassion regarding children in Iraq and Albright. Obviously, she felt the same about Serbian children. Next - the "angry general" Wesley Clark - who should be NOWHERE NEAR the oval office.

is because Clinton led it thats why.

genocide of Muslims by white Christians is perfectly fine by them.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.....Tinoire....can I thank you enough? So many are afraid to discuss this issue because they are immediately called names (which seems acceptable when talking about this particular war) and YOU have told the truth. You are ONE STRONG WOMAN!

This is an issue near and dear to me. The war on YUGOSLAVIA and the bombing of innocents in Serbia (downtown Belgrade!) was a colossal military act based on LIES. While General Clark has everyone conditioned to talk about the "War In Kosovo" - some of us remember it was a war taken all the way to Belgrade and was not some "humanitarian" mission.

President Milosevic was not perfect. He also was NOT the monster the U.S. and western monopoly capital pinned on him. The "demonization" of individuals who don't tow the line of the new American empire has been very effective.

Please, take the time to read the TRUTH about the conflict and the LIES spun by the western corporate media. This is an EXCELLENT introduction:
http://www.tenc.net/gilwhite/ranta.htm#a

I follow the trial of Milosevic - DAILY - in the Hague. You can watch the trial live on the internet, read the transcripts and see FOR YOURSELF that he has destroyed the prosecution. Not a SINGLE case of "mass murder" has been proven against Milosevic. He is NOT a "butcher".....in fact....his defense in the Hague has exposed many lies. This would include the work of DynCorp (yes, the SAME DynCorp)and other multinationals in destabilizing Serbia and the Serbian province of Kosovo (today occupied by NATO forces).

For commentary on the trial:
http://emperors-clothes.com/milo/defensecenter.htm

Here is one link that has trial coverage. It has NO bias and is a good resource:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/issue_milosevic.htm

Another site - from the Serb viewpoint - with all trial documents can be found here:
http://www.milosevic-trial.org/trial/index.htm

I urge all DUers to NOT be led down the blind path of "everyone knows." Like "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in Iraq - there is NO evidence of "mass graves" of victims of Serbia. In fact, it is the other way around!! Today, Kosovo is a haven of Islamic terrorist activity against the Serbs and there is SERIOUS and REAL ethnic cleansing going on. In fact, here's just ONE story from Agence France-Presse from just last week that might help you realize that all is NOT well in Kosovo and the SERBS are the victims of more "ethnic cleansing" than anything that happened pre-NATO.
http://www.ptd.net/webnews/wed/ci/Qkosovo-serbia-un.RKgc_DaJ.html

All of the above atrocities courtesy of Wesley Clark's good buddies of the KLA.

For late-breaking news from Yugoslavia, you can find the TRUTH here:
http://emperors-clothes.com/reports/index.htm

We should maybe ask Robert Novak if he knows more about this incident he reported in 1999 on CNN:

ROBERT NOVAK: Members of Congress who, during their spring recess, met in Brussels with Gen. Wesley Clark, the NATO supreme commander, were startled by his bellicosity. According to the lawmakers, Clark suggested the best way to handle Russia's supply of oil to Yugoslavia would be aerial bombardment of the pipeline that runs through Hungary. He also proposed bombing Russian warships that enter the battle zone. The American general was described by the members of the congressional delegation as waging a personal vendetta against Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic. "I think the general might need a little sleep," commented one House member.

The truth is before you eyes. The war was a crime against humanity. It is NATO that should stand before a tribunal in the Hague.

Long live the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Serbian unity in the face of worldwide lies - and peace to you all.

-JB

that was great.

As a few DU'ers tag team on this thread but this right wing garbage about Milosevic being "not such a bad guy" is outrageous.

You're quoting HACKWORTH?!

I met doctors who had to deal with the devastation wrought by Milosevic...

You guys really do NOT know what you are talking about.

:) and thanks for your kind PM. So much info there and I'll start reading it tomorrow with as much attention as I've given everything posted about Dean, Kerry, Kucinich, Lieberman, etc... I am not the most informed person about Yugoslavia but I watched this from the Russian and European angle and as with Iraq, it was a entire different war that was (under)reported here. Some people may simply be too young to remember or like me, weren't enraged enough to pay close enough attention, but there were huge protests over this war, especially overseas.

There were protests in front of the White House and I repeatedly called and faxed but no one listened. No one cared.

These photos should make us pause and think of how outraged we were when we protested Iraq and couldn't understand why everyone wasn't as outraged... These people asked themselves the same question back then:







Peace. What a concept eh?

like Robert Nofacts

We're quoting FAUX NEWS analysts like Colornel Hackworth.


If I stay long enough I know I'll get a quote deriding Wes Clark
from Ann Coulter.


ROTFLMFAO@Me

I don't understand how you can possibly say the man wasn't a monster. Do you know the history of his destruction of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia's constitutional structure? (Taking over the Presidency votes of Vojvodina and Kosovo, imposing trade boycotts against Croatia and Slovenia, declaring that Serbia wouldn't obey the Yugoslav federal government, preventing the scheduled rotation of Mesic to the head of the Presidency, and so on.) Do you know about the massacres that followed, enabled by the "Yugoslav" army that he controlled and used to aid the Bosnian Serb and Croatian Serb militias? Have you forgotten Srebrenica, Vukovar, the shelling of Sarajevo?

I personally support the way the Kosovo war was conducted by the U.S. and NATO under Clark's leadership, but I can see room for reasonable people to disagree on whether the tactics used were completely appropriate. What seems to me to be obvious, however, is the fundamentally evil nature of Slobodan Milosevic, as revealed before the Kosovo war had even started.

Im SURE some of this is true ...

And Im sure some of this is puffed up polemic ...

I will vote for Clark IF he is nominee ....

NO ONE is perfect in this world: ... and I dont expect Clark is either ..... nevertheless: ... I see NOTHING rock solid here, except that you perhaps have too much time on yer hands ....

Praps ....

and I saw your post which made me laugh :) Thank you. This is the DU I fell in love with years ago. And yes, I do have too much time on my hands as well as a career of basically digging for shit to put big pictures together. Sometimes some of the stuff you dig up is crap, sometimes it isn't- regardless- all of it needs to be examined.

Personally, I didn't think any of that was crap otherwise I wouldn't have posted it but it was put together in a much more rushed manner than I would like. Time is so short before the Primaries and regardless of all that time on my hands, it isn't enough!

Why do I have so much time on my hands you ask? Because one day in December my husband just had enough of my hatred of and obsession with getting Bush out, the horror of Israel/Palestine, my addiction to politics and walked out in the most cruel, icy manner you can imagine. I loved him to hell and back and destroyed my marriage over this? Yeah, I take this stuff really seriously now. Too seriously I'm sure and wish to God I didn't have so much time on my hands ;)

If it's not rock solid enough for you yet, keep digging. We all owe it to ourselves, our country, and future generations of young people who will have to pay for the choice we make in 2004.

Politics is the one area where I am happy when I am wrong!

I must say though, and not just for you, but for everyone- I got out of bed to check this thread and am AMAZED at how civil it's remained! Thank you to everyone. So far that is!

This will drive the Clark carpet laying team nuts.
Interesting Take Tinoire.

...at least not for the top slot:

"Yes," Dean said when asked whether he would consider asking the former NATO supreme commander to join his ticket.

"There would be a great many people, of course, that would be considered as a potential running mate. And I must say, I think it's much too early to discuss potential running mates. I mean, we're five months from the time the first official vote and delegate selection takes place.

"So I find it very premature. But I think Wes Clark, he's somebody I keep in close touch with. He's a terrific person, very bright, very capable, very thoughtful. Our views coincide on a number of matters, and he is -- I certainly can't say enough good things about him. It would be tough to run against him."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/08/24/dean/

The generous collegial assessment (w/o the obligatory contrast as to why a Dean candidacy should be preferable), that Dean keeps "in close touch" with Clark (Isn't Clark one of the guys who's been coaching him on foreign affairs?), and the way-early veep trial balloon... sounds like something's up backstage.

Too many connections and commonalities 1) Campaign simularities - strong use of internet for launching "Draft Clark" movement, 2) IRAQ War position and others common positions 3)Clark's the dream Veep for Dean - balancing ticket (Southern, Military, Washington insider etc.), 4) Collegiality - mutually supportive - glaring with Dean as he blasts his other competition.

Something IS up backstage ...

and his supporters and then I see this libel against a decent man like Wes Clark but I will call on my better angels and not take the bait.

Some facts:

Kosovo and Bonia were NATO operations. It is hard to believe that all nineteen member nations of NATO many of whom are progressive would sign on to a unjust war.

Slobodan Milosevic was another Hitler. The only difference is the target's of Hitler's wrath and the means to carry it out. Slobadan was just as wack in his racism as Hitler but in another direction. Instead of Jews, Gypsies, Gays, Communists,and Slavs, Milosevic's target was Muslims.

Slobo ain't sitting in the dock at the Hague for nothing.

Nobody sheds a tear in this thread for the Bosnian boys and men killed by Shobo's willing executioners or the women who were raped and impregnated by them.

Quoting David Hackworth FAUX News analyst hack is too much...

Why don't you quote noted leftists (sic) like Michael Savaged Weiner and Rush Limbaugh who also opposed the operation.

This thread was nothing but pornography. I feel unclean after reading it.

I must take a shower.

I would add that I am getting a little sick of DUers going out of their way to seemingly defend monsters around the world. These tend to be the same people that almost root for terrorists. No one will admit it and when you call them on it they backpeddle like crazy but I think anyone paying attention has noticed what I am talking about.

Saying the US should not have gotten involved is the same as saying Slobo wasn't that bad. He was and he deserves much worse then he got.

:thumbsup:

DTH

I take it the poster supports the use of genocide against Moslems; however, as a second generation Serb, I don't do dictators--here or abroad.

I am sorry that this thread is still here, but since it is:

Kosovo and Bonia were NATO operations. It is hard to believe that all nineteen member nations of NATO many of whom are progressive would sign on to a unjust war.

...and the Pope, don't forget the Pope.

Now for some brain bleach...right wing tripe has that effect.

but I can't in good conscience say none of these things should be discussed among Democrats either. Please take a look at my post downthread headed "I have this problem. Maybe I've been too well trained-" if you have the time and inclination to hear a different view from a Kucinich supporter.

Tinoire does brilliant research, imo. Whether the conclusions she reaches from that research are entirely accurate depends on ones perspective. It's my suspicion that she's casting aside certain realities about military conflict that can't be ignored and still allow people to come to reasonable conclusions about the character of those involved in such conflicts. I've said as much and I'll stand by that until evidence comes along to alter my perception.

Again, I can no more rfer to General Clark as a "war criminal" than I could refer to a Viet Nam veteran as a "cild/baby-killer" upon learning that they were forced to shoot a child to save their own lives. War is the ultimate moral dilemma. It is physically impossible to be on the moral high ground where military conflict is concerned. SOMEONE will consider you morally wrong no matter where you place the priorities. In essence General Clark like thousands before and since is essentially damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. He has my respect and my compassion for that.

for slamming a good man.


Next Topic:

The Perfidy of Abraham Lincoln

Wow...what a comeback with facts, i presume...NOT

The operations in Kosovo and Bosnia were supported by NATO. NATO is made up of nineteen member countries, many of whom are progressive.

Wes Clark has received many honors for his conduct during the Bosnia
and Kosovo campaigns. His supporters can provide the links.

The Serbs were responsible for mass atrocities including the:

forced displacement of an indigenous people (genocide)

using systematic rape and murder of a people as a poltitical tool (genocide)

Milosevic is sitting in the dock at the Hague for said crimes.

As Lincoln said "It is better to be quiet and have others think you are a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

edited for punctuation

Then the US is freeing the Iraqis too...I mean 43 countries supported the US.

operations.

Other than they both involved the use of military force.

It's interesting that you ignored all the other points. Your obscurantism is really quite tiring.


Milosevic is sitting in the dock at the Hague now for his crimes against humanity which include:

-the use of murder and systematic rape of a people as a political tool (genocide)

-the forced dislacement of an indigenous people (genocide)


Miloosevic was as wack as Hitler in his racism just in another direction.

when do I see him get the sentence?

The tribunal is a joke.

Sorry, dont buy your bullshit or the government's propaganda at that time. Remember, Billy Clinton was for this war. In fact he said something to the effect of being an honest mistake after the false evidence fiasco.

when he finishes filibustering.

Bill Clinton was for the war....God Bless Him... Another reason real Democrats still love him.

Do you deny that Milosevic is responsible for allowing the systematic rape and impregnation of Muslim women (and)

the use of forced relocation of the indigenous people.

Both of which are war crimes.

I deny it. Finished filibustering? He has torn the prosecution to shreds. Even impartial observers say agree that the trial has been a washout for the prosecution.

Here are two links to follow the trial after summer recess:

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/issue_milosevic.htm
(unbiased)

http://www.milosevic-trial.org/trial/index.htm
(Serb site)

Both have live video feeds and full transcripts

There's been no filibustering! He has simply shed light on the drive for an American empire and how Yugoslavia stood in the way!

Educate! A good introduction:
http://www.tenc.net/gilwhite/ranta.htm#a

I bet you're ready to discount the fact that KLA did go on a rampant murder frenzy on the serbs...and you actually cheer the fact that Bill supports this Iraqi war, god fucking bless you and Bill...no wait i meant the contrary.......

guess some folks will excuse genocide as long as the person that carries it out provides free health care....

Let's see . Do I side with the nineteen members of NATO including progressive nations such as France(part time member), Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands

and the Pope

or do I side with the Slaughterer of Serbia?

Not Bill and I.....


God Bless Bill Clinton....

God Bless the Democratic Party....

and God Bless the b-r-a-v-e men and women who put a stop to Milosevics' reign of terror.....

his allies of war profiteers and that war criminal, Wes Clark...

then Eisenhower is a war criminal for deposing Adolf Hitler.


but hey, Slobo provided free medical care......


so who cares if he's a genocidal maniac.

but KLA is all for killing the serbs and you must support them...wait you did with your tax dollars.

From the UK Spectator Common knowledge in Europe. Why not in America? Because nobody was paying attention and believed everything the media spun.

THE MASSACRES THAT NEVER WERE
Contrary to propaganda, mass graves in Kosovo are a myth, says John Laughland

IT was a lonely job, being Prime Minister, Tony Blair told the Labour party conference. He had sleepless nights. Sometimes, he said, there were 'life and death decisions to take'; which delicate hint is the closest he has so far come to taking the credit for having fought the war against Yugoslavia - and no wonder. He must realise that Kosovo has not proved to be his Falklands. This is not least because, as the province continues to languish in corruption and chaos, it is now obvious that Mr Blair's crude Manichaeism during the war was very wide of the mark. But maybe his insomnia is also connected with the fact that the extravagant claims then made for Serb evil are now proving difficult to substantiate.

On 16 May, the US defence secretary William Cohen said that Yugoslav army forces had killed up to 100,000 Albanian men of military age. This number was declared missing, the refugees having all claimed that their menfolk had been separated from them as they fled Kosovo. Tony Blair himself implied that the numbers might be even higher when he wrote in the Times on 5 June, 'We must be ready for what we know will be clear evidence of ... as yet unknown numbers of people missing, tortured and dead.' On 17 June, the then minister of state in the Foreign Office, Geoff Hoon, announced that some 10,000 people had been killed in more than 100 massacres but added, 'The final toll may be much worse.'

As journalists followed Nato troops into the province, the newspapers were strewn with maps showing scores of mass graves. There was particular excitement when 'the biggest mass grave ever' was announced to have been discovered in Ljubenic. It was said to contain 350 bodies, a figure which was blazed across the world's media. Reporting was markedly less energetic however, when the true figure turned on to be only seven. Billed as the 'biggest mass grave in Kosovo', Ljubenic was in fact not a mass grave at all. Similarly, on 11 October, a spokesman for the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague announced that no bodies or bones had been found in the mines at Trepca in northern Kosovo: rumours had been circulating in Kosovo that Serbian forces had dumped the bodies of as many as 700 Kosovars into its shafts.

Various experts have confirmed that the more extravagant claims were fantasy. In August, Pdrez Pujol, a Spanish forensic expert, told El Pais, 'I have been reading the data from the UN. They began with 44,000 deaths. Then they lowered it to 22,000. And now they're going with 11,000. I look forward to seeing what the final count will really be.' The chief Spanish inspector, Juan Lopez Palafox, added, 'They told us that we should prepare ourselves to perform more than 2,000 autopsies. The result is very different. We only found 187 cadavers and now we are going to return .' Later the same month, a German doctor who had spent the war in the Stenkovac refugee camp in Macedonia cast light on the allegation that all the men of military age in Kosovo had been murdered. He told Die Welt, 'It was very surprising that a large number of journalists either could not or would not perceive the majority of the people in the refugee camps were men of military age. It was always represented as if there were no men in the camps at all. Even when the journalists were told this they refused to take account of it.'

<snip>

http://www.wpunj.edu/cohss/old_cohss/polisci/faculty/mc-kos5.htm

You wrote:

The Serbs were responsible for mass atrocities including the:

forced displacement of an indigenous people (genocide)

using systematic rape and murder of a people as a poltitical tool (genocide)

Milosevic is sitting in the dock at the Hague for said crimes.
-------------
Nothing you wrote are facts. In fact, the "trial" in the Hague has proven all of this untue. I give plenty of links to educate yourself in a post above.

at those sites....

They think too small.....


They should have bigger ideas like holocaust revisioninsm....

good to see you running out of steam.

I'm not going to chase my tail reading nutball theories...


but hey if you are real nice Santa will bring you a subscription to The Spotlight for Christmas.

Fact 1. Your man is not even a candidate
Fact 2. Your man can't even decide if he a democrat

You are supporting a man Howard Dean who embraces Wes Clark, a man you call a war criminal.

That's harder to live with than

Fact 1

and

Fact 2


Touche -:)

Peace

Nobody here is in love with Milosevic but just because this imperialist war was conducted under Clinton is no reason to repeat Albright's myths!

Source: THE GLOBE AND MAIL (Canada)
Published: January 10, 2000

The tragic blunder in Kosovo

We led the way in Suez, so why didn't we know better than to be led into a flagrant violation of international law, asks James Bissett, Canada's former ambassador to Yugoslavia

JAMES BISSETT

The bombing of Yugoslavia in the closing days of the 20th century has raised disturbing and unresolved issues about international security that must be addressed. Hailed as a victory for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the bombing, on closer analysis, can be seen as an unmitigated failure with far-reaching implications for world peace. Canada must demand more of its political leaders before they lead us into another war.

Canada's participation in this undeclared war against a sovereign state was carried out without public awareness or debate in Parliament. The bombing was conducted without the approval of the United Nations Security Council and was a direct violation not only of the UN Charter but also of Article 1 of the NATO Treaty itself, which requires NATO to settle any international dispute by peaceful means and to refrain from the threat or use of force, "in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations." Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy and Defence Minsiter Art Eggleton have assured us this flagrant violation of international law was necessary to stop ethnic cleansing and human-rights violations against the Albanian population of Kosovo.

Six months have passed since the end of the bombing. Now the war is over, it's time for sober analysis about why it was fought. The public has been bombarded with NATO propaganda, not only about the reasons for the intervention but also about its results. I believe we have been subject to duplicity and misleading information. The first casualty of the war in Kosovo has been the truth.

Our political leaders and much of the media have said that the bombing of Yugoslavia was launched to stop ethnic cleansing and atrocities. This is a myth. All the evidence shows that there were approximately 2,000 casualties in Kosovo up to the time of the NATO bombing -- by any standard, not an extraordinary number considering that a civil war had been raging since 1993. By contrast, the number of Yugoslavian civilians killed by the NATO bombing is reckoned to be well above 2,000.

The UN estimated that close to 200,000 ethnic Albanians were displaced before the NATO air strikes -- again, a deplorable figure but not surprising given that these people were driven from their homes as a result of the civil war. After the NATO bombs began to fall, more than 800,000 Kosovars were forced to flee from Serbian retaliation and from NATO bombs. So much for humanitarian intervention.

<snip>

((entire article is excellent))


http://www.geocities.com/hebdo99/dossier/Bisset.htm

Tinoire, I am so pleased to see the style you used for this post. It looks to me like you put a lot of effort into presenting a solid case (which I confess to not reading links just yet but will come back as time allows). I get so tired of folks coming in and posting their "gut feelings" or rumours as if it is some well researched thesis on the candidate they don't like. Kudos to you for taking a much higher road.

That said, if Clark were the VP for Dean I'd still vote the ticket. I am of the mind that we have to seize some power before we start getting as particular as we'd like. We are powerless here in the wilderness and our country, as well as the rest of the world, suffers terribly because of it.

That is just my view of things though.

Julie

why didn't he post a list to Serbian atrocities?

used the word "exhaustive" first of all so don't put words in my mouth. Secondly, my main point (which apparently you missed) was that this was not some piece of crap don't-vote-for-so-and-so-because-my-opinion-is-such-and-such post.

I think those posts are crap and I find it laughable when people do not understand why they are not taken as factual or, for that matter, noteworthy.

I see Tinoire taking a different road, a higher one. Maybe not to your liking but it is a vast improvement over much of what I've been seeing around here in GD lately.

Julie

We disagree....


I'll leave it to Wes Clark's supporters to provide the appropriate links but Wes Clark is no war criminal and to suggest such is not taking the high road.

statements were made and materials provided to substantiate the views. A refreshing change from the slop that often passes for "argument" or "credible criticism".

If you prefer not to concede that it is a big improvement over the usual fare served up that is obviously your choice.

I have not read all the info posted yet and have not made up my mind in regard to my views on Clark so I am merely commenting on the methods uses thus far. I think there's be a sincere attmept at a reasoned argument, regardless of how truly effective or accurate the argument may be.

Cheers,
Julie

Not a guy names Wes.....not with those pearly whites and pretty silver hair....not that calm and quiet guy on CNN. Not WES!

Yes, Wes.
Wesley Clark, the temper of NATO.

Sorry, but your research is just a bunch of
proganda and lies put out by extremely biased sources.

The same stuff has been posted here by Clark-haters about
a half dozen times. It gets rehashed and then shown to be
false pretty summarily. This is nothing knew.

It's funny because it seems that there are about a dozen
or so of the same people that do nothing but post Clark-hating
threads.

It's not good for DU and it's not good for the Democratic party.

Who do you think has helped give military credibility to Dean's
and Kucinich's anti-war stance? Well, some of that credit
should go to Clark. Whether he runs or not, Clark is coming out
strong against President Bush and the corrupt politics of the right.

This whole "Clark as War Criminal" is a hackneyed canard that has
been discredited by official sources. Clark, Clinton, and the gang
have been cleared.

If Clark-haters represent this kind of BS, then I am glad to be
a Clark supporter.

I can't imagine what kind of Democrat or progressive you support,
but you better realize that Clark has helped the image of the
left by intelligently conducting the Kosovo operation. He helped
rescue it from the debacle that it promised to become.

I have empathy for innocent Serbs who were caught in the cross-fire
and did not intend to harm the people of Kosovo. However, Clark
was put forth with the charge to lead NATO forces with a directive
given to him by policy makers. He carried that out as best could
be expected, given the circumstances. Being honored with honorary
knighthoods and so forth by many good European nations should
demonstrate to you that his efforts were appreciated by Europe,
those affected by that conflict.

If you want to be honest, confess your Serbian sympathies and why
you have them. However, the old "Clark as War Criminal" garbage
won't do. The only ones extolling it are the looney-Clinton-hating
-fascist-ideologue right, the looney-all-war-is-bad-just-close-
your-eyes-and-the-bad-man-will-go-away left, and Serb sympathizers.
As for the broad majority of Americans, we just don't get a nut off
cheering for Slobodon.

when you look at the entirety of this 'evidence,' it amounts to absolutely nothing that mainstream voters would pay attention to. He's associated with George Soros. Oooooooooohhhhh! The shivers! The war crime stuff is blatant BS, and Americans aren't going to buy it: if Clark is a war criminal, so is every general officer in the military, as well as most of the politicians in Washington.

What this post, and the slavish adulation some people have lavished on it really are evidence of, is why Democrats continue to be slapped around in the polls and the media. These far-left-loonies are the straw men that keep Rush and Coulter and Hannity et al in business, but they are too busy cranking out insane conspiracy theories to care.

Those of us who actually want to win in 04 can breathe a sigh of relief that the people here are in no way representative of the Democratic party as a whole, much less the average voter in this country.

. . . because we here are actually looking behind the facade. I want a candidate with no dubious ties to cronies with hidden agendas (such as Soros). I will read everything about all the candidates, thank you.

extremely biased references to bash Democrats.

Let's see..... Things you need to know about:

Howard Dean, see Washingtontimes.com
Dennis Kucinich, see stillantichoice.com
John Kerry, use SkullandBonesisacult.com
Dick Gephardt, try eyebrows-are-us.com
John Edwards, go to we-hate-the-south.com
Carol M. Braun, read promisekeepers.com
Al Sharpton, study KKK.com
Joe Lieberman, click KKK.com

Milosevic is a misunderstood leftist.

That he was caught up in "the great game" of geopolitics.


Milosevic was as wack in his racism as Hilter just in another direction.

Demonize, demonize, demonize.....

The American way.

Yes, he's justly renowned for championing the welfare of foot soldiers and devotion to the first principle of war: winning. But his measure of a man is strictly military. His scorn for those who ascend the ranks through bureaucracy instead of on the battlefield doesn't necessarily mean they're unfit for the oval office.

In any case, Hackworth's character assessments can be really flighty:

Hackworth LOVES Rumsfeld:

The Perfumed Princes are on a new campaign -- carpet-bombing SecDef Donald Rumsfeld. They fear that his military revolution designed to prepare our armed forces for the threats ahead might ruin their sweet deal. But the Pentagon's never had anyone in charge as smart and as tough as Rumsfeld. If anyone can take on the top brass and blow them away, it's The Donald.

http://www.hackworth.com/30jul01.html

Hackworth HATES Rumsfeld

In mid April, I wrote a piece that asks for Rumsfeld to be fired, to be relieved. I took enormous heat for that. He went in light, on the cheap, he has misunderstood the whole war, he should go ... Rumsfeld is an arrogant asshole. That's a quote, by the way.

http://newsoutpost.com/article512.html

Hackworth nudges Powell into the PERFUMED PRINCES column:

Most Americans would regard two well-known former officers, Norman Schwartzkopf and Colin Powell, as heroes. But you don't think very much of them.

Colin Powell is a typical example of where the myth has just taken over. There was talk a few months back that the only way to save America was to make Colin Powell, this great war-fighter, the President. The New York Post said that Powell, a "Gulf War hero," may be a member of Clinton's cabinet. The guy wasn't even in the Gulf War during the war. How could he become a Gulf War hero? The heroes of the Gulf War were the grunts that were down on the ground. For the record, Colin Powell has never led American fighting men in battle. But most Americans don't realize this.

You are particularly critical of the decisions Powell made in the Gulf War.

We had to go for national security reasons — oil. But we should have gone in to win. We could have taken out Republican Guard without putting one grunt on the ground. We had incredible air-striking power in the form of A-10 aircraft, F18s, and Apache gunships. We could have done it. But this is not the advice that Colin Powell gave. He caved in, instead of standing tall and advising his Commander in Chief that we should fight this war to win.

http://www.salon.com/news/news961115.html

Real leadership would have taken Saddam Hussein out in 1991...

Just when it was time to finish him and win, the president says, "I think we should back off now; the war is getting a little bloody." Not that war is not always bloody.

The president turned to Colin Powell, his military adviser - Powell is not a warrior but a military and politically correct individual. Powell chose to go along with the president. Powell called Schwarzkopf up and said, "Let's end the show." A hundred- hour show is a good logo. It has a certain resonance to it. The Hundred-Hour War. Schwarzkopf, instead of saying, "To hell with this; Let me talk to the boss and tell him we have gone to all this effort," and said, This guy Saddam Hussein is another Adolf Hitler. He has mass weapons of destruction that he will use. He has used them against the Iranians and the Kurds. He is one bad hombre with the fourth largest army in the world. We have got to take him." Then, if the president refused what "Stormin Norman" used as a good argument, had I been the Commander, I would have just unplugged the phone and gone in and kicked his ass and finished him off. That is the kind of leadership we need in America.

http://www.lawac.org/speech/hackworth96.html

Hackworth deems Powell a NATIONAL SAVIOR:

Dubya's first pick out of the Cabinet box was a winner. Colin Powell as Secretary of State is like holding a royal flush in a no-limit poker game. Few Americans have his unique qualifications in war and peace; he has the right stuff to steer our nation with a steady hand through the dangerous shoals and violent storms we'll face.

http://www.hackworth.com/18dec00.html

Hackworth GOES WOBBLY on Powell:

A tap-dancing Colin Powell told the nation early last week that the situation with North Korea was "not yet a crisis."

Powell and I both attended the U.S. Army's Command and General Staff College, where they beat into our heads the essential military lesson for making an "Estimate of the Situation." And my school reading of the Korean tea leaves is 180 degrees from Powell: I think we've triggered a crisis with global consequences that could well be on its way to meltdown.

...

The past 40 years certainly testify to the secretary of state's savvy. So maybe Powell has been spewing the party line – going along to get along with Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle and other New World Order neoconservatives who have the president's ear – until he can convince Bush to cool the "High Noon" act and talk to the looney-tunes from Pyongyang.

...

Powell needs to access his Sun Tzu: "You should not press a desperate foe too hard."

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30487

maybe you can find the 1993 article in Newsweek where he slams Clinton for wanting the military to allow gays to serve openly.

I'm not looking to whack Hackworth as some gay-hating troglodyte. His pitbull criticisms of the military's upper echelons and meddling politicians are much valued by grunts, and rightly so. But not every officer's career parallels Chesty Puller's, and I don't put much weight to Hackworth's dismissal of Clark as a pampered mandarin.

about Chesty but Wes Clark got his bones in battle.

I'm not as familiar with his exploits as some of his supporters but I believe he got three Purple Hearts in Nam and lost part of his calf.


"The Perfumed Prince" pfft

Thanks for the name Tinoire
http://www.madcowprod.com/index8.html
The house that Jack built

by Daniel Hopsicker
October 31--Venice, Florida.

Jackson Stephens, a name often linked with America’s super-secret National Security Agency, has been an influential presence for several decades in the tiny town which served as port of entry into U.S. flight and even military training for the terrorist cadre implicated in the Sept 11 attack.

A block away from the Venice Florida airport stands an opulent three-story red brick building that is a monument to the rivers of money flowing through the Stephens financial empire.

Looking eerily-reminiscent of the plush digs of the law firm in the Tom Cruise movie "The Firm," or a particularly-ostentatious Southern Governors’ mansion, the building seems out of place alongside the weed-strewn airport perimeter.

This was the national headquarters of Jackson Stephen's Beverly Enterprises. It is a stone’s throw from the Venice Airport.

Gleaming like a movie set and basking in Florida's Indian summer, the building still houses Stephens former law firm, local political powerhouse Boone Boone & Boone, a firm which worked so closely with client Stephens that at least one of his executives was permanently housed there.

"I don’t think you could safely say that they (Boone & Boone) runs everything in town," said one local observer. "But you could safely say they run almost everything. They exert a strong influence here, including out at the airport."

Why did Mohammed Atta and his terrorist cadre pick tiny Venice, Florida to be their terrorist beachhead?
(snip)

Thank you BPilgrim. Came up during a pre-work google of Chomsky and Serbia (great stuff in that search) . Posting this because someone mentioned how the Left was all for this. The Left was NOT all for this at all! People of good will all over the world were protesting this. People were shot in Geneo over this, during protests. Anyway, I found this and it sent a little chill down my back because it's so similar to discusssions people had about Iraq and Sadaam.

bpilgrim (7224 posts) Feb-19-02, 07:23 AM (ET)
Chomsky Comments on Milosevic Ouster, etc.

More evidence that there is a hidden agenda in yugoslavia.
What is it? Russia? New-World-Order? Global Hegemony?
all of the above is my guess

<SNIP>
Serb dissidents, to the extent that their voices are heard here, are saying pretty much the same thing. In a fairly typical comment on BBC, a Belgrade university student said: "We did it on our own. Please do not help us again with your bombs." Reaffirming these conclusions, a correspondent for the opposition daily Blic writes that "Serbs felt oppressed by their regime from the inside and by the West from the outside; she condemns the US for having "ignored the democratic movement in Yugoslavia and failing to aid numerous Serbian refugees" -- by far the largest refugee population in the region. A prominent dissident scholar, in a letter of remembrance for a leading human rights activist who recently died, asks whether "the ones who said they imposed sanctions `against Milosevic' knew or cared how they impoverished you and the other people like you, and turned our lives into misery while helping him and his smuggling allies to become richer and richer," enabling him to "do whatever he wanted"; and instead of realizing "the stupidity of isolating a whole nation, of tarring all the people with the same broad brush under the pretense that they are striking a blow against a tyrannical leader," are now saying -- self-righteously and absurdly -- "that all that is happening in Serbia today was the result of their wise policy, and their help" (Ana Trbovich, Jasmina Teodosijevic, Boston Globe, Oct. 8).

These comments, I think, are on target. What happened was a very impressive demonstration of popular mobilization and courage. The removal of the brutal and corrupt regimes of Serbia and Croatia (Milosevic and Tudjman were partners in crime throughout) is an important step forward for the region, and the mass movements in Serbia -- miners, students, innumerable others -- merit great admiration, and provide an inspiring example of what united and dedicated people can achieve. Right now workers' committees are taking control of many companies and state institutions, "revolting against their Milosevic-era managers and taking over the directors' suites," as "workers took full advantage of Yugoslav's social ownership traditions." "With Milosevic's rule crumbling, the workers have taken the communist rhetoric literally and taken charge of their enterprises," instituting various forms of "worker management" (London Financial Times, Oct. 11). What has taken place, and where it will go, is in the hands of the people of Serbia, though as always, international solidarity and support -- not least in the US -- can make a substantial difference.

On the elections themselves, there is plenty of valid criticism: there was extensive interference by the West and by Milosevic's harshly repressive (but by no means "totalitarian") apparatus. But I think the Belgrade student is right: they did it on their own, and deserve plenty of credit for that. It's an outcome that the left should welcome and applaud, in my opinion.

<END>

More...
http://www.lbbs.org/chomskyonelec.htm

see also

Kosovo Peace
Accord (Z, July '99)
By Noam Chomsky
http://www.gn.apc.org/tokyoprogressive/worldcop/Epeace_accord.htm

Noam Chomsky on Yugoslavia
http://www.softmakers.com/fry/docs/chomintyug.htm

Wonder who we are gonna bomb to democracy in our fight against terra - what hypocrites :puke:

Response:

Where does Chomsky think the democrats came from?
According to Chomsky, Bombs didn't work. Sanctions didn't work. External political pressure didn't work. What?
During and after the Bosnia and Croat wars, Milosevic enjoyed very broad popularity from Serbs, and was re-elected by them. He was able to suppress opposition press and politicians with little public outcry.

Then, fast forward to several years later, Milosevic is thrown out by a popular revolution. What changed? To suggest that the nationalist Serb public would have dumped Slobo in the absence of sanctions or bombing defies the history of the conflicts. If Slobo had been able to continue to deliver minimal economic security (no sanctions) and to scapegoat and remove minority populations (no Western intervention), he'd still be there.

We did it on our own. Please do not help us again with your bombs.
and you are missing the main point...
is that we

1) we made the situation WORSE
2) are real interest there isn't democracy or preventing humanitarian crisis

which is well documented.

war is peace
freedom is slavery

And you are missing the point
Between 1994 and 2000, something changed in the Serbian public. Serbs went from overwhelmingly supporting Slobo's militant nationalism to turning him over to the Hague. What happened?


The POINT is they werent interested in stopping
a humanitarian crisis, since they CREATED one.
If you read the articles above you will see what i mean.

also see...

<snip>

As in the case of the Clinton Administration, the present regime in Germany, specifically Joschka Fischer's Foreign Office, has justified its intervention in Kosovo by pointing to a "humanitarian catastrophe," "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing" occurring there, especially in the months immediately preceding the NATO attack. The following internal documents from Fischer's ministry and from various regional Administrative Courts in Germany spanning the year before the start of NATO's air attacks, attest that criteria of ethnic cleansing and genocide were not met. The Foreign Office documents were responses to the courts' needs in deciding the status of Kosovo-Albanian refugees in Germany. Although one might in these cases suppose a bias in favor of downplaying a humanitarian catastrophe in order to limit refugees, it nevertheless remains highly significant that the Foreign Office, in contrast to its public assertion of ethnic cleansing and genocide in justifying NATO intervention, privately continued to deny their existence as Yugoslav policy in this crucial period. And this continued to be their assessment even in March of this year. Thus these documents tend to show that stopping genocide was not the reason the German government, and by implication NATO, intervened in Kosovo, and that genocide (as understood in German and international law) in Kosovo did not precede NATO bombardment, at least not from early 1998 through March, 1999, but is a product of it.

<end>

More...
http://www.infoshop.org/news4/german_kosovo.html

The point
What was/is are real purpose in yugoslavia?
The purpose was the removal of Milosevic for his crimes. There is no current purpose. I did not (and do not) find the goal objectionable. Would you prefer that he remained in power?


Red Flag- Does this sound familiar? Iraq? Sadaam Hussein anyone?

why
did we want to remove him from power?

huh?
Sorry, but I can't believe you. Murder, racism, genocide, atrocities, war, death, oppression, political violence, rigged elections, property seizures, ethnic cleansing, mass rapes, intimidation, profiteering, corruption... Do you need me to go on?
These things exist elsewhere. That does not make them acceptable. Serbia under Milosevic was a threat to its neighbors (as demonstrated by several wars) and its citizens. It was a locus for regional destabilization and violence. Europe is better for his absence, and I shed no tears. If you ask Serbs in 10 years about it, the vast majority will tell you that they are better off without him.

Europe had an opportunity to make a change for the better, to expand liberal democracy. It is unfortunate that it required bombs and military action, but Slobo refused to go quietly. Now that he's gone, the next target should be the corrupt regime in Belarus, and civic-culture-building efforts in Ukraine.

People are happier in open free democracies. We should help them, if possible.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forum_archive_html/DCForumID30/1367.html#1

Lots more interesting stuff- of course the I/P crowd shows up to belittle Chomsky and we all lose what was a decent conversation.

I'll tell you what bothers me about the "draft Clark" campaign.

Bear with me now.

Currently, we have nine candidates running for the Democratic nomination. Every one of them has been a public figure for years, and with the exception of Sharpton, all of them have actually held public office and dealt with the boring, day-to-day details that such positions entail. They have all voluntarily stepped into the ring and stated their positions on both foreign and domestic issues. They have all declared themselves to be Democrats.

Now, all of a sudden, out of nowhere, a bunch of people come onto DU advocating the drafting of a general who has been little known to the public. Why this particular general, and why not some other general? Or why not some eminent civilian who has been sitting on the sidelines?

Yeah, I know about Eisenhower. I'm even old enough to remember most of his two terms in office. But there's a huge difference between Eisenhower and Wesley Clark. Due to his World War II experience as Supreme Allied Commander for Europe and his continual appearance in newsreels and on the radio, Eisenhower was a household name in the United States in the early 1950s. His success in the war and his genial public persona had made him genuinely popular. He had the respect of the Western European leaders whom he had worked with during WWII. If the Republicans were going to draft someone in 1952, Eisenhower was the no-brainer choice.

This is quite different from taking a general with little name recognition and a past that at least warrants further investigation and anointing him the savior of the Democratic party.

Two possibilities for this strange situation:

1) A whole bunch of people were dissatisfied with the current crop of candidates, independently went on a "talent search," and independently arrived at the conclusion that this particular general, someone most people have never heard of, but who now seems to be popping up everywhere in the media, but who won't reveal his party affiliation or come right out and say that he wants to run, is The One.

2) Astroturf (i.e. a fake "grassroots" drive that may attract a few genuine followers but is actually planned and instigated by professioal operatives)

Take your pick.

To be objective on Kosovo maybe a ground invasion instead of a bombing campaign would have been better. None of the opponents of that war here are saying that Milosevic was a saint or even a good guy, and on the fact that noted RWers opposed it, some opposed this war too but you wont catch me saying I agree with you on it because we had different reasons theirs were sick I suppose like just to oppose Clinton,

mess around with the sticky stuff and are usually not involved with funny business directly (except for Arnold). They have positioned them selves all along for such later consequences of not getting stuck in the goo. They are groomed as such, their backers do the dirty work mostly, while the front men, the candidates put out the illusion to everybody else that things are being done as correctly as possible.

While I am not old enough to remember Ike, I am old enough to remember my foolishness when I volunteered for the military. The things I remember well is knowing most officers and higher EM’s work a different political game, one that takes no prisoners, but is a political game none the less.

Because there is not a lot of info on Ike, might only have to do with the fact he was slicker or more brazen than most. At any rate a house cards is not built on opinion but gravity.

On edit do we need to check the on stats on WWII, them numbers are not that great, if I remember correctly



http://www.antiwar.com/
http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/local/6606843.htm
Posted on Sun, Aug. 24, 2003
BRINGING BACK THE TROOPS
Military families call for soldiers' return
By Peyton D. Woodson
Star-Telegram Staff Writer

CRAWFORD - Waving American flags and photographs of loved ones, military families joined peace activists Saturday to urge President Bush to bring U.S. troops home.

About 100 people gathered outside the Crawford football stadium -- just miles from Bush's ranch -- to decry the country's military presence in the Middle East.

"We want to get our loved ones home," said Candance Robison, whose husband, 1st Lt. Mike Robison, an Army engineer, has been deployed in Iraq since Easter
(snip)

I didn't think anything could be more annoying than the Draft Gore cult, but the Clarkies are doing a fine job.

about how the "draft Clark" movement arose.

Currently, we have nine candidates running for the Democratic nomination. Every one of them has been a public figure for years, and with the exception of Sharpton, all of them have actually held public office and dealt with the boring, day-to-day details that such positions entail. They have all voluntarily stepped into the ring and stated their positions on both foreign and domestic issues. They have all declared themselves to be Democrats.

And all of them (Dean and Kerry, my other favorite two people running, included) have significant weaknesses. My perception is that the people here who are enthusiastic about Clark love his lack of perceived weaknesses. The only major weakness I see, his Beltway inexperience, can actually be spun into a positive, as it has been countless times before.

Now, all of a sudden, out of nowhere, a bunch of people come onto DU advocating the drafting of a general who has been little known to the public. Why this particular general, and why not some other general? Or why not some eminent civilian who has been sitting on the sidelines?

Why a general? Because whether we like it or not, foreign policy is going to be an enormous issue in the 2004 campaign. Why Clark and not other generals? Because I'm not aware of any other generals who are as liberal and as distinguished as he is.

If the Republicans were going to draft someone in 1952, Eisenhower was the no-brainer choice.

Look, the reality is that there AREN'T any more Eisenhowers. There haven't been any major engagements like World War II to catapult a similarly situated general to prominence. If you're looking for another Eisenhower, you're going to be looking for a very long time (I hope)!

So no, Clark isn't an Eisenhower. But he's the best we've got in terms of the combination of foreign policy, issues, charisma, resume and other intangibles, IMO.

This is quite different from taking a general with little name recognition and a past that at least warrants further investigation and anointing him the savior of the Democratic party.

He has little name recognition right now, but everyone I know who hears about him becomes interested, and quite a few become supporters.

Two possibilities for this strange situation:

1) A whole bunch of people were dissatisfied with the current crop of candidates, independently went on a "talent search," and independently arrived at the conclusion that this particular general, someone most people have never heard of, but who now seems to be popping up everywhere in the media, but who won't reveal his party affiliation or come right out and say that he wants to run, is The One.

2) Astroturf (i.e. a fake "grassroots" drive that may attract a few genuine followers but is actually planned and instigated by professioal operatives)

Take your pick.

Frankly, either one is possible. I lean toward 1, with the well-organized DraftWesleyClark.com people providing an outlet for the people in category 1 to express themselves and reach a critical mass.

Would it surprise me if Soros or Jackson Stephens was behind the DWC campaign? Nope. Would it bother me? Not at all. Because regardless, General Wesley Clark is an incredible man, and would make an incredible candidate.

DTH, Who's Been Here at DU for Years, and Has Loved the Notion of Clark as a Candidate Since Well Before the DWC Movement

but I have trouble attacking General Clark's character. That's not to say I won't sift through the resources offered up here, but I think I'm going to do so with the influence of my lifetime of military connections. I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing.

This post makes me think about war and the people charged with carrying out military action. Is there anyone who is delusional enough to view war as anything but an UGLY business? Politics and money are some of the seedier components of war, folks, that's just a fact. The seeder post mentions Clark and "War crimes". I thought about that. Is there really ANYONE above the grunts on the ground involved in war who couldn't be accused of war crimes by most standards? I'll be honest and say I really don't think so. Any nation we've used military force in could come back and accuse us of "war crimes" and probably have a solid case.

I'll tell you what I think, Clark appears to be a decent man to me. I respect him for the moment. My perception is that he's seen enough of the ugliest side of military action to realize there isn't any honor left in it. He's talked of lousy strategy, of unrestrained spending that needs to be halted, of utter abandon of principles in our military machine, and I believe he's sincere about all of it.

My genuine assessment of Clark is that his experience is a heavy mantle on his shoulders, and one that grants him a hell of a lot more credibility when it comes to denouncing what the Bush* adminstration has done. Frankly....My strongest emotion for Wesley Clark is compassion. There is something about him that tells me he wakes up some nights wondering if some of the things he was called on to do were just and right. I believe he has a conscience and that conscience is screaming at him to act on what he knows in the best way he can for the citizens of this country. That's what I get from him, it's what I believe about him, and I wouldn't accuse him of war crimes any more than I would call a Viet Nam veteran a baby-killer after they admitted having to shoot a child to avoid being killed.

My own sense of honor and respect won't allow it. Maybe I'm too generous and gentle of spirit, but this is how I see him, and given the nature of Tin's findings, it seemed the right thing to do to speak up.

Thank you so much for your opinion on Clark. I look forward to hearing much more from him and hope he does announce his candidacy in the next week or two.

Personally, I think there are a few very good candidates among those Democrats running. I think anyone would be a vast improvement over the chimp in the oval office right now.

I will listen to them all and vote my concience in the primary. I will talk about the good point of any of the candidates in the democratic field, and occasionally my concerns. But, I will not trash any of them!

This constant harping on what's bad about each of the candidates is tired and in the long run destructive. How is it any different from what the DLC has been doing?

One of these people will be our candidate against Bush before too long and hopefully we'll be throwing all of our support behind him or her.

I just wish we could give the bashing a rest, for our own good.

with most of the members of my family having been involved with the military I was raised with the notion that military men and women have a high sense of honor and duty. I initially thought that of Colin Powell -- he was the one Bush appointee I trusted, I thought be would be the one man who might, just might, save this administration from making one of the biggest mistakes of our country's history.

But Powell, the man I expected the highest of honor and duty from, turned out to be no better than Bush himself. That he didn't resign and expose this administration for what it is and wants is damning.

Partially basing an opinion of someone based on one's own lifetime of military connections can be dangerous.

I'm always interested in looking at every bit of information I can on a candidate, from all sorts of sources.

There is so much left to be discovered on ALL the Dems -- I think time and continued digging will eventually tell us what we need to know.

It's going to be a l-o-n-g year.

is wrong. While he clearly favors the Israeli side in the conflict, the article is a military appraisal of the methods of both sides, not a missive of "praise." Also, the pullquotes didn't come from Clark's article, they're made up.

http://wesleyclark.h1.ru/m-east231000.htm

Any thread which takes on Clark is okay by me.

Yes, our country's future is at stake, so why bash good men who can beat Bush.

While you are bemoaning that Dean or Clark isn't perfect, ask yourself this - would you rather have someone about a zillion times better than Bush but not perfect, or would you rather have Bush?

It astounds me that people don't see the urgency of beating Bush. Dean/Clark is a winning ticket, and a vast improvement over what we have now. Once we put them in office, we can hold them accountable to their campaign promises. But if they don't run, and they put up someone like Lieberman because people are holding out for perfection, then it's four more years of Bush for sure.

Why don't we re-fight the Balkan wars as practice for the dem primaries?

Winner of the toss gets to pick the century.

The outcomes, both of the wars and the primaries, are then strickly predictable.

I didn't trust the man...thanks Tinoire!

and GBnC wonders at the all the dissension on this board

.... I'd require that each bash piece such as this one be prefaced with this statement:

"I am a supporter of candidate XXX."

Because that is the only framework under which I can understand these kinds of posts.

After spending some time and money on checking in with the Dean thing I have come to the conclusion that I made such a choice hastily. I carefully took the + and - and tried to add them up came up with that choice.

From the information I could gather at the time it felt okay. As of now, I see different things happening in that camp that were not there before. Things are always changing and being slightly fooled and cutting your losses is different from going in head first and not being unwilling to consider something different.

If you do not like information, stop reading it or get * to shut down the internet. Either way, we still have photo-copiers, pen and paper, and our word of mouth and may the best candidate win (As long as it a real choice at the voting booth, Thanks Bev).

have you ever been: associated with Georhge Soros or his effort to impeach Bush, the liberation of Albanians, an Arkansas stock brokerage, a board of directors that has ever done anything that someone might not appove of based on unsubstantiated charges,an air campaign in a war that resulted in any casualties, or talked to a friend about a draft campaign that was interpreted by that friend as a hope that the campaign is successful?


Joe McCarthy would be proud of your imagination.
Is this really about NATo favoring the Albanians over Serbia?