What's so great about Wesley Clark?

O.K., I admit I don't know much, if anything, about the guy. Sure he graduated first in his 1966 West Point class and is a Rhodes scholar with a Masters in philosophy, politics and economics. Decorated war hero, Supreme NATO Allied Commander etc., etc., etc.
http://www.draftwesleyclark.com/Biography.htm

And he's gone on record critcizing Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq, the tax-cuts and educational policy.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/953102.asp

But he's also an investement banker. So, despite all his positives, isn't he really just another big business-friendly DLC type Democrat?

thank you

that some Democrats/Republicans fantasize to have as their President.

http://www.zpub.com/un/clark.html

I've read the piece of opposition research you are referring to. It does not suggest Clark is a war criminal. It says he shook hands with one. Have you read the piece?

Also, this site suggests Clinton should be tried for war crimes. Please consider your source next time.

does not really even deserve much discussion sans evidence. Enough to say that the personal complicity in actual atrocities, as required by international law, is totally missing. Just smears.

another attempt to demonize an American leader because of their hatred of any American initiative.
Wesley Clark was a key player in a not so perfect military campaign--but most of NATO's errors are not his fault. no evidence has been produced that he attempted to target civilians.

conducted by any country in the last 100 years?

Seriously. If Wesley Clark is a war criminal, then is there any general who has ever done his job leading forces and attacking an enemy in a modern war who is not a war criminal?

If so, please name him.

Punish innocents because of the crimes of their leaders? We did a damn good job of that in the war on YUGOSLAVIA.

Ethical war?????

I suggest to you, The New Military Humanism: Lessons from Kosovo by Noam Chomsky

Amazon Info here:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1567511767/qid=1061096233

The war on Yugoslavia is/has been a disaster. Who suffered? The PEOPLE of Serbia AND the people of Kosovo - including the ethnic Albanians.

Didn't we just go through a war where we argued that bombing the PEOPLE is unjust and sick? That's exactly what we did in Kosovo and Serbia.

A good piece on that war written by Dennis Kucinich - and the man, again - is right.
http://www.progressive.org/kuc899.htm

I have no intention on getting into another pissing match over Clark and the war. If more progressive Democrats would do their research before thinking this guy is so great - he wouldn't even be contemplating a run.

With all of that said, if he is the nominee of the Democratic Party - I will support him.

And I must say that as a progressive student of political theory and just war philosophy, that I did not find his case in that book terribly convincing. He could use a lot more rigour.

The war against Yugoslavia had the sanction of almost all of the world's developed liberal democracies. Ideally, it would have been conducted using ground troops and bombing would have taken place from lower altitudes. Indeed, Clark advocated such a strategy continuously, but was overruled by. (And, by the way, pastiche, Clark's stridency on this issue was one of the main reasons his term of duty was ended early).

Further, it is untenable to advocate humanitarian military intervention and expect zero civilian casualties. This is why most progressives rightfully advocate it only in extreme circumstances. Kosovo was such a circumstance. When Europe and the United States ignored the regional ambitions of racist/nationalist Croatian and Serbian movements in the early '90s, 250,000 people were slaughtered in Bosnia and thousands more made refugees or raped. This is uncontestable. There is every indication as the ongoing UN war crimes tribunals--which the U.S. has shamefully done little to support--are demonstrating, that Milosevic was actively engaged in ethnic cleansing and was in the midst of targeting the Kosovo Albanians. There was already a massive refugee crisis from the Bosnian conflict when NATO intervened; that problem, at the very least, has been mitigated. Finally, there is no doubt that the Kosovo Albanians, and definitely the neighbouring Bosnians, and probably the Serbians, who were able to oust Milosevic and replace his regime with an authentic democracy because NATO caused fatal erosion of his domestic suport.

While I don't doubt Kucinich's article is written as a sincere analysis from his point of view, he has so far been dead wrong in his main determinate conclusion:

"What did we win? We won more war.

NATO's victory talk only sets the stage for the next war, creates a false sense of security about its power, puts faith in arms instead of negotiation, and covers up the endless series of blunders in the execution of the war."

In the 4 years since the NATO intervention ended, despite ongoing tension between ethnic groups within Kosovo, the region is around 10,000 times more peaceful than when the rest of world idly sat by and allowed nationalist war, constant artillery bombardment and sniping of civilians, and mass rape to take place. Instead, we have an international force helping to keep the peace, people trying work things out relatively democratically, and UN war crimes tribunals slowly bringing people to justice. It's hard to ask for much more, not even in Chomsky's old cause of East Timor. And if you have a better suggestion, I would love to hear it.

But may I suggest to you Samantha Power's pulitzer prize winning http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060541644/qid=1061098206/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-9839535-7060063?v=glance&s=books">A Problem from Hell, which details how the main failing of Clinton's foreign policy (heavily exacerbated by partisan Republicans) was the U.S. failure and unwillingness to assist in humanitarian intervention? Or Carol Off's http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0679311386/qid=1061098274/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-9839535-7060063?v=glance&s=books">The Lion, the Fox, and the Eagle describing various models of Canadian participation in UN peacekeeping and war crimes prosecution efforts in Rawnada and Yugoslavia, and noting that Clark was probably the most cooperative U.S. or British military commander vis-a-vis Louise Arbour's UN International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia? Or Michael Walzer's http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465037054/qid=1061098321/sr=2-2/002-9839535-7060063?v=glance&s=books">Just and Unjust Wars, the classic contemporary text on just war theory, written in reaction to the (in Walzer's view unjust) Vietnam War. Taken together, you should should get an idea as to the general nomrative standards of the justice of both the initiation and the execution of conflict as well as my reasoning for why I view Kosovo as a reasonably just conflict.

Chomsky is outspoken, and I commend him for that. But, frankly, he is by no means the be all and end all of progressivism. I think everyone on the left should do more research, since we all need it to figure out practicable strategies for real progressive reform within our imperfect liberal democracies.

I also note that you also did not answer my challenge: if Clark's leadership of that war was unjust or unethical, please name a general commanding an at least vaguely comparable contemporary force engaged in a war who did conduct his campaign ethically, and explain why his conduct was more ethical than Clark's.

But I am glad that you're willing to vote for him if he gets the nomination.

The nearly 10 year conflict stopped afterwards.

The man was relieved of his command early. Many rumors - no answers as to why.

What does Wesley Clark say when asked what he was told the reason was? "I didn't ask." Russert on "Meet The Press" has asked him the question twice - same answer. Russert made it clear not many people are going to believe that.

But, if one reads about Wesley Clark, from those not involved in his campaign, one will read about a hot-headed egomaniac that plays fast and loose with the truth. JUST what we need!

The same source that describes Howard Dean as a Republican, slammed Jim McDermott, and is sympathetic with the American militia movement. Maybe you should try getting a non-neo-Stalinist, non-anti-semitic source (this is how Eric Alterman, super-dove and lefty, describes Alex Cockburn).

The official reason Clark was relieved of his command was so that Gen. Joe Ralston could have a post instead of retiring. And a mess of political reasons that neither the Pentagon nor Clark are bound in any way to reveal or to speculate on.

You know, it's not fair to just say, "He was fired!" without really understanding why or how it happened.

The US Army can be a very political machine, too, you know. As a matter of fact, you don't get four stars on your shoulder without being a master of political maneuvering within the Army, as well as being competitive and talented enough to beat pretty much everyone you come into competition with. The real reason Clark was fired from his SACEUR post was because he butted heads one too many times with then-Secretary of Defense William Cohen (a Republican who has since taken joy in bashing his former commander-in-chief, Bill Clinton) and then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Hugh Shelton. In other worlds, Clark didn't get along with the Pentagon, and for that, well, for that I think he's one of the good guys.

Clark got the SACEUR job when former Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. John Shalikashvili recommended him (the Esquire article says Shalikashvili was Clark's mentor throughout his Army career). When Shalikashvili resigned his post shortly before the Kosovo action, Gen. Hugh Shelton became the new head of the Joint Chiefs, and it seems Clark knew he was in trouble then. Clark was not popular in Washington, as he didn't trust air superiority alone as the way to win the war, and lobbied for more intense air strikes combined with a push for ground troops, not exactly a popular political move. Cohen and Shalikashvili ganged up on Clark at their earliest opportunity, forcing his resignation so they could bring in their own SACEUR, Air Force General Joseph Ralston, Cohen's favorite choice. Ralston's assignment had ended, and per military rule, if an officer is not reassigned within weeks, he loses his commission. This move allowed Ralston to be appointed SACEUR while telling Clark it was "adminstrative."

After Clark's removal from his SACEUR post, his military career effectively ended. When you go as high as you can go in the Army, and there are no more promotions looming in your future, you're summarily dismissed. It's just the way it works.

Here's a dispatch where the Clinton White House vehemently denied that Clark was being removed for any other reason than administrative.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/docs99/990728-kosovo07.htm

Thanks for letting me make the case for Clark. I'm not sure who's team I'm on for the presidential election next year, but I have to say I get a little ill when I see the relentless bashing here of someone I've always admired, Gen. Wesley Clark.

- Jennifer :-)

"lobbied for more intense air strikes combined with a push for ground troops, not exactly a popular political move. "

True that. The military (supposedly) followed Powell Doctrine, which states basically that the military should only use force when absolutely necessary, and when it does it should be overwhelming and disproportionate to the amount of force the other side uses. Clark was just trying to do his job and was shackled by the players in Washington time and time again. It's a blessed miracle that NATO not only "won" but survived the political mess of it all. Wesley Clark certainly deserves the decorations he received from the other NATO countries involved. It's a damn shame that his own country treated him so shabbily.

on edit: If Wesley Clark had not done his job so well, NATO would right now only be a fond memory.

Here is some info from the website of the investment banking firm Gen. Clark is associated with:

"Our firm is distinguished by its strong work ethic and its commitment to building relationships based on trust and confidentiality.

Since 1933, Stephens Inc. has helped many successful families accumulate wealth, enhance it, and preserve it for future generations. As a privately held, family-owned company, we face many of the same financial issues that are important to our clients. Our "investor mentality" approach to working with our clients is what sets Stephens apart from other firms, and allows us to recommend appropriate investment strategies for helping our clients manage their wealth."

www.stephens.com

key words: accumulate...enhance...preserve

your money ?

I think you guys are being a little harsh here. And I would prefer a more objective source than Freeperville.

And you are right that I am being a little harsh--my ideal for a retired military man is Jimmy Carter (US Navy).

Why don't you check out what he's doing right now?

He had his job as a Managing Director at Stephens for less than 2 years before leaving early this year to become the chairman of http://www.evworld.com/databases/storybuilder.cfm?storyid=520">WaveCrest Laboratories, a company that specializes in developing environmentally friendly alternative energy and mass transit technologies.

and that seems to a dirty word if it's a major part of what a candidate brings to the table, at least on this board among many posters

the pervailing attitude among them(and you can see a couple examples here) is that if they can appeal to about half or more of independant voters, they must be (insert vague unsubstantiated negativity here)

such as the charge that he is "another big bussiness DLC-type"

not only are DLC dems not necessarily pro-corporate(see Gephardt and Edwards), the only non DLC candidates running are Sharpton, Braun, and Kucinich.

Howard Dean's family made their money investment banking, and he himself worked on Wall Street for a while before going into med school, probably about the same amount of time Clark spent at Stephens.

I dont see what the big deal is with that.

He also does sort of project a bit of leadership ability, too...I know this is superficial, but he just looks "presidential".

:shrug:

that he can win. That is more than about seven of our nine present candidates can do. We don't need anymore losers to join this traveling circus; but we sure are in need of a winner.

But, where is there any evidence that he can do the job? I would feel a little more comfortable with his candidacy if he had at least been elected to something like city council. Civilian politics is very different from a job ordering people around that has formal contraints against questioning you. He can talk about his positions all he wants, but his capabilities haven't been proven. That's what matters to me. He's not very useful if he gets elected and can't do the job well.

the military. Clark has led troops from something like 19 different nations -- at the same time. That required dealing with heads of state, politically manouvering among the military egoes of the other countries' militaries, and running budgets for them all. He's been a teacher; he's had to work with Congress in drawing up military budgets -- just like presidents have to work with Congress to draw up budgets. He's had to get down and dirty with folks in the Pentagon --people above him, of the same rank, and below him, and beat them in vicious political infighting, while not alienating them in the process. Even the act of leading in the military isn't what you think it is. Bad leaders command and demand blind obedience; successful leaders -- the type who end up with 4 stars -- understand that it's more effective to persuade than to command. There's a quotation form Clark somewhere that expresses that sentiment exactly; I suspect I'll have to dig it up, since this particular issue is going to surface and resurface. At any rate, this nation had a successful president, Eisenhower, who was 'nothing but a general.' I suspect Clark can do at least as well.

temper and all??? The man is EXPLOSIVE. You wouldn't know it with his pretty silver hair and pearly white smile and calm demeanor on CNN - but the man is a TINDERBOX.

Or did your friend Bill tell you this? Sorry, people don't get to where he did with an 'explosive' temper. 'Tinderboxes' are weeded out in the military -- nobody needs a nutcase in command of an army. You are starting to sound a little bit 'Tinderboxish' yourself.

Look where the name calling started. It's like "follow-the-money," except you easily, "follow the thread."

This, "Your friend, Bill" stuff is getting old. I have not responded until how many posts later? I never said he was a friend or anything other than what he was/is to you. In the beltway, it happens to be a well-known FACT that the two aren't exactly friends. AS IS, I might add, the fact that Clark has a horrendous temper. They don't get far in the military? Heard of General Patton? There's a giant of integrity for you.

it was during a war, and Patton's flaws were somewhat overstated, anyway, by a film that was made to attack the military, and the militarism which Patton represented. Yet that's the best you can do. OK.

As for my 'personal' attacks, you claim it is 'well-known in the beltway' that the two aren't friends, but in another post, a post in which you attacked someone else for putting forward their opinions, you said Clinton 'gritted his teeth' when complimenting Clark -- as if you knew this personally. In actual fact, as it turns out, you were just shooting your mouth off, trying to imply you knew more than you do in order to tar Clark. You don't come across as being very balanced on this issue, and yet keep referring to unsupportable whispering, 'it's well-known in the beltway' sort of nonsense, that Clark is all these horrible things. Your word simply isn't good enough for me.

but I have never heard even his critics say he lacked integrity

Random House Dictionary-



integrity-adherence to a set of moral and ethical principles


Was Patton too tough for you?



Maybe we should have made Alan Alda general

Good one, DemocratSinceBirth.

:-)
Jennifer

He loved his troops and did everything possible to minimize casualties on our side.

That being said he wax very anti big (D) Democratic and reactionary in his politics.

He even slapped a soldier for complaining about his injuries when others were injured far worse but I never saw his integrity challenged.

He has been elected, and he doesn't just order people around. He is in the civilian world now. He has had work with the cooperation of people that he had no authority over. Not just people in the United States, but people from different cultures, countries and belief system.

Even Charlie Black says Clark is qualified to be President.

:kick:
J4Clark

~

...is making money.

Yes, we live in a capitalist society. That is what seperates us from communism. No, I am not drunk and going on a freeper rant.

But one reason why our country is so great is that we have the freedom to determine our own destinies. We can achieve our own goals, and for some, money is a way of keeping score.

But the important thing about making lots of money is making it ethically. Not by exploiting others, or by dishonest means, like the Enrons and Worldcoms of the world. But by being honest and ethical.

But we should not badmouth fanance. That is what the US is built on. Without it, what motivation would Edison, Bell, Ford, Jobs or Gates have? We'd still be sitting in the dark bored. And we certainly wouldn't be posting on this board.

I, for one, would never hold Clark's banking experience against him. I would consider it a great asset. This is what makes this country tick. If you disagree, let me ask you this: Do you own a 401K or similar retirement plan? If not, you should. Social Security will barely buy cat food and ramen.

The only proper path for the Democrats is to renounce capitalism, embrace socialism, get 5-10% of the vote each year, and retreat to message boards, where we can safely point at Republicans, make psuedo-witty comments, and giggle at them for their moral and intellectual inferiority. Anything less is selling out to 'The Man.'

The line seems to be that all of the candidates with long records of service, with a record of votes behind them that they have to defend, and who've been putting their policies out there for months, they're all so unworthy that we need a good-looking guy who doesn't even say whether he's a Democrat, to save us.

I don't know much about Clark. My impression so far is that there's a danger that he's a puppet for some interest, and his reticence isn't helping that impression. Due to his lack of a voting record, he should be busting his ass to prove he's for real. If he keeps playing coy, forget about him.

If you're really concerned, then instead of sniping, why don't you take a few minutes and check out the draft movements, and maybe their history, to determine if they're connected with any scary interests instead of pondering conspiracy theories?

You can start with www.draftclark.com and www.draftclark2004.com

A couple of hints: John Hlinko was one of the founders of that oh-so-evil and pro-war organization called Move On </sarcasm>, and the Draft Clark site--the first site put up of the movement, before Clark said anything about possibly running--was run by Kos of the Daily Kos, before he handed over to Stirling Newberry when Kos' firm started doing some Internet work for Howard Dean.

This is an authentic draft movement. Yeah, unlike the Ike draft, it's relatively little in terms of numbers (or at least started that way), but welcome to the Internet age.

I am trouble understanding how someone who's being 'drafted' is directing everything from behind the scenes.

And before anyone decries this as a smear, one of the places you can find this article is on the 'Draft" Clark web-site.

BREAKING NEWS: General Clark tells his troops to "Crank it up!"

Is General Clark Preparing to Launch Presidential Campaign?
Draft Clark 2004 Press Release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 8, 2003

FOR INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Dailey (jeff@draftclark2004.com), Michael Frisby (mikefrisby@draftclark2004.com)

WASHINGTON, Aug. 8 /U.S. Newswire /

<snip>

The National Journal is reporting that Gen. Clark recently spoke with a close advisor and said, "Crank it up," in reference to his presidential bid. This follows a series of media interviews in which Clark has been increasingly critical of President Bush's handling of domestic and foreign policy issues.

The National Journal wrote: "Wesley Clark appears to be getting close to throwing his stars into the 2004 Democratic presidential nominating contest. 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."

Meanwhile, the Draft Clark 2004 campaign has been picking up steam, with 98 regional coordinators in 42 states, supported by more than 1,000 active volunteers across the country organizing a grassroots effort that can boost his campaign once he becomes a declared candidate.

1) Graduated first in class in High School
2) Graduated first in class at West Point
3) Is a Rhoads Scholar
4) Rose from very modest means
5) Has won over 50 medals
6) He is a disabled Vet
7) A best selling author
8) Balanced the budget when he worked in the White House
9) Saved peoples lives
10) Has contact with over 40 nations
11) Is good friedns with Soros
12) He is an excellent debater
13) He has over 4 college degrees
14) He speaks at least 3 languages
15) He has style
16) He is calm and collective
17) He is a progressive liberal
18) He founded Leadership for America
19) He is working on a non-fossile fueled car
20) He is not a banker
21) He is very likeable
22) He is from the south
23) He is good friends with Bill Clinton
24) He would get backing from Stephens corperation that backed Clinton
25) He won the only war that the US was in that had zero deaths
26) He can do a really good impression of Bush
27) He is not George Bush
28) He is the best looking candidate
29) He can win
30) He is more accomplished than Bush
31) He can bring in Military votes that usually vote 2-1 for the Bush
32) He has a Genius IQ
33) He has a good plan to help American out of the recession
34) He opposed the war with Iraq
35) He can bring in Arkansas
36) He knows how to deal with the Terrorism problem
37) He can defeat Bush in a debate
38) He closes the biggest weakness of the Democrates with the public
39) He is not a rich elite
40) He has honor
41) He is repectable
42) He has the creditability to knock down Bush on his foreign policy
43) He doesn't lie
44) He doesn't switch sides on an issue with a new poll
45) He can win over moderates and independants
46) He is not an oil man
47) He knows how to get the job done
48) He is full of new ideas
49) He has all the qualifications of Clintion and Carter combined
50) Even Chalres Black said he is more then qualified to be President

Just to name a few.

:kick:
J4Clark

Over half of those things on your list are OPINIONS.

Calm and collected??????? The man is an absolute terror and has a temper that makes Richard Nixon look like Jimmy Carter.

God....I had to edit this after reading that list.....MORE....

Doesn't lie????? He is a KNOWN liar among the journalists who covered the war on Yugoslavia!

"Good friends" with Bill Clinton? Bill gritted through his teeth saying he would make a good president (he has said that about most of the Dems). Ask Wes when the last time the two talked. Answer: Lonnnggg time. Then ask - WHY???

"Saved peoples lives"???? He led a WAR against the PEOPLE of Yugoslavia! He designed plans and executed them in an effort to KILL PEOPLE. Many innocents died in Kosovo and Serbia -- wayyy too many.

Your list was a little one-sided and was presented as some kind of "resume" - half of that was simply untrue.

Of, course the fact that he speaks 3 foreign languages are opinion.


:kick:
J4Clark

I'm not going down the line - but I could make a list just as DAMNING. But that's yet to come....if he can decide if he wants to run or not.

Seriously.

And again, as far as humanitarian military intervention goes, Kosovo was pretty good. You will be hard pressed to name anything better.

P.S.: Chomsky's support of the Khmer Rouge hardly makes him terribly credible as far humanitarianism goes in anyone's books.

I have read more than Chomsky. I have read more than CounterPunch. I have not only read - I have written on the subject. If you would like, PM me for more info and we can discuss.

Gotta be young to use that standby cliché of "provide links." Not everything has a "link" my friend. There are libraries and depositories of information all over the world that are not online. Providing "proof" is not as easy as providing a "link"....

Provide a book, magazine, anything to back your claim. Most public information about the Kosovo War is online. However, you need to provide something to support your claims that is creditable other than "because I say so".

:kick:
J4Clark

Considering the kind of sources you have so found claimed as reputable, I'm not particularly heartened or interested as of yet. If your sources are worth looking at, quote them on the site and I might take a look. But almost nothing you've cited strikes me as trustworthy--Chomsky, bright yet absolutely tendentious--may be your best bet. And that doesn't strike me as particularly promising.

I'm sure he's quaking in his jackboots at the thought of your list. Did your friend Bill give you any insight into Clark's many deficiencies?

Or did you not fight in a war. I know, you are one of those people that judge the men and women in uniform, calling them cowards, but infact know nothing about war, or what was going on in Kosovo or any other war.

Who was Milosevic Vice President?
How many people did Milosevic kill and why?
How many grave yards of ethinic Albanians were found?
How many provinces are there in Albania?
WHo was Clark's second in command?
What was the name of Unit that was to go on ground?
How many US soliders died?
How long was Clark planning to be at war?
How long was Milosevic in power for?
How did Milosevic get into power?
How many nations were involved in the war?
How many enemy soliders killing ethnic Albanians were killed?
How many bombs were dropped and what kinds were they?

You know so much about that war, answer all them, they should be easy for anyone that knows the very basics of the war but very difficult for someone that talks out his ass. Which are you?

:kick:
J4Clark

Over half of those things on your list are OPINIONS.

As opposed to all the things on yours. Or do you know for a fact that 'Bill' (your buddy, no doubt) 'gritted his teeth' when complimenting Clark?

"He led a WAR against the PEOPLE of Yugoslavia!"

That you even use the term "Yugoslavia" shows the depth of your ignorance. The entity that was Yugoslavia ceased to exist years before NATO intervened and way too much of it was a big, horrific pot of ethnic cleansing and refugees. Much of it was the fault of ambitious nationalists like Milosevic--not just Serbians, but also Croat and Bosnian leaders. But the Pale gang was by far the best-armed and the main catalysts.

How did the Bosnian slaughter and the seige of Sarajevo end? Answer: the outside world lifted the arms embargoes on the Bosnians and NATO enggaged in air strikes.

One word: Srebrenica. I am absolutely certain that the family members of those men would have loved to have seen NATO's bombs fall earlier. Western Europe and the U.S. should still be ashamed that they did nothing precisely because they took a short term view and did not see it in their material interests.

cluster bombs and depleted uranium on innocent people get you hot?

Following is a synopsis of events that transpired on the evening of July 17th, 2001, during General Wesley Clark's book promotion talk at the Borders bookstore in Pentagon Centre.

Mr. Clark began his speech around 7:00 pm. He spoke for about 25-30 minutes about the book, his own military career, and his own opinions about the lessons to be learned from the Kosovo war about the changing military strategies needed for winning wars. Not once in his speech did raise the issue of the morality of going to war against Serbia in the first place.

During the question and answer period, I was called on, and asked the
following question:

"How can you justify the US and NATO attacking a country like Serbia who never did anything to threaten us, and never attacked any country in any way, and how can you justify dropping cluster bombs and depleted uranium on then, which will cause much suffering for generations to come, doing much more harm than Mr. Milosevic ever could?"

He answered by going into a long spiel of supposed "atrocities" committed by Serbs against Albanians in Kosovo. Most were the same unsubstantiated accusations we've heard from the state department, and the mainstream media for the past two years, many of them having been proven outright false. For example, he claimed that Albanians had no voting rights, and no right to education in their own language in Kosovo. He claimed that "America fought a revolution over 'no taxation without representation'," and therefore we were morally obligated to fight for the same for the Albanians, whom, he claimed, had it much worse off than the American colonists under the British.

He conveniently refused to comment on the destruction caused to civilians by the cluster bombs and the depleted uranium. He concluded by saying that he thought the war was justified "because it prevented a greater evil." Sound familiar?

The next person to ask him a question was George Jatras, who held up a
picture of Mr. Clark standing with and shaking hands with, KLA leaders
Hashim Thaci and Agem Ceku. George asked Mr. Clark how he could justify his praise for these men who were responsible for war crimes against Serbs in Kosovo, such as raping women and burning churches.

At this point, Mr. Clark very rudely interrupted George Jatras, and said in a very hostile tone of voice that he felt justified in his alliance, because he claimed the KLA had been "taken out of uniform" at that time, and that he did not condone the burning of churches or mosques, but felt that the Serbs had done more of those kinds of crimes.

When finally Mr. Clark's temper cooled down a bit, George was able to finish his question, asking Mr. Clark how he could justify bombing the Serbs on Easter Sunday, a holy Christian holiday. Mr. Clark responded by saying "because the Serbs were committing ethnic cleansing on Easter Sunday."

http://www.mail-archive.com/stopnato@listbot.com/msg01408.html

Please tell me why you believe our country needs Clark.

Why don't you try quoting someone who isn't a Serb partisan.

How about someone impartial, like Human Rights Watch, quite possibly the most repected and completely non-partisan human rights NGO around?

They have lots of things to say about Kosovo in their http://hrw.org/campaigns/serbia/index.htm">report on the conflict, and no, not all of the stuff they have to say about NATO and the U.S. military is good:

"States have an obligation to ensure compliance with all provisions of international humanitarian law, and to suppress all violations. War crimes constitute some of the most serious violations of international humanitarian law, known as grave breaches, and are generally intentional or deliberate acts. These violations give rise to the specific obligation to search for and punish those responsible, regardless of the nationality of the perpetrator or the place where the crime was committed. Examples of war crimes are wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment of noncombatants, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health of noncombatants, or launching an indiscriminate attack in the knowledge that the attack will cause excessive loss of life or injury to civilians.

Human Rights Watch found no evidence of war crimes in its investigation of NATO bombing in Kosovo. The investigation did conclude, however, that NATO violated international humanitarian law. Human Rights Watch has called on NATO governments to establish an independent and impartial commission, competent to receive confidential information, that would investigate violations of international humanitarian law and the extent of these violations, and would consider the need to alter targeting and bombing doctrine to ensure compliance with international humanitarian law. Such a commission should issue its findings publicly. Human Rights Watch also called for NATO to alter its targeting and bombing doctrine in order to bring it into compliance with international humanitarian law.

With respect to NATO violations of international humanitarian law in Kosovo, Human Rights Watch was concerned about a number of cases in which NATO forces:

· took insufficient precautions identifying the presence of civilians when attacking convoys and other mobile targets; and

· caused excessive civilian casualties by not taking sufficient measures to verify that military targets did not have concentrations of civilians (such as at Korisa)."

So NATO and Clark effort could have been more diligent in ensuring that civilians were not mixed with military targets in its campaign. I will be the first to admit that Kosovo was in no way a perfect intervention, although I think that you will be hard pressed to name a contemporary intervention that was conducted more ethically. I was also surprised to read that HRW found "insufficient evidence exists to answer the question conclusively" as to whether NATO's planes flew too high, risking further civilian casualties (I thought they did) .I should finally note, however, that every target list that Clark raised was approved by all 17 partner countries. As such, there is negligence to go around. I also note that Clark stridently advocated using ground troops instead of bombing.

But wait. The report concerns a lot more than just NATO. In fact, for some reason, there's only 1 chapter on NATO and the 11 other chapters on actual war crimes. Let's look at HRW's general conclusions:

"This report documents torture, killings, rapes, forced expulsions, and other war crimes committed by Serbian and Yugoslav government forces against Kosovar Albanians between March 24 and June 12, 1999, the period of NATO's air campaign against Yugoslavia. The report reveals a coordinated and systematic campaign to terrorize, kill, and expel the ethnic Albanians of Kosovo that was organized by the highest levels of the Serbian and Yugoslav governments in power at that time.

(SNIP)

This correlation between executions and expulsions was also studied by the AAAS, which conducted a second study on killings in Kosovo, Political Killings in Kosova/Kosovo, published in September 2000, in conjunction with the American Bar Associations's Central and East European Law Initiative (ABA/CEELI). The report's analysis of killings across Kosovo was based on 3,353 interviews collected by Human Rights Watch, ABA/CEELI, the Center for Peace Through Justice, and Physicians for Human Rights. The study concluded that approximately 10,500 Kosovar Albanians were killed between March 20 and June 12, 1999, with a 95 percent confidence interval from 7,449 to 13,627.15

The statistical analysis conducted by Human Rights Watch and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) revealed killing patterns that further expose the systematic nature of the government's campaign. When recorded extrajudicial executions are plotted over time, for example, three distinct waves emerge, as seen in Graph 5 in the chapter on Statistical Analysis of Violations. The graph is not a perfect reflection of killings since Human Rights Watch did not randomly sample the interviewees. However, the extreme nature of the waves, with three distinct surges over short periods of time, strongly suggests that the killings were not the result of random violence by government forces. Rather, they were carefully planned and implemented operations that fit into the government's strategic aims.

(SNIP)

Rape and sexual violence were also components of the campaign. Rapes of ethnic Albanians were not rare and isolated acts committed by individual Serbian or Yugoslav forces, but rather were instruments to terrorize the civilian population, extort money from families, and push people to flee their homes. In total, Human Rights Watch found credible accounts of ninety-six cases of sexual assault by Yugoslav soldiers, Serbian police, or paramilitaries during the period of NATO bombing, and the actual number is certainly much higher.

In general, rapes in Kosovo can be grouped into three categories: rapes in women's homes, rapes during flight, and rapes in detention. In the first category, security forces entered private homes and raped women in front of family members, in the yard, or in an adjoining room. In the second category, internally displaced people wandering on foot or riding on tractors were stopped, robbed, and threatened by the Yugoslav Army, Serbian police, or paramilitaries. If families could not produce cash, security forces told them their daughters would be taken away and raped; in some cases, even when families did provide money, their daughters were taken away. The third category of rapes took place in temporary detention centers, such as abandoned homes or barns."

Documented "torture, killings, rapes, forced expulsions, and other war crimes committed by Serbian and Yugoslav government forces" as well as "ethnic cleansing", does that constitute war? Should we remove this people? Why not let them go on. It would be horrible to not let this gone one. Is it not better to allow these simple human violations go on then to face the problem of a bomb going astray? Wouldn't these people rather live in these conditions of being raped, slaughtered, tortured, and expelled rather than risk a 1:10000 chance of being killed or injured by a stray bomb?

Well, I guess since they pinned a medal on Clark's chest, the answer would be NO!

<sarcsam>

:kick:
J4Clark

"This report documents torture, killings, rapes, forced expulsions, and other war crimes committed by Serbian and Yugoslav government forces against Kosovar Albanians between March 24 and June 12, 1999, the period of NATO's air campaign against Yugoslavia. The report reveals a coordinated and systematic campaign to terrorize, kill, and expel the ethnic Albanians of Kosovo that was organized by the highest levels of the Serbian and Yugoslav governments in power at that time." - HRW "conclusions"

I thought there was no Yugoslavia???

I can cut 'n paste with the best of them. I will not sit by and read a KLA partisan writing as if he knows what he is talking about by cutting and pasting anti-Serb propaganda.

Before you call me "ignorant" --- check your facts.

I know that my viewpoint is not popular (thanks to the western corporate media), but I stood - proudly - for the right of Serbia/Yugoslavia to defend its provincial territory in Kosovo.

I don't care what Milosevic decided to name Serbia and Montenegro after he and nationalists of other ethnic groups destroyed Yugoslavia in 1991. Yugoslavia as a coherent concept and a people referred to the multiethnic Kingdom of Croats, Serbians, Slovenes founded after WWI. The United States refused to call the remaining entity Yugoslavia, and while I don't agree with it on a lot, I agreed with it 100% on that one.

I will apologize for being snitty though. You'd better like it, as I am not going to be cordial much longer.

And, hey, if Human Rights Watch is anti-Serb propaganda, then that just about ends civilized discourse, right here doesn't it? Because, you know, anti-Serb propaganda would clearly investigate whether NATO ran afoul of international human rights norms.

"I know that my viewpoint is not popular (thanks to the western corporate media), but I stood - proudly - for the right of Serbia/Yugoslavia to defend its provincial territory in Kosovo."

To describe your viewpoint as unpopular is akin to describing nationalist racism and ethnic cleansing as a minority position. And it wasn't just the Westerners who eventually sided against the Serbians--despite, I may add, the KLA's violent extremism--it was the whole Muslim and probably everyone except for th Russians and the Chinese (neither of whom felt strongly enough to use a UNSC veto when the UN eventually sanctioned the interventioned).

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

because I do not support dropping cluster bombs and depleted uranium on innocent people?

WOW!

War=Peace
Black=White
Up=Down
Day=Night

Why does our country need Clark?

I will answer.

Our country needs Clark because he is Democratic candidate whose view on foreign affairs is at once the most principled and practical (I would argue that it is principled precisely because it is practical and vice versa). This is because he has both levelled a serious and damning critique of Bush' shosrtsighted foreign policy and proposed a contrete alternative: win in Iraq by internationalizing the conflict, bringing both the UN and other countries in, putting the Iraqi army back together (for now) and letting the as many Iraqis as possible secure their own country. And then getting out as soon as the job is done and things are stable.

As such, Clark is most likely to be able to neutralize Bush on the security/defense/foreign affairs issue. This is 1/2 a real issue and 1/2 a false issue. It is real because the United States really did get attacked on Sept. 11, which involved a combination of security and intelligence lapses, mistakes in foreign policy in the past to create the mess that is Afghanistan and then turn away, as well as a genuine enemy that hates America for a mix of both justified and unjustified reasons. The false 1/2 is that the neocon cabal has blown the threat out of proportion, using it to promote fear in many Americans and maintain an unwarranted trust in Bush.

If you don't think foreign affairs and Iraq are a real issue, and that the economy is the dominant issue (as polls and Clark himself might suggest), then I ask you, why are Bush's approval ratings still in the mid-to-high 50s? There's no other answer that the impression that Republicans are stronger on foreign policy and defense--polls give them a 40% lead over Democrats--because Bush is pretty much crap on the economy and domestic issues.

Now, that I've answered your question, it's you turn to answer mine, otherwise you've proved yourself to be a troll. I am not arguing that Kosovo was a perfectly just example of armed humanitarian intervention. You seem to think it was a war crime--as I have noted, major human rights groups disagree with you. But the real praxis doesn't work in terms of perfection. How many major armed humanitarian interventions have been conducted more ethically than Kosovo? If such an intervention wasn't necessary (not that Clark controlled this), what was the alternative? And, considering that NATO airstrikes rather quickly ended the ethnic cleasning of the Bosnia conflict--which killed several hundred thousand innocent people, what reason do you have for thinking that Milosevic and other Serbian nationalists would not have cleansed Albania of 1.5 million people?

And why is killing 500 people with depleted uranium worse than sitting idly by and allowing 250,000 people to be killed with artillery shells, sniper bullets, and knives?

If you can't answer these questions, then I agree with VoteClark that your moral sense may be lacking.

"And why is killing 500 people with depleted uranium worse than sitting idly by and allowing 250,000 people to be killed with artillery shells, sniper bullets, and knives?"

You are being intellectually dishonest. You don't mention the terrorist attacks on the Serbs in Kosovo by the KLA at all! The numbers you quote are closer, in fact, to the murder of Serbs than the other way around. Sorry - it's the truth.

Read Michael Parenti:
To Kill a Nation: The Attack on Yugoslavia
(By the way, there it is again - Yugoslavia - hummm.)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1859843662/
http://www.michaelparenti.org/ToKillANation.html

Did you just invoke terrorism? My, my, looks like everyone likes talkin' Bush speak. I won't ask you as to your opinion of Chechnya, then...

Well, seeing as pastiche was referring to cluster bombs and DU, last time I checked, the KLA had no airforce. My number only included NATO-caused casualties.

I am no KLA shill. Nationalists of any side are dangerous and people who murder for such a cause are criminals.

Unlike you, I have no problem admitting that the KLA has been responsible for atrocities. But there is no possible way the KLA's abuses were anything close to of the same scale as the Serbians. They simply had neither the

Go see that http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/kosovo/undword-01.htm">Human Rights Watch report again. And if you call this noble NGO a purveyer of Serbian propaganda--even though it is one of the U.S.'s most toughest and most consistent critics--then you are definitely not worth listening to.

The truth? From an apologist for Stalin like Parenti? The guy who claimed that http://www.newsandletters.org/Issues/2001/June/1.06_parenti.htm">only 70 people died at Srebrenica. That is almost as sickening as holocaust denial. Sorry, that's not going to work for me.

Smarter contemporary Marxists, you know, at least have the sense to defend communism's ideal theory, not it's horrid practice.

and killed and raped through a someone else's purposeful campaign of ethnic cleansing because you choose to do nothing is morally preferable to stopping this ethnic cleasning through means that involve you unintentionally killing 500 innocent people with depleted uranium.

I have read a number of criticisms of the Kosovo campaign on the Internet, a lot more grudging praise, and a handful of people who have unkind things to say about general Clark. But I haven't read a single thing by anyone who has explained a better alternative to the Kosovo intervention--actually that's a mistake, as I've read two. Human Rights Watch thought that NATO should not have used cluster bombs (and it stopped using them, midway through the conflict), which would have saved maybe 50-90 lives. Fair enough. And the second is that Clark thought that NATO should have threatened a ground invasion as quickly as possible, which would have either shortened the conflict and saved many lives, or traded the lives of U.S. and Serbian soldiers for the lives of Serbian civilians, which would be a just trade.

But what is your alternative? If it is just "sitting by" or "continue diplomacy" (which was tried a lot, by the way), can you explain why you think it would have had a better chance working in Kosovo than in Bosnia?

One last question: What is the significance of the words "never again"?

I don't think you're morally corrupt and evil, by the way. I just think that you are rather dogmatic and rather uninformed about the recent history of the Balkans.

WOW!
You have really low standards as to what is an innocent person.
I tended to think these people were not innocent.

We need Wesley Clark to drop bombs on people that murder, rape and torture. I know you support that type of behavior. But the rest of us don't. Especially the people that were tortured and raped.

That is why they pinned a medal on his chest.

:kick:
J4Clark

War=Peace
Black=White
Up=Down
Day=Night

YOU SAID IT!

NO personal attacks.....those are supposed to be the rules. You out and out called Pastiche423 - EVIL! Because she doesn't think like you??? I mean, get real, you signed up here at DU as a Clark promoter - your name IS "VoteClark".......

See that star by his name? She is a contributor to this site that allows you to come here and proceed to do nothing but exclusively support a candidate. See that 1000+ next to her name? That says a lot.

She is entitled to her opinion, "VoteClark" -- even if you don't like or share it.

Gee! Now where does that sound familiar? Perhaps you missed IMHO. It means "in my humble opinion". I think someone that supports people that torture, murder and rape are morally bankrupt.

Sorry I don't have ENOUGH CASH on hand to back my opinions.


:kick:
J4Clark

And you know it. It means that to call somebody that helps keep this site financialy alive slanderous names is wrong. They are helping give you your platform. THAT is what I meant.

You wrote: "I think someone that supports people that torture, murder and rape are morally bankrupt."

She obviously thinks that somebody that plans those things for a living is morally bankrupt. The U.S. military has been the most obscene military machine in recent times. Latin America, Southeast Asia, the Middle East....where do I stop? I don't see how you can be supporting someone for president who dropped cluster bombs and depleted uranium on innocent people. To me - THAT'S morally bankrupt.

BUT, it IS okay to have different opinions around here without being called names like you did to Pastiche423.

Prove it. Show me one piece of evidence that says, "General Wesley Clark ordered cluster bombs to be dropped on innocent people". If you can't then you are talking out of the wrong hole and you know it. Show me where this is stated. A written order, and piece of paper, a witness of someone in the room that heard Clark order the dropping of bombs of on innocent people. I don't think you can.

:kick:
J4Clark

others it doesn't matter what they meant. For example, Clark meant to free the people of Kosovo without hurting innocent people. He didn't mean to hit a few innocent people in the process. But, it is OK to be intellectually dishonest and say he meant to kill a bunch of innocent people as a REAL war criminals do.

One standard for you, another standard for everyone else. What a wonderful and righeous world you must live in JB.

:kick:
J4Clark

First of all, this is the internet, which would make his remarks 'libel', not 'slander' -- a minor point. Of course, before his remarks could even be proven libelous, they would have to be proven untrue. Good luck with that one -- pointing out that she contributes to this site doesn't quite do it. But ultimately, why parse words -- your friend Bill is much better at it than I am.

Pastiche has proven herself to be, let us say, off-kilter on the issue of Clark, showing up on just about every Clark thread and launching some pretty silly attacks on him. V4C simply got frustrated and said something. Pastiche is, by the way, no stranger to making personal attacks herself, calling Clark supporters 'little boys,' for example, and other pieces of foolishness. It's a case of the pot calling the kettle black, or perhaps, to be more accurate, sauce for the goose.

But, Vote4Clark, I think you may have hit our neo-Stalinist quoting friend where it hurts. And here I've been thinking all this time that it was only filthy capitalists and bourgeois faux socialists who measured people according to their monetary worth...

Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't know a whole lot about Marxism, either...

You are confusing the reconstituted Yugoslavia and the so-called "Greater Serbia." It was STILL called Yugoslavia - widely.

By the way, I disagree 100% with your KLA-like views of the region and of the issues - especially those concerning the war. The fact that Belgrade wouldn't play ball with monopoly capital and globalist capitalist aims isn't even mentioned in your posts. THAT was the cause of the war!! And about those, "mass graves," would you mind telling the TRUTH concerning the graves that were found? Are we going to pretend that most of those didn't turn out to be graves of SERBS killed by KLA terrorists? "Ethnic cleansing" was the "weapons of mass destruction" of the war on YUGOSLAVIA. Where's the evidence???? Specifically, in Kosovo??? Bosnia - atrocities occurred. Kosovo? Yes - but by the side we set out to defend.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/kosovo/undword.htm">Kosovo:

"As of July 2001, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) had exhumed approximately 4,300 bodies believed to have been victims of unlawful killings by Serbian and Yugoslav forces in Kosovo. This is certainly less than the total number of those killed by government troops. Most importantly, there is incontrovertible evidence of grave tampering and the removal of bodies by Serbian and Yugoslav troops, as the post-Milosevic Serbian government was beginning to confirm in summer 2001. Human Rights Watch documented attempts to hide or dispose of bodies in Trnje (Terrnje), Djakovica, Izbica (Izbice), Rezala (Rezalle), Velika Krusa and Mala Krusa (Krushe e Madhe and Krushe e Vogel), Suva Reka, Slovinje, Poklek, Kotlina (Kotline), and Pusto Selo (Pastasel). In addition, 3,525 persons, including ethnic Serbs, remain missing from the conflict, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)."

"Belgrade wouldn't play ball with monopoly capital and globalist capitalist aims isn't even mentioned in your posts."

You're kidding, right? No, I'm sure nationalism had nothing to do with it. And if you know anything about post-communist Serbia, you should know that Milosevic was hardly the paragon of Marxism. He started privatizing Serbia's national industries almost the moment after communism fell and welcomed in capitalism (plutocratic-style) with open arms. Sheesh.

P.S.: You can call it Yugoslavia. Fine. I don't; not because I'm a KLA sympathizer, but because my idea of Yugoslavia was what existed before the nationalists destroyed it.

It was still widely called Yugoslavia within the borders of the provinces still ruled from Belgrade.

the Kosovo and Bosnia operations were Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage Weiner.

I remember that fat gasbag, Rush Limbaugh pontificating that America had no national interest in Bosnia and that crypto fascist Michael Savage Weiner calling Wes Clark a war criminal.

When you get in bed with Limbaugh and Savage Weiner you'll get something worse than fleas.

God Bless America... God Bless the brave men and women who liberated Kosovo and stopped the rape and plunder of the indigenous Muslim population..... God Bless Wes Clark...... And God Bless the Democratic Party.

than the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.


It was a group of disparate peoples with different cultures that was held together by the lash.


I consider myself a liberal but I am at almost at the point of tears that some folks have such abject hatred for the land of their birth.

it probably shouldn't matter that much, but i'm sure his looks would help with the moron voters. and his knowledge and experience in foreign policy is a huge thing right now since the chickenhawk foreign policy failures in the white house will make it an issue.

experience in "foreign policy" a huge thing for our country now?

:argh:

Please enlighten me.

I have asked the same question in at least three posts on this thread, and no one has answered me.

What does Clark have over all of the real candidates that makes him "the one"?

Why does our country need Clark?

"Why is his experience in "foreign policy" a huge thing for our country now"

We here at DU are a MINORITY.

This * misadministration has managed to scare the bejesus out of the average person. They feel, incorrectly by the way, like * can do no wrong when it comes to his so called tough guy stance on terrorism. It is going to take someone like Clark to convince them that the Democratic party actually has a better foreign policy than *.

Personally, I think a freaking grasshopper has a better foreign policy than the chimpster, but the average joe needs more. Clark has more.

Pretty simple isn't it.

BTW, I've asked for your choice of candidate in a number of threads, but you seem to avoid that issue.
What's it going to be? Are you just trying to tear down EVERY candidate, or do you have a favorite?

Clark/Edwards or Edwards/Clark, A winning combination :kick:

Now you might be correct that the average American has a better chance of drowning in his bathtub than being killed by a terrorist but the fact remains that Americans feel the threat of terrorism is real and that national security is a salient issue.

If our candidate, whoever he or she is is not credible on national security they will be road kill on election day.

not my choice - MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX


just don't want to get fooled again