If Clark Enters, Can He Beat the Almost Certain Spin from the Right?

If Clark enters the race, will the right try to portray him as some sort of war criminal? Will they make ubsubstaniated arguments like, "He has a temper," or "He was fired from his job--something must be wrong"? In short, can he beat the charges from the right? And what do you think they will be, as they are almost certain to come if he enters.

I think he'll be able to do it. If he enters and the right attacks him too much, it might backfire. And if he is indeed a war criminal, it doesn't matter in regards to campaigns, because I doubt people are going to spend the time researching stuff like that.

moreso than the other candidates. Many veterans served under Clark, and for them to see the GOP's hipocrisy of calling Clark a war criminal etc, it will do more damage than good to the Republicans.

if you have any links that disprove the contention that he's a war criminal, I'd like it if you'd list them.

From what I gather, it's spin from the extreme left picked up by the right and used for partisan purposes.

Can you 'prove' that you have NEVER killed a human being ? ...

Can you show us evidence that you have NEVER had the opportunity to kill another human being or never taken advantage of such an opportunity ? ....

You are asking to prove the non existence of an act .... like the non existence of a god: ... one must show that EVERY nook and cranny of the entire universe has been scrutinized and verified to be free of all gods .... frankly: .. an impossible task for a human being ....

No: ... we DONT get tweaked by assertions from the right and refuse to participate because the big bad republicans 'might' say sometyhing mean and nasty ....

Clark was justifiably perturbed by the Russians, and let them know it .... Temper ? ..... call it righteous indignation ....

Lets grow a spine, ... and FIGHT BACK .....

Who might that be?

Shit, sounds like Limbaugh.

I'm the extreme left...I like Clark.

the certain charges that because of a lack of medical experience he isn't qualified to address health care; or having no executive experience, he's not qualified to handle a budget; or not having ever passed any legislation, he's not qualified?

I like Clark, but I'm just worried that he doen't have the bona fides to stand up to the issues the republicans will raise about his qualifications.

Wonder what it would take to gen up a few news cycles?

Sugar daddy dem offers $50,000 reward for any Alabama Guardsman to ID aWol's ass present and accounted for?

Double the reward and you might even get a hoaxer after it, even more cycles of hoaxer scandal. HehHeh.

Instead of Kobi/Laci we could have weeks of Where Was W? Inquiring freepers want to know.

As a leader in the army, he was responsible for the families of soldiers. He dealt with schooling and healthcare and other things like that.

were pretty good presidents.

Republican Ike, was a do nothing president.

http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/ea/bios/07pjack.html

Jackson was a Democrat hated Republicans.

or a president that is doing the things that Schleprock is doing?

Ike was a care taker president. Sometimes the country needs a care taker president and I believe that fifties were such a time.

... to George Bush, and I'll think you'll agree, ANYONE with a pulse is 'qualified' to be president.

will be on thin ice if they try to accuse a General who successfully prosecuted a war with the full support of the US, the UN and NATO.

They WILL accuse him of a temper. And he will respond calmly, rationally and appealingly. The lie will not hold.

Or so that's the impression I get from reading certain sites. Just to be clear, it was approved by the UN and what not?

Kind of strange, but the UNSC passed a Kosovo resolution authorizing the use of force under Chapter 7 just after it started, thus giving the intervention "retroactive" legitimacy.

There's still a bunch of international lawyers arguing about whether that's as good as plain old legitimacy, and whether it is "illegal."

International lawyers are (and this is making a huge generalization) of the anal, moderate, internatonalist (duh) liberal type. They are divided on this question.

International law, by the way, does allow armed military intervention for humanitarian reasons. The UN is regarded as the main arbiter of the legality of such interventions, but because they argue so much it has very rarely authorized force on these grounds. What people can do instead (if they were saints), however, I think, is go in without UN approval, making it a "non-sanctioned" intervention whose legality is therefore in question, but then hope that the UN will dismiss war crimes charges on them on the grounds that the intervention was indeed legal. Kosovo was sort of like this, except the UN actually did go ahead and legalize the intervention after it started.

but it was a NATO operation with NATO's endorsement.

And Article 51 gives the member nations the right to defend themselves and seek allies in their self defense.

The Charter also prohibits genocide which Milosevic was committing.

The "illegal" charge doesn't hold water.

After what bush/blair has just done, backed by an administration full of chicken hawks, how can the lying murderers possibly hope to attack Clark.

It would seem to me that any attempted attack on Clark in this area, would only hilight the cowardice of the bush regime, and the fact that they are clearly unfit to lead this nation's military, or anything else.

Besides, if Clark is attacked on anything to do with the military, it would seem an easy spin to grab a page from the sewer-right and deem those critics unAmerican traitors. How dare they attack a four-star retired general and former head of NATO? Question THIER patriotism for a change.

Don't see any real danger for Clark from the right. Whatever they try will blow up in their faces. And it is this type of "teflon" that is a big part of the appeal Clark has for Dems, not to take away from his positions on the issues, and his willingness to take on bush/delay/rumsfeld etc.

any candidate. Look at the shameful campaign run in the Ga senate race last year. Clark, or any other candidate, is going to get blind-sided.

Expect the networks to run polls such as:

Is Clark A War Criminal?

Is Clark Being Unpatriotic for attacking Pres Bush?

is prepare and counter. And be prepared for attacks from any/all directions.

.......*somebody*.....has been reading the freepers' discussions on Clark. These are exactly the things they are discussing as potential oppo against him.

War criminal. Waco. Temperamental. Right.

*Somebody* here has all the talking points down pat.

--call it survival. Studying the enemy is strategic and smart. I lurk over there almost daily. What better way to get to know those talking points? If the freepers want to bring those points over here that's okay, they need to be shredded NOW. But don't insinuate someone is a freeper just because they happen to know the enemy's talking points.

on edit: typo, additional comment

interesting timing isn't it.

But in fairness, could be that as the next poster suggests, that awareness is being culled in order to combat it.

said that he is not alone in needing to be prepared for a rw smear campaign in the media. That is now inevitable. Indeed each candidate probably already has a smear dossier, unique to him/her, ready to be thrown open. This is not uniquely a "Clark" issue.

That'll win them elections...

Wesley Clark is not a war criminal.

If you don't believe me, then I give you the UN.

The UN's International Criminal Court seriously considered Serb charges of war crimes against Wesley Clark and NATO and emphatically dismissed the case. CNN's report on the dismissal by the Chief Prosecutor is http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/06/02/UN.war.crimes/">here.

Note that the UN took this seriously. Louise Arbour, who was the Chief Prosecutor of the ICC's forerunner in the former Yugoslavia at the time, shocked a lot of Americans when she warned NATO that her tribunal "expected all sides to behave in accordance with the Geneva Conventions," indicating that she would not hesitate to bring charges against allied soldiers. Many Republicans were not at all happy about this. Despite this, Clark is probably among the most cooperative American officers ever with regard to the ICC and these UN-affiliated intenational criminal tribunals, actively using his forces and resources to help arrest Balkan soliders and leaders indicted on war crimes charges.

This is why I believe him when he talk about promoting international institutions and working through and respecting the legitimacy of international law.

And if you don't believe the UN (the best arbiter of international law we've got), http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/kosovo/undword2b.html">Human Rights Watch, while critical of NATO for not being careful enough in its target selection, concurs that no war crimes were committed:

"Human Rights Watch found no evidence of war crimes in its investigation of NATO bombing in Kosovo."

Thanks for those links. Now I can put to rest all of those comments from tools on the right.

I know this might sound like an odd argument, but I've always found it hard to believe that someone who goes around saying that war should be the last option would be a war criminal.

I am very impressed that you asked that question sincerely, composedthinker; I must confess that I assumed that you were doing it to be provocative.

Usually, with these kinds of hot button topics, it's tough to be dispassionate! You've earned your handle, in my mind...

I was skeptical too, of the original post. But it seems sincere now.

If I were to sit down and try to dream up the perfect candidate to defeat Bush, I wouldn't be creative enough to come up with Clark.

Furthermore, not only could he beat Bush, but he could do so while espousing nearly ALL the issues I hold dear.

He's a political wet-dream.

Plus.... he's hot. I want him to spank me and make me call him daddy ;)

ANYONE who gets the nod is gonna be slammed, pilloried, libelled, slandered, and find himself in the mudfight of his life.

Every one of these candidates, declared or not, has something that they'll be attacked on. Shit, they've all been attacked here-- whaddaya think's gonna happen in a real election? Anyone think the RNC is going to be easier on the candidate than Dean, Kerry, Kucinich, etc., supporters here?

Anyway, so far, from what I've seen of Clark's performances on the TV shows he's been on, they can't touch him. This guy absolutely reeks of charm, self-confidence, competence, and near-sainthood when he talks.

I'm not saying he is all of that, but I have no qualms about him defending his past or his positions if he gets to campaign. He is arguably the best-spoken one out there, and has already quietly and firmly demolished just about every one of his critics each time I've seen him.

And, never forget, he has a lot less to answer for than the current President-like object.

people without political experience running for high office. As much as being a general is political, it isn't the same as running for president.

What about George Washington? He was the first president and father of our country.

Wes Clark will be the first Democratic general to become pres.

will deal with the right, he most certainly can handle to spin from the right. He was masterful. He took control of the subject from the onset and never yielded it back to Joe. It's like he knew he had a certain amount of time in the segment and he used it all putting his points across.

Who are threatened by him.

.... and especially here. There are a lot of folks who have selected their horse and nothing is going to change their minds so they attack, attack and attack anything in their way.

But, the truth is *anyone* running as a Dem is going to be getting it from all sides, but especially from the reich wing. If Clark can handle the reich, I doubt the sour grapes from the left will bother him much.

I hope Clark enters the race. I'm a Dean man myself, but I see no downside from Clark joining in, because from what I can tell, either could give Bush* a good fight and either would make a good president.

To me, Dean/Clark or Clark/Dean would be wonderful!